Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Wikipedia does not need you

 __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. — xaosflux  Talk 21:36, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Wikipedia does not need you


An IP editor attempted to nominate this page but was unable to complete the nomination, so I am submitting it on their behalf per the following comment at WT:MFD:
 * This essay is hostile and demeaning to new users. Wikipedia absolutely needs editors; it doesn't maintain itself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.0.194.222 (talk) 04:40, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

Since this is a nomination on the IP's behalf, I personally take no position about whether the nominated page should be deleted or not. RL0919 (talk) 05:00, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep. Maybe we should rename it to WP:Wikipedia doesn't need anyone who will take this essay personally ? As an aside, I didn't spot the part where it targeted new users. Tarl N. ( discuss ) 05:14, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete . It's basically saying "go away, you're not welcome here." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.0.194.222 (talk) 06:46, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment strick through "not-vote" of nominator. (The comment itself is valid, but you only get one "not-vote".) Lady  of  Shalott  17:30, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep. It doesn't target new users (who are unlikely to be digging through the essays anyway), and it honestly gets a point across in the least hostile way possible (note how much it points out that Wikipedia finds people's contributions valuable).  If anything, this is something that more editors should read--if they did, we might not need WP:UNBLOCKABLE.  rdfox 76 (talk) 13:14, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I suppose I appreciate the nominator's advocacy, but yeah. And it's specifically NOT for new users. It may be that it got changed since I wrote this up, but that's another matter. keep Drmies (talk) 13:46, 20 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep It is clearly marked as an essay, like many of the other such pages. It's a good reality check when the heat of argument becomes overwhelming. I suppose we could either replace the Pokemon reference with "the number of article on K-pop bands will continue to double" or maybe add it. But keep the article. And get over it. Geoff &#124; Who, me? 15:06, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment - Waiting to see what is said about whether this essay targets new editors. If it is meant to be addressed to existing editors who have become puffed up, it is useful.  Robert McClenon (talk) 17:08, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
 * That was the intention, yes. I aimed it at me, for instance, and let me take this opportunity to ping User:The Bushranger, in whose honor I wrote it up. Drmies (talk) 18:05, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
 * And as I pop in, surfacing from things that are eating me - yes, this was never aimed in any way shape or form at new editors. It was intended, aimed, and targeted squarely at the long-term curmedgons who regularly, at the time (and probably still do), would declare that if they didn't get their way they would be (gasp) LEAVING WIKIPEDIA and without their august hand guiding things WIKIPEDIA WOULD BE DOOMED. Ergo, this essay. - The Bushranger One ping only 23:46, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep – The essay makes an important point that applies to all users, not just new users. The second paragraph could use some revision, though, as I can see how it might give some readers the impression that the essay is aimed at just new users. – Levivich 18:32, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep I see nothing wrong with this essay. CoolSkittle  (talk) 18:43, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep It is an essay that makes some interesting and useful points, and no policy-based reason for deletion has been offered. Cullen328  Let's discuss it  20:45, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
 * It's incredibly condescending (WP:Civility) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.0.211.138 (talk) 21:34, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep - The proponent has made the case, by objecting to an essay that doesn't adequately kiss up to unregistered editors. The subject of the essay is established editors who demand to be kissed up to and have hissy fits, and they are bad enough, and Wikipedia can do without them.  But an unregistered editor who wants to be treated as indispensable really is offensive, and no one cares if they take offense.  Unregistered editors tend to fall into four classes.  The first is new editors, who should be welcomed with encouragement to register accounts.  The essay isn't addressed to them.  The second is blocked editors.  We really don't need them, at least not while they are blocked or if they are block-evading.  The third is editors who have lost their passwords.  We don't need to go out of our way to cater to them, because we assist them either in recovering their passwords or in creating new accounts.  The fourth is established editors who for some reason prefer not to use an account, either because they fallaciously think that it preserves their privacy, or for some other weird reason.  The proponent may be one of the second or of the fourth, and we really don't need them.  They made the case to Keep.  Robert McClenon (talk) 01:52, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
 * It's attitudes like this that drive new users away. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.0.211.138 (talk) 19:40, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete Arrogant in tone, serves no useful purpose. Coretheapple (talk) 17:42, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep - It's OK for an essay to take a fairly extreme position to make a point. We shouldn't use it as a welcome message for brand-new users, but there's nothing wrong with sharing it with someone who has begun to become a time sink. Would love to see a "Wikipedia does need you" counterpoint. –dlthewave ☎ 18:06, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep It is WP:TRUE and lighthearted. However, not to be used as a message to new users - as others have stated. (of course!)  Lubbad85   (☎) 19:09, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep Basically it says Get over it. I don't see a reason for deleting it. Masum Reza 📞 04:50, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete Wikipedia is diminished by editors being callously kicked to the kerb and also by telling those who have not yet been to suck it up and not think they matter. We all matter. Yngvadottir (talk) 04:58, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree. There are many ways of conveying the intended point, but the appraoach taken in this essay is not constructive and wouldn't be short of a rewrite and re-titling. My main problem is tone. It's condescending.  I doubt very much that a single editor, IP or established, has been positively influenced by this essay.  Coretheapple (talk) 13:58, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
 * As mentioned above, this was squarely aimed at the "I'm leaving Wikipeida if I don't get my way" types, for whom the blunt language was, and sadly is, a necessity. - The Bushranger One ping only 23:46, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
 * That's not how it reads. The examples given are a parody of what dumb newbies do. The majority of cases I find of the "I'm quitting!" variety involve established editors with many friends who are also established editors. One particularly egregious example that comes to mind involved an administrator. That is the problem, and yes, it deserves to be addressed bluntly. But this one just reads like talking-down to the ignoramuses. Coretheapple (talk) 13:56, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Don't forget that the attitude of certain editors described here can result in fallout affecting other editors and that this may help to explain why large portions of the encyclopedia are no longer being properly maintained. I'm thinking of a certain editor who has been around roughly as long as I have who is very passionate about his pet projects.  I performed a certain project maintenance task for the better part of five years, which had been abandoned for several years at the time I took it on.  He kept trying to fuel conflict with me over my work in this area, all in the name of benefiting said pet projects.  The end result is that I quit doing that task and no one has bothered to resume that work.  I have long-term concerns when I see editors who are busying themselves with looking for such abandonment and using that as an excuse to eradicate that work from the face of the encyclopedia, which is currently manifested in the ongoing portal/WikiProject purge.  And there are other examples of maintenance tasks that I quit performing because the attitudes employed by other longtimers around here made the work more difficult than it needed to be.  Back to that certain editor, he's "retired" and been coaxed back by an admin multiple times yet still believes that his pet projects are a whole lot bigger deal than they really are, so I dunno what's been achieved by this mentoring. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions  01:03, 27 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep As mentioned above, this was aimed at long-time editors who believed they were rock-stars and that their contribution to Wikipedia-as-a-whole was load-bearing, that is to say if they flounced, the whole rotten edifice would collapse behind them. Sometimes, I'm sure, we still encounter those types in discussions - and they are why this exists. - The Bushranger One ping only 23:46, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete - article can be taken offensively, and has no real need. Whilst it does not directly attack newcomers, it is definitely discouraging to be told no matter how much you do, you're insignificant to Wikipedia, whether or not it is true. →NΘN-MΘNICtalk 14:10, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep Oh for Pete's sake. It's a healthy reminder that 1) flouncing will get us nowhere and 2) editors come and editors go, but the 'pedia endures. The Community (and now the Foundation) over the years has done things I found vexing or perplexing. I flounced once many years ago and no one even noticed. More recently, I returned from a lengthy hiatus. (just when you think you're free, they pull you back in.) The 'pedia still spun in its celestial course and the sun still shone upon it. The essay is quite true and apt. I do need Wikipedia more than it needs me. And I remind myself of this when I think about gilting myself into not taking (all that glisters is not gold) some time for myself and real life concerns. Dlohcierekim (talk) 17:25, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
 * PS. ANd, to be obvious about it, I wholly disagree with the deletion rationales and subsequent counters to the "keeps". Dlohcierekim (talk) 17:28, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep. Clearly an essay to which many have now contributed; also an interesting view that should be given a voice (e.g. Wikipedia is not censored), and which could be developed on; wrongly or rightly, many departing WP editors have left parting comments which echo the message of this article. Britishfinance (talk) 19:57, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment – Given the presence of Tinc, Humorous essay should also have been applied so as to avoid all this hubbub. Looking at some of the editors who have defended this essay, people who have steered Wikipedia in the direction of existing to serve Wikipedia instead of serving readers, telling newbies that they aren't shit if they don't spend their lives absorbed with the intricacies of Wikipedia, and in some cases being such an incestuous little clique that it runs afoul of WP:NOTSOCIALMEDIA, it calls into question whether there was any humorous intent behind this.  I read one of those reliably sourced-type articles not too long ago which stated that our admin corps largely migrated here from Usenet.  The last time I heard anything about Usenet, someone was praising the ability to transmit copyvios and porn "discreetly" through ASCII encoding, which to me sounds like a pretty far cry from the Usenet I was a part of from 1990 to 1995.  I've frequently expressed, including to those involved in this very discussion, that my first experience with online communities came via BITNET and CompuServe.  Where are they today?  Wouldn't it constitute a WP:CRYSTAL violation or simply be a bit arrogant to imply that Wikipedia will be a living, breathing entity forever? RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions  00:22, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep. Valid project space expression by Wikipedians.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:40, 27 June 2019 (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.