Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 21:50, 25 June 2011

Misplaced Pages:Wikibombing

Misplaced Pages:Wikibombing (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

This essay should be deleted for a number of reasons.

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.

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)

• 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. Misplaced Pages talk:Wikibombing#Craziness).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 Misplaced Pages 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)
• Delete I agree it looks like an attack page directed to a specific individual. Not a real essayMoxy (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 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. Misplaced Pages 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 The abuse of Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages. 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages'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. --JN466 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 Misplaced Pages 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. rʨanaɢ (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)