The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellany 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 debate was merge to various other pages. --bainer (talk) 12:19, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:List of media personalities who have vandalised Wikipedia[edit]

This seems like a pointless category to me. First of all, I think that a lot of this is probably OR (Stephen Colbert for instance was never proven to have vandalized Wikipedia). Also how notable is it that a celeb or anybody for that matter has trolled a particular website. Why don't we have a "List of media personalities who have worn polka-dot ties" category while we're at it?--Azer Red Si? 23:07, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

---

Attention: Ta bu shi da yu left messages on all the talk pages for people who opposed the deletion of this article in the previous afd, which can be found at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of media personalities who have vandalised Wikipedia. This AFD could be taken to be an attempt to bypass already made consensus to keep and move. The below message by "Nearly Headless Nick" (which, incidently, is not his actual username, which is actually User:Sir Nicholas de Mimsy-Porpington) could be taken in bad faith, as it was a perfectly valid response to this. Ta bu shi da yu 17:58, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You were soliciting only keep votes, buddy. And I think I will keep my malicious signature. Maybe they'll make me criminally liable in Aus. >:D — Nearly Headless Nick 11:07, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are getting quite uncivil. I find it offensive you would imply that I would make you criminally liable. I find your signature confusing, and have politely asked you to change it. I haven't demanded anything, though I did point out the -Ril- decision. Before you get upset about this, I do note that you are quite free to link to the WoW vandalism AFD to try to prove your point, and show precedent. - Ta bu shi da yu 11:11, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WTF? You have rolled back messages on talk pages?!? - Ta bu shi da yu 11:14, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, I am not been uncivil. You have been twisting my words. Yes, I have rollbacked your edits. Take it to WP:ANI, if you don't agree. — Nearly Headless Nick 11:16, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No. 1, this is an MfD, not an AfD. No. 2, you took Wikipedia:Deny recognition to MfD, which verges on WP:POINT. No. 3, you have reverted my edits and continued canvassing. I am going to take this to WP:ANI. Regards, — Nearly Headless Nick 11:20, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are also not respecting WP:ASSUME. I tool Wikipedia:Deny recognition to MfD, because a. I don't feel that it is appropriate, and it is divisive, and b. it would be better to be on meta, which is what I said. You have been uncivil, incidently. I have rolled back your rollbacks, take that to WP:ANI, or to the ArbCom if you like, if you don't like it. I'm happy to be found accountable, and to have my day in court. I have not been twisting your words. - Ta bu shi da yu 11:35, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On-going discussion: WP:ANI#Admin rollback war btwn two admins regarding controversial MFD. — Nearly Headless Nick 11:33, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

---

Attention: Ta bu left unsolicited messages on the talk pages of various users, the details of which are available here : [1]. — Nearly Headless Nick 16:00, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

---

Please note: this was already discussed on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of media personalities who have vandalised Wikipedia. The deletion discussion ended with a recommendation that it be kept but be moved to the Wikipedia namespace. This was done, but now we appear to have a second AFD about essentially the same thing. - Ta bu shi da yu 10:34, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A further note: to all those who have been using WP:DENY as a valid argument, you can stop now as the proposed policy has now been rejected. Thanks. - Ta bu shi da yu 11:29, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you think we bother with essays at all? People quoting WP:DENY are using it for short hand rather than spelling out all the detail of their thinking. Can you point me to the policy for deletion of items in the project namespace, complete with the list of the things which mean stuff can be deleted? This is a discussion and peoples view on if WP:DENY is a reasonable view point in any given discussion is every bit as valid as those who differ. Can I go through the comments below and add a large banner discounting the comments of those who don't have a page marked policy which matches their reason for keeping? --pgk 13:07, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, but what it shows is that people like to quote "policy" and "guidelines" to back up their argument. However, very few people want that as a policy! So, stop quoting what looks like policy when it isn't, and in fact has never been. It just looks incredibly stupid and pointless. I should also point out, that for every policy that has been created, I'm sure that I could find a guideline or policy that contradicts it. My suggestion: explain what you mean, don't use some ridiculous shortcut to a policy that died a short, sharp death. If you can't be bothered explaining your reasoning, stop being so lazy! - Ta bu shi da yu 13:22, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can you answer why we have essays? What purpose do they serve if not for people to refer to instead of expanding the full thing out everytime we have a debate. As best I'm aware no one put you in charge of discounting peoples comments just because you don't like essays or the way people refer to them. Referencing WP:DENY in a delete vote has the same grounding in "policy" as "does no harm" or "I like it" keep votes. --pgk 13:30, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's a very good question, actually. Why do we have essays? I don't know. I don't support them, as this is why meta was formed. They can be good, but can also be divisive and against the spirit of NPOV and community consensus. - Ta bu shi da yu 10:44, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

---

• Believe it or not, that latter suggestion is remarkably close to an article currently on AfD. Delete, BTW. Grutness...wha? 23:47, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Looking again, I realise that my original "delete" comment was what comes of reading several deletion pages at the same time, and was based on thinking this was an AfD not a MfD. There;'s noting wrong with this in Wikispace - it just shouldn be in article space. As such, changing comments to keep. Grutness...wha? 00:40, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, entirely pointless, but noting that WP:OR doesn't apply out of articlespace. -Amarkov

Actually, it's not entirely pointless. It a. shows that the popular media are not above vandalism, and b. shows some excellent examples of vandalism that is done to Wikipedia by "respectable" people. A great shame file, at the very least. - Ta bu shi da yu 10:18, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I originally thought that this was within the category namespace.--Azer Red Si? 04:01, 20 January 2007 (UTC)^blah_edits 00:11, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:DENY -Doc^g 00:26, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: WP:DENY is not a policy, from the header on the page right now:

The following is a proposed Wikipedia policy, guideline, or process. The proposal may still be in development, under discussion, or in the process of gathering consensus for adoption. References or links to this page should not describe it as "policy".

Using a proposed policy as the sole basis for deletion does not seem to be a particuarly strong argument. I hate vandalism as much as anyone else, but that doesn't make it necessary to pretend it doesn't exist. --Matthew 06:40, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, let me write it longhand. Delete this glorifies vandalism, and suggests that it can be notable. It goes against the spirit of Revert block ignore, it may encourage copycats WP:BEANS etc. For a full rationale of where I'm coming from see WP:DENY which sums up the problem with this and my prefered solution.--Doc^g 11:55, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hardly, and WP:DENY is not only not policy, but it is routinely ignored by the Wikipedia Signpost, who always note when the media vandalises Wikipedia. I find the whole "guideline" ridiculous, with no evidence of consensus that it was agreed to by a majority of Wikipedians. I particularly dislike the fact that you are bandying it about as a policy when it is only at its proposal stage. - Ta bu shi da yu 10:18, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Before you accuse me of 'bandying' something about as policy, please read what I said. I have never once suggested that it is policy - and I don't really much care whether it is or isn't. I never raised the issue of its status. Personally, I find the arguments therein contained utterly convincing. I believe them to be common sense. Perhaps some/most/all others disagree, I don't know or care. I am convinced by the arguments, so on the basis of those arguments, I am urging that this thing should be deleted. By citing WP:DENY I'm referring people to the argument made there - and inviting them to consider it for themselves. People can agree with me, or not. Perhaps people will want it deleted for other reasons entirely. Or perhaps they'll even have good reasons why this is useful and should be kept. I'm not actually too bothered what status DENY has anyway. Guidelines don't compel us to go one way or the other. Policy is as we do. I'm urging us to do something - to delete this. So, make your substantive case, and let's decide what to do. I urge delete for reason of the logic of WP:DENY.--Doc^g 19:52, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have made my substantive case already. As an aside, if a whole lot of people disagree with the policy, then it's not really commonsense. What I find clear is that the WP:DENY policy is illogical, and has been found as such by the Wikipedia community. Therefore, I don't find your arguments compelling. --Ta bu shi da yu 22:13, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are entitled not to be persuaded by my arguments. You are not entitled to misrepresent them. I don't know whether I'd find your case for the usefulness of this list compelling or not, since I've never seen it. But the 'cases' that have 'been' made in this current debate are thoroughly unpersuasive.--Doc^g 22:57, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So we are at an impasse then. You find my arguments thoroughly unpersuasive, and I find your own unpersuasive also. You say that I haven't give you satisfactory reasoning, while I also say that you haven't given myself satisfactory reasoning. Such is the state of play in the state of Wikipedia. - Ta bu shi da yu 10:43, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete--Naohiro19(Talk Page/Contributions) 00:31, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - WP:DENY, no good reason to encourage more media personalities to vandalize and troll WP. Moreschi ^Deletion! 10:38, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. WP:DENY, unnecessary listcruft, and seems rather like original research since most can't possibly be verified. Michaelas10 (Talk) 15:09, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. There's not much reason to WP:DENY, as already-famous media personalities are very unlikely to want to gain the modicum of publicity from being on some low-traffic page on Wikipedia. As it's in the Wikipedia namespace it unlikely to be read by a casual editor (or a media personality). As Wikipedia gets mentioned more in the media, it's increasingly important to keep a record of the situations where the comments have been unhelpful so as to keep tabs on Wikipedia's realtionship with the media. This helps the community improve its public relations. LukeSurl 23:08, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Um... why does it improve public relations to have a list of vandals, using real names? -Amarkov ^blah_edits 23:12, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • My logic is that in making decisions which will end up involving the media, it helps to have pages like this to see how this relationship has progressed over time. LukeSurl 11:07, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - interesting information; unlikely some celebrity will come along and say "oh, I get to vandalize Wikipedia and be on that list!" It's interesting; it should stay. Patstuart^talk|edits 06:12, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - denying that something has occured does not change the fact that it has. WP:DENY is meant prevent "joe vandal" from aspiring to be the next Willy on Wheels, media personalities are not vandalizing to seek fame, they're simply curious. This page's existance therefore does not encourage further vandalism, it merely documents events that have occured. It is notable because it documents the actions of notable people and orgaizations. --Matthew 06:35, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

NO. Any way you put it, this celebrates vandalism and indicates that we find it notable. Indeed it gives celebrity endorsement. It glorifies it and encourages copycats if nothing else. Our policy is to deny all publicity to vandalism, to treat it as not-notable and irrelevant. Revert, block, ignore. So now we delete this and ignore it. No trophy cabinets for vandalism, no publicity, no commentary.--Doc^g 11:50, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It hardly "celebrates" vandalism. I totally disagree with your central argument, and say that we should keep it as it shows a significant trend in how the mainstream media reacts to us. - Ta bu shi da yu 10:28, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• zOMG! DELETE! KILL! BURY IT!, read WP:DENY, WP:BEANS and Don't feed the celebrity trolls! — Nearly Headless Nick 11:59, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• But, I kinda like this list. :< Hang on there, sweetie. — Nearly Headless Nick 12:03, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • That argument doesn't apply here, because it's not in the mainspace, and you should know that. Unless we want to get rid of any articles that isn't actually serious on here. Patstuart^talk|edits 22:46, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• • It does apply here, familiarise yourself with policies and guidelines; and read about the deletion of the Willy on Wheels long term abuse page. Chao. — Nearly Headless Nick 09:26, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think it doesn't. I don't think that this page is any different than WP:LAME, which has survived multiple deletion attempts. It has WP:DENY issues as well. Anyway, perhaps you're right; but part of the problem, is that a lot in the Wikipedia space is there just for reference, just like this page. Patstuart^talk|edits 23:31, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Agreed. The WoW's page was different, in that it was to reduce the exposure of one persistent vandal, while this is about a more significant trend in normally respectable journalists vandalising the site. - Ta bu shi da yu 10:28, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Agree or not, there are those who do not find this acceptable on Wikipedia. I have cited more than WP:DENY. This list is not helping us in making this project better in anyway. Remove it, userfy it, isolate/segregate it's contents and call it the Nearly Headless Solution *smirk*. We are here to make an encyclopedia. Also, please comment elsewhere, as I am using common sense^TM 2.0 software, free-copies available at local-libraries. (I support the spirit in which WP:DENY was compiled, rejected by the community or not). — Nearly Headless Nick 12:04, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Well, there you have it then. I don't beleive that it is common sense that ignoring vandalism is the most reasonable way to go about stopping it, and I don't think that it's common sense to say that we shouldn't write about a significant part of society participating in this vandalism. Perhaps a quick look at a similar concept, security through obscurity highlights what I am trying to say: sticking your head in the sand doesn't stop people from being malicious. As for implying I'm not here to create an encyclopedia, please, don't be so silly. You know that isn't the case, and I have proven this time and time again. - Ta bu shi da yu 13:30, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Do you know what kind of vandalism we are dealing with those people concerned with this list? Its the zOMG! Elephant penis!, zOMG! I LOVE CHEESE! and zOMG! I LOVE BRITNEY kind of vandalism. Again *sigh* Pure essence of revert, block ignore. On an absolutely unrelated note, I never said you are not here for helping this encyclopedia, after all the clean-up you did for me at IRFA; what I meant was by helping such hogwash exist, we are sidlining the reasons why we are here. Cheers! — Nearly Headless Nick 13:38, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And there you have it - they are much more than just the random obvious vandalism. They are often concerted efforts to deliberately mislead in non-obvious ways, if you would read the article itself. See, for instance, [2].

Alexander M.C. Halavais, an assistant professor of communications at Quinnipiac University, has spent hours and hours wading through Wikipedia, which has become the Internet's hottest information source. Like thousands of his colleagues, he has turned to the open-source encyclopedia for timely information and trivia; unlike most of his peers, he has, from time to time, contributed his own expertise to the site.

But to Wikipedia's legions of ardent amateur editors, Mr. Halavais may be best remembered as a troll.

Two years ago, when he was teaching at the State University of New York at Buffalo, the professor hatched a plan designed to undermine the site's veracity — which, at that time, had gone largely unchallenged by scholars. Adopting the pseudonym "Dr. al-Halawi" and billing himself as a "visiting lecturer in law, Jesus College, Oxford University," Mr. Halavais snuck onto Wikipedia and slipped 13 errors into its various articles. He knew that no one would check his persona's credentials: Anyone can add material to the encyclopedia's entries without having to show any proof of expertise.

Some of the errata he inserted — like a claim that Frederick Douglass, the abolitionist, had made Syracuse, N.Y., his home for four years — seemed entirely credible. Some — like an Oscar for film editing that Mr. Halavais awarded to The Rescuers Down Under, an animated Disney film — were more obviously false, and easier to fact-check. And others were downright odd: In an obscure article on a short-lived political party in New Brunswick, Canada, the professor wrote of a politician felled by "a very public scandal relating to an official Party event at which cocaine and prostitutes were made available."

Therefore, this is not your standard zOMG! I LOVE CHEESE! vandalism, as it was actually quite hard to detect. Your central argument is wrong. As for outrage at my pointing out that people keep on pointing to WP:DENY as policy, you yourself have told at least one person to "familiarise yourself with policies and guidelines". However, you then seem to point to WP:DENY as a policy/guideline, and WP:ILIKEIT as a guideline to, as I see it, try to make people not vote for support because then they would appear to be not following policy! I find that tactic to be one of intimidation, and not entirely civil. I should also note that the WoW deletion is not policy, but a one off decision by the Wikipedia community that responded to a particular threat. As for saying that the list is hogwash, I must disagree, as I find it more than useful. I may look like I've lost it in my arguments, I know this, but really my opponents on this issue are using some fairly horrible tactics and are doing their best to muddy the waters of debate.

A further response to Doc Glasgow, incidently. He says "Our policy is to deny all publicity to vandalism, to treat it as not-notable and irrelevant", and then quotes Wikipedia:Revert, block, ignore. However, that's an essay. Neither myself, nor did any other community member ever make it policy. I would challenge Doc to show me the stated policy where we do this? - Ta bu shi da yu 10:25, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Agreed, your software needs to go opensource, because I was using my own version built by another tech company, and mine said to keep the list. Please, by all means, post the code, so I can download it, because at the moment, I'm just not seeing the common sense in it. Maybe we just disagree. Patstuart^talk|edits 10:32, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete At best it seems wholly irrelevant to building an encyclopedia, I can't see any argument to suggest that it is even in some way vaguely useful/helpful for anything (Except perhaps a horrible self reference "look how great we are, even the z-listers vandalise us"). At worst it "validates" vandalism as a "celebrity" activity, and may encourage others (not other celebrities, other poor weak minded individuals who try and emulate celebrities) to do likewise hence the WP:DENY arguments above. Combine the irrelevance and the potential of encouragement (no matter how slight that may be) and it seems an obvious delete. --pgk 16:54, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:ASR, by necessity, does not apply to the Wikipedia namespace. If it does, then you really aught to stay away from misc from deletion, as this is about as self-referential as you can get. And I should note that you believing that the page "validates" vandalism is wrong: it does not, and in fact if anything should shame the journalists who do it. It proves that the mainstream media can as bad as the general public, and are not as holy as they would like to make out. - Ta bu shi da yu 10:28, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'd agree that for the majority of project space pages WP:ASR is essentially moot, however we don't live in a black and white world, we look at things in context, is this page a real project page in the sense of contributing to the project? Or is it merely a self reference. Your claim that this should shame journalists seems to fail your own comments further down where you say more are vandalising. But my reasoning is concerning those who try and emulate those who they perceive as important (celebrities), you don't seem to address that. --pgk 13:13, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete As stated above, completely pointless and also WP:DENY. Oh yes, those of you who say to keep it just because it's interesting, please read WP:ILIKEIT. --♥Tohru Honda13♥^Talk 01:44, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Perhaps you should also read WP:ILIKEIT, but in particular read WP:ILIKEIT#I don't like it. You may believe that it's cruft, but then many others think that it isn't. It also isn't in the main namespace, which is solely what the section WP:ILIKEIT#I like it refers to. In fact, if you read that section fairly carefully, you'll note that it refers to things like unnotable bands, and makes a big deal about original research, which is not the case with this article. I'd also like to point out that you seem to be referring to WP:DENY, a particularly ridiculous proposed policy, as established policy, when it is anything but. - Ta bu shi da yu 10:28, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. A valuable and well-researched piece of Wiki-humor, no less useful than anything else in Category:Wikipedia_humor. Perhaps it can be flagged with the Template:humor warning so people won't take it too seriously.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back 16:31, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete No need to feed the trolls, celebrity or otherwise. CharonX/talk 17:54, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep!!!! what the heck is this? wikihumour (or at least, it would be if it wasn't so serious), and it survived an afd before - see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of media personalities who have vandalised Wikipedia. - Ta bu shi da yu 22:47, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, notability is not an issue in the Wikipedia namespace and it is an interesting list to read. Who will document media personalities vandalising Wikipedia if we don't? Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 23:24, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:ILIKEIT and WP:DENY. This list may be interesting, but it will serve to give fans of these celebs incentive to vandalize Wikipedia.--Azer Red Si? 23:32, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, perhaps you should read WP:ILIKEIT and WP:DENY? WP:DENY is a (IMO fairly weak) policy proposal, and WP:ILIKEIT doesn't say what you think it says. - Ta bu shi da yu 11:09, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, very relevant to Wikipedia in popular culture.~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 23:37, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and give it a rest per the prior discussion. (And don't quote "consensus can change", either; this isn't grounds to disruptively keep rehashing the same old claims until the "correct" result is achieved. I also strongly dislike seeing argumentative and Scripture-quoting replies to Keep opinions. I am close to starting a request for comment about this intimidating, uncivil, and increasing tendency.) This is a project page, not an encyclopedia article. It contains useful information that editors ought to be aware of. - Smerdis of Tlön 23:44, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I gather there's something to this nomination, since it's an obvious pass of WP:V and WP:RS - well sourced, encyclopaedic, passes WP:N. I se a few references for WP:DENY here, which is merely a proposed guideline. Is this a trial run of it to get it promoted or some shit? WilyD 23:46, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Who cares? Clay4president2 23:52, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: As suggested above I had another look at WP:BEANS, which warns that we could be giving people ideas for mischief that otherwise they may not have had. Perhaps this page, a public record of silly edits by famous people, has a valuable, deterrent effect.--Moonraker88 23:55, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Absoluntly useless. Stop maintaining these lists and get back to writing articles. May I note, however, that No Original research doesn't apply to the project namespace. ★MESSEDROCKER★ 23:57, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, for all the reasons listed on the previous AfD. How many times does a list have to go through the AfD process. Since a consensus has already spoken, why can't that be honored? Akradecki 00:03, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Consensus can change. --Wafulz 00:54, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, Per WP:DENY ::mikmt 00:16, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please don't quote proposed policy to us as if it was existing policy, or even as if it is particularly sensible. - Ta bu shi da yu 10:32, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, completely unnecessary, no reason for existence. WP:NOT a place for people to have useless lists that they think are funny. --Rory096 00:17, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, actually, it is necessary. It shows a significant trend in the media to vandalise Wikipedia, so therefore it is not a useful list and does not satisfy WP:NOT. As for humour, who said it was meant to be funny? I don't find it funny, and I created the article. - Ta bu shi da yu 10:32, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• OHO! We have conflict of interest here. </joke> — Nearly Headless Nick 12:46, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. It's interesting, but I'd rather not see people jockey to get themselves on this list. --Wafulz 00:54, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia in the media
Wikipedia as a topic
In the press (focusing on: health information) Academic studies (lists: general, education, health information) In blogs In books (bibliography) In cartoons In press releases In webcomics In comics In poems In video games On TV and radio Heaps of praise
Wikipedia as a source
In academic studies In books In conference In court cases In judicial opinions In the press In webcomics On TV and radio Elsewhere
v t e

• Merge into other "Wikipedia in the news" records. This is actually a well-referenced article on examples of Wikipedia being mentioned in the news. All the entries here could be merged into one or other of the articles in the template I've added, or this article added to that template. It is hard enough to keep track of Wikipedia being used and mentioned in the press and other media. Let's not throw away the work done here. Please look at the material in the articles in that template, and compare it to the material being considered for deletion here. Decentralise the items in the article and put all the news references in the right articles. Good information here, but collected under the wrong title. I would also argue that my comment here counts as new evidence, so previous votes may need to be recast, or the MfD relisted. Carcharoth 01:02, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why? The problem is with the content, not where the content is. -Amark moo! 01:10, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • The problem is with how the information is being presented. I would like every person voting delete to show that they personally are willing to take the 15 or so references and make sure they are included in those "Wikipedia in the news" items over in that box. The one over there ----> And if not, why not. Carcharoth 02:11, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, move elsewhere per Carcharoth. The collection is good for lots of bad will and bad press, with not much redeeming value, in my opinion. (For another, the list is never going to be complete; scores of non-notable journalists, bloggers, and other media types have done this, in addition to some bigger names.) I prefer not to encourage them to go on by giving them attention or to encourage us to make it into a big deal by obsessively maintaining the list. I like Carcharoth's suggestion of just merging into the lists of Wikipedia in the media. We shouldn't ignore it completely if we pay attention to WP mentions in the media, but putting the encouragements to vandalize in their own section is not productive. Kat Walsh (spill your mind?) 01:12, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per the previous AfD. --Myles Long 01:16, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per previous AFD that kept this article from being deleted. --DieHard2k5 01:20, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per previous afd. BabuBhatt 01:28, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per Carcharoth.-gadfium 02:23, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep (primary preference) or merge per Carcharoth (second choice). Media personalities may not be the best name for this, as it should only deal with already-famous individuals who do not need our fame and glory. I think this actually works oppositely to WP:DENY, as celebrities who do stupid things may find their Google indexes polluted with the facts of their actions. Deletion arguments are not persuasive to me. I voted merge in the original AFD, and like it just fine here. -- nae'blis 03:20, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as per the previous discussions, strongly disagree with the nominator who asserts that this is a "pointless" list. It is not. RFerreira 04:14, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - I've read the arguments from WP:DENY, and I sort of see their point, but it's too late to deny them recognition. They've already gotten recognition - in the more famous cases (Weird Al, Colbert, et al), millions of viewers' worth of recognition. Most of their copycats aren't vandalizing because they saw it on this page, they're doing it after they watched it on TV or read it on the blog. The difference between this, and, say, Willy on Wheels is that Willy was recognized for vandalism, whereas everyone on this list already has recognition for being a public figure (and people who aren't don't belong on it.) Crystallina 06:10, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per Carcharoth. The perceived problem mainly lies in the presentation of the material. If it was in the media section, almost no one would have a problem with it. While it may glorify vandalism to some extend. Besides, the list isn't pointless. It is useful information for administrators and vandal hunters to know which people vandalized Wikipedia before and how they did it. It prevents people having to do the basic research over and over again when dealing with new cases. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:18, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Could we keep the article but add it to the media box? - Ta bu shi da yu 11:07, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • How about, after it is raided for information to add to the existing, useful, articles in the media box, this not-useful-article is moved to your userspace, and you can periodically try and get it put back into Wikipedia space? In its current form, there are too many problems with it, as this MfD shows. In userspace, it would be safe. Carcharoth 12:52, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I oppose what you say. The article should be kept, and if you want add it info into other articles. However, I oppose it's deletion, as per my comment on the previous AFD, which I should note was completely ignored when this new one was created. - Ta bu shi da yu 13:26, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per the previous AfD Brian | (Talk) 09:19, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as before. Much better when moved to Wikipedia:. In my opinion, WP:DENY only applies to worthless trolls no one really cares about (and to the contrary); however, if a public figure does that, the situation is significantly different. If there's dubious content, it can always be discussed of. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 11:46, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Completely unhelpful page. Does nothing to advance the encyclopedic goals of the project. - Tragic Baboon (banana receptacle) 12:07, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why do you say that? We are highlighting the tendency for media personalities to vandalise Wikipedia and then write about it. At the very least this may shame them into stopping, or at least give them pause before they act so rashly. This Wikipedia page also shows how old media reacts to new media - it's quite interesting, and very instructive. - Ta bu shi da yu 12:17, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I say that because the goal of this encyclopedia is to provide free knowledge to the world, and this page is mere meta-navel-gazing. - Tragic Baboon (banana receptacle) 00:46, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • ... and yet, meta-topics are the whole point behind the Wikipedia namespace! Precisely the reason why this it was decided to keep and move this article to the Wikipedia namespace in the last AFD. I'm wondering why people can't accept that? Nothing has changed since then! - Ta bu shi da yu 11:52, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Pure essence of Revert, block, ignore. — Nearly Headless Nick 12:26, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Interesting, but the problem here is that it's not working. There are more journalists and media personalities vandalising Wikipedia than ever, and besides which, it's also a valuable and interesting look into how the Fourth Estate deals with newly emerging media. - Ta bu shi da yu 12:42, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Interesting, to quote your response to me above 'And I should note that you believing that the page "validates" vandalism is wrong: it does not, and in fact if anything should shame the journalists who do it..', yet here we are with this page existing, and you claim the problem is getting worse, I guess something isn't working, the page isn't "shaming" the journalists now is it? --pgk 13:10, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Well then, I'm glad that you agree that the Wikipedia article isn't causing any harm then. So exactly why did you want it deleted again? - Ta bu shi da yu 13:25, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• That's not what I've said at all. As to "isn't causing any harm", their are lots of things which cause no harm which are inappropriate for project space pages. --pgk 13:32, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• So it is causing harm then? How? As to projects that don't cause harm that are not appropriate, could you give me an example? - Ta bu shi da yu 11:49, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Mostly harmless. Rich Farmbrough, 13:07 22 January 2007 (GMT).
• Delete. A bad bad idea in so many ways it's hard to count. Let's see. It encourages vandalism. It's a hard to maintain list given how well known Wikipedia is nowadays. And what exactly is the purpose? I mean. Some lists are very useful. But lists of users who vandalize that serve no informational purpose are...well...pointless. Please kill it. --Woohookitty^Woohoo! 13:42, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I disagree with your last statement. If months/years from now, someone is wondering why a particular type of vandalism (elephant population, for example) keeps occurring in certain articles, having a place to point them is helpful. I don't see how it 'encourages' vandalism, since every entry should be sourced or well-documented to avoid libel. -- nae'blis 15:23, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep if it was just a list of random vandals like WoW and such i'd be pro deletion... but it isnt... We're talking media people with actual public influence behind them. Large public pushes to vandalise, or motivate their following to vandalize (ala Stephen Colbert) need to be recorded somewhere... this article does that.  ALKIVAR™ ☢ 17:36, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete What makes media personalities more important than regular vandals? Regular vandals could see this list and vandalize Wikipedia more and more to try and get on the list. --  Mikedk9109  (hit me up) ^SIGN 18:37, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment It's not that they're more important, but more notable, as defined by Wikipedia, especially when their activities are accompanied by media coverage. Akradecki 18:40, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Agree 100%. If it can't be seen why media representatives, who are meant to be responsible and not vandalise or cause trouble, are notable for vandalising Wikipedia, then I truly despair! - Ta bu shi da yu 10:03, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete There should be at least some reasonable purpose for stuff on here; this one has none. Not helpful to the project. GassyGuy 05:53, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • And yet... I have already stated some reasonable reasons why, if you would care to read up the AFD. The article is very helpful to the project! - Ta bu shi da yu 10:01, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - I don't know what the relevant policies are here since this isn't an article, but it's valuable as a glimpse of how the rest of the world views wikipedia and I can't think of any reason to delete it. --P4k 10:28, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Personally, I don't care one way or the other, but it appears there's some inappropriate canvassing going on that should be accounted for in the final decision. Grandmasterka 11:32, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Certainly, the closing admin should take that into account. However, none of the editors are sock puppets, and all quite rightly opposed deletion in the previous AFD. If the closing admin takes into account this fact, then they should also take into account the only recently closed AFD when they close this MFD. Sound fair? - Ta bu shi da yu 11:47, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as I do like it!  Glen  11:34, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, because nothing has changed since the last MfD and it's well-referenced. --tjstrf talk 11:40, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep. I usually don't like people telling me about XfDs, but if someone's going to hold another !vote when nothing (in my opinion) has changed since last time, I'll happily take part. I argued last time that the article had encyclopedic value, as many incidents have been notable. But ignoring the encyclopedic value, such a page is useful in tracking community attitudes towards wikipedia. We need to know if these celebrity vandals are only Z-listers, or successful A-list comedians, for example, as the latter would indicate that some of the wider community condones wikipedia vandalism. (That Colbert incites vandalism, and his term wikiality got mentioned in "person of the year" edition of Time, suggests the latter) Citing "deny recognition" is disingenuous, as these vandals aren't going to gain their recognition through this page. Andjam 12:03, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Um. Should be renamed something like Wikipedia:vandalism endorsed or encouraged in the media or some such (much of the vandalism was not by them) but it clearly has some interest and relevance, and it's in project space. Guy (Help!) 12:09, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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.