Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiReaper

 __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 keep. Salvio Let's talk about it! 10:38, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

WikiReaper


According to WikiFauna : "Pointing a fellow editor to a WikiFauna essay to identify him/her as that WikiFauna should not serve to inflame a situation, belittle the editor, or dismiss/discredit the editor for maintaining an opposing/different opinion." This WikiFauna essay risks doing that, because it conflates high standards at WP:RFA and WP:FAC with disruptive editing, and thus running against our policy of assuming good faith. Anthem 17:38, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: Anthem of joy has been blocked as a sockpuppet of Claritas. Hobit (talk) 18:30, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep - it's a joke, one the nominator doesn't apparently get. → ROUX   ₪  17:53, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I really don't see it. Can you explain it to me ? --Anthem 18:12, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
 * It's a joking commentary on the tendency of certain users to knee-jerk oppose anything that changes the status quo. More to the point, your nomination seems to be predicated on the notion that it's being used abusively. Prove it. → ROUX   ₪  18:16, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't think it's necessary to prove that it's being used abusively. It's just clear that in most circumstances calling someone a "WikiReaper" would be considered uncivil and assuming bad faith. The essay seems to have had almost no impact, and I can't find any real use of the concept at all, which is a reason to delete in itself. --Anthem 18:53, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
 * If your nomination rationale boils down to 'this can be used abusively,' you need to prove it has been. Doubly so when you're not getting the humour involved, and apparently missed the 'this is humorous' banner at the top of the page. Do you have proof that this has been used abusively or not? Moreover, it looks like quite a few users link to this themselves on their userpage, and I see no evidence anywhere that it has ever been used abusively. WP:IDONTLIKEIT is not a suitable rationale for deletion. → ROUX   ₪  19:11, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I am neutral on this case, but could you explain why WP:IDONTLIKEIT applies here? The beginning of that article states: "The following are a list of arguments that can commonly be seen in deletion discussions for templates, images, categories, stub types, redirects and especially articles which should generally be avoided, or at least, supplemented with some more arguments". I suggest that if enough people do not like an essay in WP space, that is a perfectly good argument to delete it. -- Bduke   (Discussion)  01:10, 14 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete per precedent Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiWitch Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiWitch (second nomination). -- Klein zach  00:32, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Poor argument (WP:OTHERSTUFF), and you need to pay attention to what actually happened. That MfD was a year ago and closed as no consensus--which defaults to keep. Cirt unilaterally deleted the page, apparently, a year later. → ROUX   ₪  03:17, 14 June 2011 (UTC)  struck previous due to Cirt's clarification. First argument still stands. →  ROUX   ₪  04:26, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry, wrong link was used in the deletion log, the correct one is at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiWitch (second nomination). -- Cirt (talk) 04:16, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the correction. -- Klein zach  06:58, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep reasonable page along the lines of WP:GNOME etc. Something of a generic attack I suppose. Hobit (talk) 20:14, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep It could have a useful function in that many readers of it might pause to reflect - "I'm not one of those. I'm not. Am I?" Peridon (talk) 14:51, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Weak keep It's a bit more humorous than the WikiWitch page was, I think, but I'm not sure by how far it passes wikia:uncyclopedia:Uncyclopedia:How To Be Funny And Not Just Stupid. Anyway, not hurting anyone—if people are being called "WikiReapers" in a derogatory manner, deal with the name callers. This page serves to describe a certain breed of users, no more and no less. / ƒETCH COMMS  /  22:38, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Weak delete - not a personal attack on any specific editor, but not particularly funny or useful either. Robofish (talk) 10:48, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep. The WikiReaper is a villain of the community, in the style of a Morality play.  Unlike the WikiWitch, the wikiReaper is all-bad and is a decent unambiguous educational tool.  By being an extreme character, where no decent wikipedians would defend such intended behaviour, it is not uncivil or assuming bad faith.  Agree with Roux, that any allegation of use for abuse needs demonstration; I don’t see it.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:35, 21 June 2011 (UTC)


 * 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.