Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Why do admins so often act like dickheads?

 __NOINDEX__
 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the discussion was:  SPEEDY DELETE as WP:CSD, created by blocked/banned user. Floquenbeam (talk) 15:05, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Why do admins so often act like dickheads?


Hostile attack page. This would fall under WP:HUMOR if there was anything funny about it, but there isn't. WaltCip (talk) 20:29, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep. I thought it was well-crafted (e.g. succinct), insightful, and a productive way of blowing off steam. In the words of Baruch Spinoza, "I have made a ceaseless effort not to ridicule, not to bewail, not to scorn human actions, but to understand them." How will we understand (and thereby better deal with, and maybe even prevent or overcome) dickish behavior without analyzing and theorizing about its root causes? In the interests of progress, this essay must stay.


 * If I found an Institute for the Study of Mental Retardation, does that mean that I'm launching a hostile attack against those with mental disabilities, because I call attention to the problem? Far from it! I'm just trying to UNDERSTAND and HELP them, and offer aid to those who interact with them in the home, the workplace, etc. This essay is the same way. In the case of admins who behave dickishly, understanding their behavior is a first step to eliminating hostile attacks that they launch on others, thereby reducing the amount of hostile attacks. So the deletion request is 180 degrees off in its assessment.


 * To those who propose deletion, I ask, can you point to any flaws in the page's observations, reasoning, or conclusions? Because I think it's rather cogent. St. claires fire (talk) 20:39, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
 * You come off like you have a big axe to grind, but there is nothing in your edit history where that may have developed. So, my question is, is this your first account?--v/r - TP 21:35, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
 * There's nothing in my edit history because I exercise restraint! When I get in a conflict, I don't keep escalating it. I just take a step back and say to myself, "Why?" And then I write essays wherein the lessons learned are distilled down to fundamental truths for the benefit of the masses. St. claires fire (talk) 21:51, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I think he said "no". --SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:55, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

*Delete. Whether or not this falls under WP:HUMOR is irrelevant. The article isn't constructive nor very professionally written. Asm20 (talk) 20:01, 25 April 2017 (UTC) — Berean Hunter   (talk)  13:03, 26 April 2017 (UTC) — Berean Hunter   (talk)  14:10, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete - Not remotely beneficial to the project.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) 20:46, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete Attack page, pure and simple. Ravensfire ( talk ) 22:05, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep The page is well put together and brings up good points which many editors share. If criticism of admins is not allowed how are they to know if they are doing something wrong.Brexit123 (talk) 00:25, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
 * You're an asshat. That's not an attack, that's just criticism.  Amirite?--v/r - TP 02:15, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Well so much for editorial decorum and a collegial work environment. 😢 Dloh  cierekim  13:49, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
 * That went out the door when someone decided that criticism had the same quality and legitimacy as ad hominems.--v/r - TP 15:24, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Your first sentence would be better placed inside quotes. Otherwise, it reads as a personal attack, and not as an example to make a point as I believe you intended. — Godsy (TALK CONT ) 19:13, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I think most people get that it's satire to demonstrate the absurdity of the logic expressed in the !vote.--v/r - TP 19:49, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete as an attack page. Edward321 (talk) 00:46, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Snow delete - Calling this "cogent" and "succinct" is the only part that's actually funny. Grayfell (talk) 00:51, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete. It doesn't even pretend to offer a single constructive word. Beyond unhelpful to the project. Purely toxic projections of bad faith. The one tempting 'keep' argument is the value and insight it would provide if the author ever ran for admin themselves. Alsee (talk) 01:20, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
 * delete plain attack page and incivil and divisive and disguised as an essay. Dloh cierekim  13:41, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't call it an attack page per se (and declined the G10 speedy as such), but yeah, delete. Writ Keeper &#9863;&#9812; 13:43, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete per, whose declining the G10 enables us to fritter away here more of the time we could otherwise be spending building an encyclopaedia... :p that's not an attack... That's criticism! :D &mdash;  O Fortuna   semper crescis, aut decrescis  13:55, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Eh. It's not that much more time, and it's probably better to delete this through an MfD anyway; that way the inevitable "see I told you so, admins are suppressing dissent" argument is lessened. Think of it as an investment that will hopefully pay dividends in future drama averted. Writ Keeper &#9863;&#9812; 13:57, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Indeed. Dloh cierekim  14:08, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete. Attack page, not humorous and of no constructive value to the encyclopedia whatsoever. Funcrunch (talk) 14:52, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep as there is truth to this essay. It is not an attack page against a specific person or all admins. Legacypac (talk) 06:00, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Userfy (without redirect). An opinion relevant to the project.  It is offensive, and may be of no constructive value, but the perception of censorship of critical opinions is far worse.  Userfy because it is clearly single-authored, and very POV, and the title itself is inherently POV.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:15, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I would settle for a userfy, but it certainly can't be in project space.--WaltCip (talk) 12:08, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't be okay with that. WP:POLEMIC: "What may I not have in my user pages?...statements attacking or vilifying groups of editors, persons, or other entities...Material that can be viewed as attacking other editors, including the recording of perceived flaws."--v/r - TP 12:55, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Oh, it is not censorship. This piece was written as Berean bait by a banned editor. He fell into a trap that I had laid for him on my talk...got angry when he saw that I was talking about him in the thread above and this gemstone was one of the results. Another piece of Berean bait may be found here, created by another sock of same banned editor. That one may not be so obvious to others as to why that is Berean bait. It's okay, he knows that Berean owned him for the better part of a day before I let him know that he had been had. A bit of IAR turnabout fair play which has been fun. Oh, and this essay is horribly written... its it's just full of word crimes. 8^D
 * Yo, if this is a banned editor, a) why aren't they sacked by now? and b) this should be a simple WP:CSD huh? Com' wit it now! &mdash;  O Fortuna   semper crescis, aut decrescis  13:30, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I suspect that shoe is falling even now. Dloh cierekim  13:40, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Letting this run serves the better purpose of letting other editors see that the banned editor has been owned. I'll leave it for other admins if they want to block his throwaway accounts. I was demonstrating that we can get the better of someone who is abusing the system without having to use the tools and so I shall abstain. :)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.