Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiWitch (2nd nomination)

 __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 '''Delete. This discussion has gone on for more than a sufficient period of time, and there appears to be a consensus among the majority of editors commenting, for deletion.'''. -- Cirt (talk) 02:58, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

WikiWitch


MfDs for this page:  Second nomination; was put up for deletion last year and kept as no consensus, although at that nomination the majority of editors seemed in favor of deletion. Page is silly and lends itself to abusive use; in any case, it does not help the project or build community, which is the point of the Wikipedia namespace. Neutralitytalk 08:05, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Weak delete . Is a commentary on an editing style, but is very superficial.  Possibly of negligible value while somewhat insulting.  Or is it tongue-in-cheek?  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:38, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete per Fences&Windows far below. Not all reflective learning tools are genuine.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:36, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep. Changed mind again.  There remains learning potential, and perceived aggressiveness, or other WP:NPOV failings, are fixable by editing.  If some good faith newcomer volunteers perceive humourless nasty others amongst the establishment destroying the life of the place, then better to document than to delete such perceptions.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:00, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Your edit of WikiWitch has helped elucidate why this page should be deleted. You are correct: The term WikiWitch is meant to be a "pejorative characterisation", something that has a "disparaging, derogatory, or belittling effect or force". I do not believe that Wikipedia should be hosting disparaging, derogatory, and belittling content. Cunard (talk) 00:20, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia describes many pejoratives, both in mainspace and projectspace. An NPOV description of a pejorative is a good thing.  I don’t think that anyone need feel disparaged or belittled by this page.  Instead, I think it may be useful if an editor feels someone is like a WikiWitch, that they consider that they themselves might be a WikiPuppy.  (Traditionally, do witches kill puppies?  The metaphors are cute, but shouldn’t be taken too far).  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:09, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
 * This page is neither neutral nor inoffensive. Cunard (talk) 01:15, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
 * POV issues can be fixed. Do you feel offended by the page?  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:21, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
 * You wrote in your initial comment: "Possibly of negligible value while somewhat insulting." I could not agree more. Yes. That such a pathetic (Reyk), embarrassing (Fut.Perf. and AKMask) page exists in Wikipedia space is offensive. Cunard (talk) 20:47, 3 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep. This is material that is kept around because it is considered humorous, and not intended to be insulting or otherwise intended to slight anyone.  How ironic that a person who, by virtue of their actions, fits the definition of a WikiWitch would go after the page about WikiWitches.  SchuminWeb (Talk) 13:12, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
 * This particular comment sort of proves this point about abusive use... Neutralitytalk 19:42, 29 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep. This page is appropriate amoung the definitions of WikiFauna.  We should keep this page for contrast to other types; it is referenced on a few pages.  Nutster (talk) 14:46, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Weak delete—falls short of being an attack page, but it's not pleasant, nor can I envisage any way in which it could be used legitimately. ╟─ Treasury Tag ► belonger ─╢ 21:54, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete- apparently "this page is kept because it contains material which is considered humorous". Well, it's not. It's about as funny as a geology lecture. I think the whole WikiFauna concept is pathetic and should be removed, but this one is one of the worst of them. As Neutrality and TT argue, there does not seem to be any way this page can be used constructively and plenty of ways it can be used to cause disruption and ill feelings. Reyk  YO!  23:12, 29 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete for being an attack page that fails to be humorous. The page only serves to offend. Pointing a fellow editor to this page and calling him/her a "WikiWitch" will likely serve to inflame a situation instead of diffusing it. I fully agree that humorous pages belong on Wikipedia but this is not one of them. I agree with that this page is humorless. WikiWitch is an example of users' misuse of the humor tag as an excuse for retaining inappropriate pages. I agree with  that 's comment illustrates the problem with this page. Encouraging new users to treat Wikipedia as a webhost is not beneficial to the encyclopedia. Deleting this page would be a net positive for Wikipedia. Cunard (talk) 23:28, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
 * 's incisive comment from the first MfD is applicable today: "Unfortunately, although this is expressed as humour, there is a serious purpose behind it. There is a significant minority of Wikipedians who feel that the proper thing to do is to always add more content, and that deletionis inherently a bad thing. I have recently been involved in an AfD discussion where an editor was very rude and uncivil both in the AfD discussion and elsewhere to another editor who was in favour of deleting an article. Apart from the issue of incivility, the line taken was very much 'deleting is destruction: only creating new material is worthwhile activity'. Of course those who take this line have a perfect right to do so, and the fact that I personally regard maintaining the quality of Wikipedia as at least as important as increasing the quantity does not mean that I deny them the right to express their opinion. However, some of these editors, including the one involved in that dispute, do not extend the same tolerance to those who disagree with them. This 'humourous' page is an example of this: although the message is covered with a veneer of humour, there is a clear underlying message that people who propose deletion are contemptible. I have no intention of speculating on the motivation of the author of this page (Meaghan), and since he/she has initiated at least one AfD discussion he/she is certainly not fanatically opposed to any deletion at all. Nevertheless, the page does express an attitude to some editors which is not designed to encourage a cooperative spirit, but is in danger both of antagonising those it ridicules and also of encouraging negative attitudes among people who may be antagonistic to such editors. Consequently, even if Meaghan's intention was purely humourous, the effect of this page is likely to be unconstructive. Even Smokey Joe (the only person who has made a significant attempt to argue for 'keep') admits that 'it is a tad aggressive', and although Smokey Joe has improved it by somewhat toning it down, it still is essentially aggressive in tone. JamesBWatson (talk) 19:57, 20 February 2010 (UTC)" Cunard (talk) 23:28, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete per well-argued positions of Cunard and others above — "the whole WikiFauna concept is pathetic". Indeed. -- Klein zach  00:45, 30 May 2011 (UTC)


 * keep Caveat: None of the above editors are the people I'm talking about here.  I'm referring to a mindset not the behavior of any currently participating editor, this is entirely about the philosophy that says "Wikipedia must be only serious", I intend no personal attacks:  Having lived through the purging of the Wikipedia humor section, the nuking of BJADON and the otherwise insistence by a certain editing philosophy that insists their vision of a Wikipedia project with only serious-minded pages is the only acceptable one and hysterical hand-wringing about dignity and our public image if we allow people to *gasp* crack jokes, I'm slightly concerned here.  It feels as though having won the war to delete this would be to remove even the evidence a contrary viewpoint existed.  Yes it's mildly incivil.  The continued existence of WP:DICK proves that mere incivility is no reason to delete an essay. HominidMachinae (talk) 07:01, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete. The other fauna are at least kind of amusing and people willingly self-identify as them (e.g. I'm happy to be seen as a WikiSloth). This one is offensive and seemingly intended as a bitch about other editors, however mild. I looked at "What links here" and I could not find one Wikipedian who self-identified as a WikiWitch (one might except Durova from that, but that wasn't using this 'definition'). Essays and "humour" that employ passive-aggression are not helpful, particularly one as orphaned from any actual use as this one. Fences  &amp;  Windows  19:37, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete. Useless, not insightful, not funny, poorly written, overall embarrassing. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:55, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete. Pointlessly divisive, and as Future Perfect says, embarrassing really. -- ۩ M ask  08:36, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep - looks to me like a harmless humor page. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 09:40, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete per wikia:uncyclopedia:Uncyclopedia:How To Be Funny And Not Just Stupid. This is marginally funny and incredibly stupid. I do wonder what Durova thinks of this, though. / ƒETCH COMMS  /  16:59, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep I  see a nomination to remove a page marked as humor that says we should not remove all pages marked as humor as indicating exactly the attitude being deprecated. I don't like many of the "playful" page here, and usually !vote to delete them. I consider this particular page as fair comment on such as me.    DGG ( talk ) 23:12, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep I concur with the point that it is ironic that this is the Wikifauna article singled out for deletion. As for the argument that it is divisive, insulting, etc, plenty of other Wikifauna pages (like WikiReaper) could be considered insulting. Wikipedia isn't all serious business. K e rowyn Leave a note 22:59, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Re "Wikireaper": see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. That other (probably inappropriate) pages exist is not a very persuasive argument for keeping another one. Neutralitytalk 06:13, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment: WikiFauna states: "A WikiFauna should not be mean or too aggressive. 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. serve to foster negative attitudes in others towards an editor identified with the WikiFauna." That this page fails the WikiFauna's own inclusion criteria is a strong indication that it should be deleted. The editors that support retention acknowledge that the page is "insulting" (Kerowyn), "divisive" (Kerowyn), and "incivil" (HominidMachinae) and advance arguments that support why this page should be deleted. Cunard (talk) 23:33, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
 * as one of the sort of editors who might be negatively addressed by this page, I find it not insulting, degrading, or uncivil. I wish that all attempts to criticize people here were of this level and degree of amusement. The WikiFauna set of pages is by its nature a little divisive, in that it separates out various characteristics, but I think the group--the entire group-- one of our highlights.    DGG ( talk ) 02:56, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I dispute your contention that the page is humorous, not degrading, and of a high level and degree of amusement. However, let's agree to differ on those points. Would you address bullet points #1 and 2 of the WikiFauna I quoted above? Cunard (talk) 04:37, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I didn't actually say that the the page is "insulting" or "divisive", just that it could be considered that way. My point is that any of the Wikifauna pages could be considered insulting or divisive. Example: A person may object to being called a WikiMule, because WikiMules are stubborn.K e rowyn Leave a note 18:02, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
 * When a page has negligible value (as SmokeyJoe noted in his first comment) and is considered insulting and divisive, it should be deleted. To your second point: I draw your attention again to WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, since you appear not to have read Neutrality's response. That WikiMule is being (or can be) misused to attack other editors is an argument to delete that page—not retain this one. Cunard (talk) 20:47, 3 June 2011 (UTC)


 * leaning delete but not strongly so - mainly because I've not seen it used. wikignomes, wikidragons and wikifairies yes, but this ..no. Not really fussed either way though. We have so many essays and musings, I'd like to see some attempt at synthesising more than a few of them into more robust pages. Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:46, 3 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment As one of the objections to the page seems to be that it is entirely negative, would it help to add some of the positive characteristics of a WikiWitch? Something like "A WikiWitch helps by keeping the Wiki from getting too silly." This way we could address the inclusion criteria of the page being considered too mean. K e rowyn Leave a note 18:02, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Though adding positive characteristics to a poorly written, passive-aggressive page meant to attack a group of people will dilute its meaning, it will not dilute its clear intent to insult. Cunard (talk) 20:47, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I disagree that the sole intent and purpose is to insult. Are people generally called WikiWitches? Has the term been used in an insulting manner in this context? K e rowyn Leave a note 21:54, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Just a postscript, I made some changes, adding some beneficial aspects as I mentioned above.K e rowyn Leave a note 22:10, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, the term has been used in an insulting manner. See 's comment above at 13:12, 29 May 2011 (UTC). Cunard (talk) 22:15, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't consider that to be insulting, but I guess it's a matter of opinion. K e rowyn Leave a note 00:00, 4 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete - I supported the deletion of this page last year, and I haven't changed my mind since. It doesn't serve any useful purpose except to make bad-faith accusations against editors who nominate humour pages for deletion; calling another editor a 'WikiWitch' would undoubtedly be a personal attack, and I can't imagine anyone ever self-identifying as one. This isn't funny, just divisive and stupid, and we don't need it. Robofish (talk) 14:31, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete - not funny, why keep it ? Anthem 14:54, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
 * The original intent of the page was negative. The term “WikiWitch” is a pejorative, and the term conveys nothing particularly meaningful or useful.  There is some relevant message in the page, but it does not depend on the central pejorative.  I have edited drastically, and suggest a move to Wikipeda:Humor pages need to be relevant.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:29, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete. Even after SmokeyJoe's helpful editing it's still a mean-spirited reference to WP editors. It serves no useful purpose. The title should be deleted, and the concept that humor pages should be relevant doesn't require moving any of the current text.   Will Beback    talk    22:18, 5 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.