Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Wikibombing

 __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 due to changes made during the discussion. ··· 日本穣 ? · 投稿  · Talk to Nihonjoe ·  Join WikiProject Japan ! 15:56, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Note The article discussed here is now at Wikibombing (SEO) Oiyarbepsy (talk) 01:17, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Wikibombing


This essay should be deleted for a number of reasons. I don't deny a good essay could exist under this name (though only one instance an essay does not make), but this one isn't it. It's an attack on an editor. RfC/U is the right venue, not an essay. Hobit (talk) 23:58, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) I believe that in it's current for the article is primarily an attack on a single editor--User:Cirt. The single largest part of the article is about where the term comes from which is primarily Cirt.  Further two editors have been re-adding an article as "further reading" that involves, you guessed it, Cirt.  Some of these editors have made their opposition to Cirt's actions quite plain both on the talk pages and in other forums.  Oh, we have a graph showing that the number of edits to the article grew rapidly, which has nothing to do with wikibombing at all, but since those edits are, again, Cirt a fair bit of the time. These same concerns have been expressed by a number of editors on the talk page, and have been largely ignored.
 * 2)   This essay is claiming that activities like "article creation", "DYK" listings, and featured article work are "Typical Wikibombing activities".  I think that's like coming out against motherhood and apple pie.
 * 3) The essay has created a lot of heat and little light. Enough heat that one editor felt the need to go to WP:AN and ask that 3RR enforcement be waived/reduced.
 * Userfy Per my initial thoughts when I saw the announcement of the essay. Even in it's improved state it's still a thinly veiled attack on Cirt's work on the article and natural progression of events that you would do if you thought the article was up to the community standards. Perhaps in the future when we get another example of WP being used to enhance support for something already existing that is controversial a article along these lines could resurface, but not now and not with this example. Hasteur (talk) 00:34, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete AND Replace: Simply put, this attack will not do. I started with the original essay, reduced the play by play, and made it generic so that it can be guidance elsewhere. Please look at User:Hasteur/WikiBombing.  If people are amenable to it, that is what I would like to replace it with. Hasteur (talk) 14:13, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Preferably delete, if not then userfy. It's patently obvious that the essay is focused on one editor and one incident and expresses one faction's point of view about the episode, based on assumptions that are disputed (to say the least) about motives and effects. This is not a proper use of an essay. And some of the content is frankly completely crazy (c.f. Wikipedia talk:Wikibombing).Prioryman (talk) 00:45, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep only if the attack-ish background section is kept out of the article. Nuujinn (below) has been bold and removed it, for which I applaud him. I still have some qualms about the concept of the essay but it's fairly harmless if it's kept generic and not used as another channel to bash a fellow editor. Prioryman (talk) 21:50, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete or userfy per nom and Prioryman. -- Khazar (talk) 01:16, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment Could the nom or some one else link to the AN thread? The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 01:52, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Answer the nom is apparently an idiot and misread the AN discussion. It was about the article that is the underlying dispute . I've struck that part.  I've no idea how I misread that.  I do apologize. Hobit (talk) 03:05, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete - This is an attack page on an editor, and as such would be inappropriate even if userfied; delete altogether. Also, attacks aside, the "essay" is basically saying that all Wikipedia editing can be construed as Wikibombing. An essay should really not be so against what most would consider good content editing. かんぱい！ Scapler (talk) 04:44, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Change vote to keep - Attacks have been removed, as have the anti-improving content nonsense. This essay thus falls within an acceptable topic to discuss I suppose. かんぱい！ Scapler (talk) 22:04, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete I agree it looks like an attack page directed to a specific individual. Not a real essay. I see a big disconnect from those for the Keep side saying "I like it" were on the other hand the Delete side is using policy for its reasoning  Moxy (talk) 07:07, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep. This has been a damaging series of events for the community, and several editors are considering leaving because of it, and because of the ArbCom/community's failure to deal with it. We either learn from it or we repeat the mistakes, and this essay is part of the learning process. Also, editors who don't like the essay have been adding nonsense to it, in the hope of making it look silly. I would ask that those editors please stop doing that. SlimVirgin  TALK |  CONTRIBS 08:48, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete, not a real essay, instead more axe-grinding about santorum -- and that's the last thing we need right now. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 09:05, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep. I'm not seeing any compelling policy-based reasoning for deleting this essay, only IDONTLIKEIT.  I experienced this same sort of thing in an essay I helped write called WP:ACTIVIST.  The banner at the top of the essay clearly states that it is a statement of opinion.  It doesn't mention any editors by name, instead generally laying out the sequence of events related to a recent, controversial episode in WP's history.  Wikipedia is not censored, and that includes essays.  If any editors disagree with what the essay says, they need to write their own, rebuttal essay and I expect that the writers of this essay will not nominate it for deletion, but, in contrast to the "delete" voters on this page, will welcome the open exchange of ideas and opinions. Cla68 (talk) 11:15, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
 * It's not an essay, it's a deliberate play by play and attack on Crit's actions in relation to the santorum article. Take a look above at the proposed replacement I sat down and wrote.  It doesn't attack any specific editor, it gives reasonable background to the term, it talks about how to prevent it from the advocating side and how to minimize it from the opposition side. Converseley it could be said that the people !VOTEing are using ILIKEIT to justify the essay's continuation. Hasteur (talk) 14:18, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete . Merge contents to User:Jayen466/Requests for comment/Cirt. Writing an essay to indict the behavior of a single, non-banned editor is inappropriate. This qualifies as an attack page. Use dispute resolution instead.   Will Beback    talk    11:28, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep, now that the overly personal attack material has been removed.   Will Beback    talk    08:26, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep The abuse of Wikipedia to promote outside agendas remains one of the most serious problems we face as a community. Ignoring the problem or pretending that it will go away is not a realistic solution.  Regarding Point #2, this content appears to be a bad faith attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia.  The vandalism has been removed and is no longer in the article. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 12:25, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep - Article is not axe grinding about Satorom, it is written about a specific problematic editing pattern. Off2riorob (talk) 13:45, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
 * An editing pattern exhibited by only one user? Hobit (talk) 13:47, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I imagine the pattern has been attempted by multiple editors in the history of wikipedia and that any recent exposure of the technique will only have highlighted and exposed the how to  techniques to many more editors and that the techniques will be repeated and attempted more in future, this makes the essay a clear keeper and it will increase in beneficialness moving forward. Off2riorob (talk) 13:57, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep, but on the condition that the section on "Background" be deleted for the time being. Search engine optimization (SEO) is unfortunately a fact of life, with which Wikipedia has no choice but to figure out how to deal. The beginning and end of the essay contain a reasonable start towards having some initial guidance, in a generally useful manner (although thought needs to be given to the issue of appearing to condemn normal good editing). The background section, however, is where the attack issues become pertinent, and this section suffers from being written so close to the putative events that it is difficult to be objective about them. I can easily imagine as much editorial disagreement about that, as about the current neologism page. But all of that is a matter of editing, not MfD. If editors can agree to delete that part for the time being, then page deletion becomes much less of an issue. --Tryptofish (talk) 14:24, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
 * While I'd prefer deletion, I could live with this. I do worry that people will continue to add the same material back in and we'll just end up back here again. Hobit (talk) 17:56, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep, per Tryptofish. I will also note that the background section reads more like an article defining the term, which seems to be to be unnecessary for an essay on procedures. --Nuujinn (talk) 14:48, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep only per Tryptofish's condition. (Hasteur's version is ok with me, too). Once the attempt to spell out a case against Cirt is removed (and the related attempt to delete all balancing material from that history), it'll be much easier to agree on recommendations. For example, how do we draw the line between an editor appropriately creating NPOV articles, expansions, GA and FA noms, templates, and featured topics--which should surely be encouraged even for commercial, political, and controversial subjects, given that they meet other Wikipedia guidelines--and a "wikibomber"? That's a tricky enough question in its own right, I think, and a distinction that the essay is not yet doing a good job of making. -- Khazar (talk) 16:48, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep As one of our arbitrators (whose name I will not mention here, as the e-mail is part of the recent leaks) pointed out 10 days ago, "Regardless of the intention of Cirt and co, this case has exposed a gaping security hole in Wikipedia with no obvious easy means of mending. Every day this saga drags on, we're effectively writing a "how to" guide on how to use templates, DYK (which generates buttloads of automatically created internal links) and strategically placed links on external sites to manipulate Wikipedia's relationship with Google to game the PageRank system. Making Criticism of (insert politician/celebrity/rival product) the first hit on Google for a search on said politician/celebrity/rival product's name is a service for which companies would pay a fortune (if you were a sugar producer, how much would having Aspartame controversy be the first Google result for "artificial sweetener" be worth?), and we've now created a join-the-dots guide ...". This security hole, arguably already being exploited, is a vital problem that we need to address. The long-term solution probably is to make internal links from navigation templates and non-mainspace pages nofollow, removing the incentive. As long as that is not the case, we need this essay, and the real-life example that occurred. -- J N  466  18:11, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep but remove Background, per Tryptofish. Also, I should note that all the behaviors being described are things that often happen in normal editing and editors who do them often have no ill intent about boosting search rankings. People can create detailed coverage on a topic for many reasons other than wanting to boost search rankings, they might just be interested in the topic; people might cite many references rather than one if others have challenged notability and thus the article creator wants to dig up more references; creating links to an article is encouraged for entirely in-wiki reasons, and maybe the person just wants more people to read their article and has no intent to advocate political or commercial causes; and likewise, submitting articles for main page appearances is a common thing on Wikipedia anyway. It seems like all these things are only "problematic behavior" if you don't like the topic that is being written about, or the editor who's writing it. r ʨ anaɢ (talk) 20:01, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
 * speedy delete as WP:ATTACKPAGE. If the user wants to recreate it as a neutral page about the dangers of allowing wikipedia to be used to alter google results that's one thing, but this is not even thinly disguised it's a straight-up attack on an editor in good standing. HominidMachinae (talk) 20:56, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment, I've been bold and deleted the background section, if anyone wants it back, feel free to revert me. --Nuujinn (talk) 20:59, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep As it is not an "attack page" by any reasonable definition, the imputation that it is one - fails. It violates no policies about projectspace that I can find,  hence the default is always to keep  Collect (talk) 23:30, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Collect, out of curiosity, did you look at the revision before or after Nuujinn's change? Hobit (talk) 23:47, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep and expand. I meant to write this myself about a year ago but completely forgot about it. Only issue I can see is WP:BEANS. Viriditas (talk) 03:36, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep and continue to improve. As I come into this discussion, after a wikibreak that has ended after my pleasant participation at the Wiknic today, I see a developing good essay about a problem I have observed on other articles that have been the subject of ArbCom cases entirely unrelated to what is alleged here to have prompted to create the essay. This isn't a one-subject problem, and it isn't a one-editor problem, but it is a serious problem, and as long as it is discussed in the essay in accord with Wikipedia policy, without personal attacks on anyone, the essay should stay and should be referred to by many other editors on many topics. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 04:34, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep and expand the article further. Joyson Noel  Holla at me!  10:26, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
 * You do understand this is not an article, right? r ʨ anaɢ (talk) 15:18, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
 * lol. Oops, my bad! I meant the essay! I find no evidence that the essay is in fact an attack page against Cirt. Joyson Noel  Holla at me!  06:01, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
 * The three paragraphs and illustration focusing solely on Cirt were removed midway through this discussion and moved to a draft RfC/U (and wisely, I think). Khazar (talk) 15:26, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Given that it is no longer an attack page, there shouldn't really be a problem with it being kept now. Joyson Noel  Holla at me!  14:31, 28 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete per WP:BEANS, as well as the attack implication, even in its more sanitized form. This does not describe typical SEO spammer behavior, and we definitely don't want to encourage SEO people into doing it more. Gigs (talk) 01:14, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
 * That is an essay, not an established policy. Joyson Noel  Holla at me!  15:01, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
 * What? Gigs (talk) 15:21, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I know it sucks, but we cannot really use essays to back up an argument. Please refer WP:NOTPOLICY. Joyson Noel  Holla at me!  14:26, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Of course I can use an essay as my rationale to delete. Just consider it the same as "I'd write all the stuff that essay says as my rationale, but instead I'm just referring to it here". Besides, we don't really have much written policy or guidelines on what essays might be acceptable or not anyway, and I'm not saying we should either.  The essay you linked to is more about citing random essays as justification for bad behavior.  Gigs (talk) 21:56, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes you can, but you shouldn't. I was just being intentionally ironic by referring to that essay. If an editor is violating Wikipedia policies and you would like to criticize him, then you must refer Wikipedia policies to back up your argument rather than essays per se. It simply makes more sense! Joyson Noel  Holla at me!  04:32, 30 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete as attack page that epitomizes the polar opposite of WP:AGF. // ⌘macwhiz (talk) 19:35, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Question, in what way is the current version an attack page? --Nuujinn (talk) 19:37, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Note from the nom I personally think the article, as it is right now, is a perfectly fine and reasonable essay. Though I think it's a bit alarmist, I think the reasons for deletion are now gone.  I'm happy to withdraw my nomination with the understanding that if it returns as an attack page and normal editing isn't fixing the problem it will likely be back at MfD.  Hobit (talk) 20:41, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
 * We might as well let it run the course here since some !votes for delete stand. I am honestly curious as to how it could be considered an attack page now, but it could well be that I'm missing something. --Nuujinn (talk) 21:33, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I don't see it either. I just wanted to note that I'm fine with the page as it stands (though I worry others will start adding the same material again). I guess one could argue for a history delete or something, but I'm not seeing the need myself, though the target of the attack may feel otherwise. Hobit (talk) 02:35, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
 * delete or barring that userfy It is in the category of being absurdly ridiculous and against basic Wikipedia principles to say that writing a lot of good content on a single subject is somehow now a problem. Having this vindictive piece, written solely to attack a specific user, in Wikipedia space is ridiculous. JoshuaZ (talk) 04:14, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
 * JoshuaZ, can you please tell us what is vindictive in the current version, or why you view it as an an attack piece on a specific editor? --Nuujinn (talk) 11:11, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
 * If I write "Presidents who attack Iraq and Afghanistan and are from Texas are fucking idiots", it's still an attack, even if I didn't name names. The stuff described in this essay is clearly pointing at a single user's behavior, not documenting a widespread behavior.  That's why it remains somewhat of an attack. Gigs (talk) 14:01, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I respectfully disagree. A better analogy would be "Getting involved in a land war in asia can be problematic and extraction from such conflicts difficult". Can you point to anything in the text that can be construed as pointing to any individual editor? Or are you suggesting that forever and anon we cannot discuss how to avoid falling afoul of problems related to SEO techniques without that being construed as an attack on one editor? --Nuujinn (talk)


 * keep - it is an accurate description of a technique used by several editors here. This essay is just as valid here as WP:BOMBARD, about adding references that are of no use to a reader. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 14:08, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete this "essay" is at best the product of a few editors' fever dreams. A rare combination of myopia, prudishness and narcissism must have been the driving force.  Wikipedia is one website among many.  One online community among many.  One recorder of content among many.  Seeing Cirt's actions on templates and such and ignoring the entire rest of the world allows us to conclude that adding templates to a wikipedia article causes seismic shifts in google rankings.  Further that those rankings are now our responsibility and should the newly infused ranked sites violate BLP, we now have some misguided quest to lower them again. Protonk (talk) 17:42, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep, in the form as I read it a moment ago, it strikes me as a reasonable stab at pointing out that a problem could arise from editing patterns for good or ill. Wikipedia has a very high profile, and is probably a leading content provider in its way, and if it can avoid bringing itself into ill-repute it should. The world does not stop turning nor the general promulgation of information from wikipedia cease just because an editor has cause to pace his contributions. I do not doubt the essay can be improved and leave the cause of its creation behind to grow into a rounded piece of advice and should be givne that chance. GraemeLeggett (talk) 18:17, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete. I clicked on the page to nomianate this piece of shit myself. It does nothing for Wikopedia and fosters divisiveness among the kids.  Delete the article, ban the writer.  I cannot say how much I oppose this fucking article in any stronger motherfucking terms.  Thanks in adavance,  Brad Wingo (talk) 21:36, 28 June 2011 (UTC).
 *  Wait Delete or userfy, either one  - At this point, the page is much less a specific screed or attack. Doesn't mean we should keep it where it is, though. Quoting myself on its talk page: "...a clear policy statement would be welcome, regarding how WP is to cover events in which WP itself is or may be part of the story (this would be something for the entire community to discuss).  But in its current form this essay is either superfluous or chillingly vague."  Remove it from project space by either road.  The essay is currently under discussion on its own talk page, and may see sufficient improvement to render it worth keeping; whether in project space or not can be determined once it's closer to equilibrium.   ☯.Zen  Swashbuckler  .☠  21:53, 28 June 2011 (UTC)  ☯.Zen  Swashbuckler  .☠  19:11, 29 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete - Obvious attack on Cirt as a continued mullti-pronged attempt to hound him, and as noted have a chilling effect. Jus  da  fax   18:01, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Userfy, and liberally revision-delete. I don't want to see express or implied criticism of Cirt anywhere in the history here.  Once it's been sanitised of attacks, I'll be prepared to accept that this essay is probably part of the healing process for some users, so it's right that for the time being, we allow good faith contributors a few bytes in userspace where they can express themselves and get over it.— S Marshall  T/C 23:37, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
 * The revdel seems like a good idea given the strength of opinion here. Not having done any more than poking around in a general sense, I am as yet (purposely) unfamiliar with the controversy surrounding any particular editor, I am somewhat confused by the notion that the current version is in any way an attack page, but one can make a connection by review of the history of this page and the essay and its talk page. Does anyone object to the notion of sanitizing the histories? --Nuujinn (talk) 23:47, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree that the revdel suggestion is a good idea. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:13, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I could support that as well The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 22:20, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I brought this up at WP:AN, fwiw. --Nuujinn (talk) 23:04, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep or userfy. Clearly an important topic.  Something that can and does happen.  And the template inflation sticks out like a sore thumb.  All that said, essays are MUCH more stable in user space.  Not even sure why someone would not just automatically opt for that in most cases.  Like Giano's FA essay.TCO (talk) 01:55, 30 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep - Valid topic that editors should be aware of. &mdash;SW&mdash; spill the beans 02:06, 30 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep - unconvincing arguments for deletion seem to boil down to 'this essay angers me.' Tom Harrison Talk 02:30, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep The current version does not look like an attack page to me, in fact it seems to be fairly reasonable--not perfect, but basically reasonable enough to stave off deletion. Qrsdogg (talk) 03:00, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep - acceptable in its current state, which doesn't refer to any specific editors or events. There are a number of existing essays dealing with issues in this area, but I don't think having another one hurts, as long as it isn't assuming bad faith or attacking anyone. This one just gives guidance and some problems to be aware of; if nothing else, it reminds us that editing Wikipedia has consequences in the real world, and that's always worth remembering. Robofish (talk) 16:02, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep I think I know Jayen466 well enough to say he wrote it to as a way to vent about his frustrations with the situation. I do not think it was written with malicious intent I can however see how some viewed it that way. Since most agree there is no longer a problem with it now (Including the nom) I can find no reason to delete. The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 16:09, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
 * strike that the WP:BEANS argument is compelling. if only it was a policy or guideline but its sadly is not. The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 16:14, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Weak delete per WP:BEANS and because I can't really forsee this page being particularly useful other than as a mode of attack. ╟─ Treasury Tag ► hemicycle ─╢ 13:00, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Strong keep as a now-generalized essay to explain how article sets can get flooded with WP:UNDUE details or spin-off articles, as a pattern, beyond the scope of the talk-page of each article. Based on concerns of other editors, I added the essay talk-topic "WT:Wikibombing" to help keep the essay focused as an NPOV-neutral description of the wikibombing problem, with only generalized examples to avoid attack-page cases or WP:SOAPBOX details which are not needed to explain the essay's topic. I think the essay has been fixed, enough times, to show that it can be kept in neutral tone, with perhaps a top-banner to watch for future POV-pushing in examples. -Wikid77 (talk) 15:40, 1 July 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.