Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Azer Red/ED discussion page

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 Speedy Delete as Attack Userspace is not a place to collect evidence for lawsuits, barring that it is not a space for hosting non-Wikipedia related content. Encyclpedia Dramatica userspace is strongly discouraged in the most way. No foul to the creator, good faith is assumed. Teke^(talk) 07:30, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

For posterity, this is what I posted on AN/I today. A bit more descriptive reason:

Hey folks. I deleted the page last night speedily after much consideration as an attack page. It's purpose was to collect information to disparage its subjects. The subjects may be reaping what they've sewn, but two wrongs don't make a right and we don't need that kind of counter-attack on Wikipedia. Encyclopedia Dramatica is all about the "lulz of drama." Pages like this only feed the trolls the drama they want and belong off-wiki, especially if any talk of legal action is involved. There is really no need to mention ED on here anymore, even if you're upset that they're talking about you or other users in their uncyclopedic fashion. Don't slow down to gawk at the car wreck. Happy editing to all. Teke(talk) 18:13, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[1]

[edit] User:Azer Red/ED discussion page

violates userpage policy as advcoating action aganst group. arbcom request abotu mongo suggests avoidng discussing ed anyway and hostting tihs page on wikipedia gives teh impresssion of wikipedia advocating tihs sort of action. delete tihs and tell user to cooordinate offwiki. Cunderpants 20:20, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. Has nothing to do with Wikipedia. --- RockMFR 20:27, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
• CommentSpeedy delete I am not disagreeing with this but the nominator is clearly a WP:SPA. Check his edit history. MartinDK 20:32, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Whether or not the nominator is a SPA, the page still should be deleted. This has absolutely nothing to do with building an encyclopedia. --- RockMFR 20:40, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment The purpose is to explore the options we may have for protecting the privacy and right not to be defamed of our fellow editors. It is a discussion about a practical problem related to building the encyclopedia. MartinDK 20:52, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
      • The discussion does not belong on any Wikimedia website. If users of a Wikimedia website are having problems with actions occurring at non-Wikimedia websites, the best thing they could do is to hire a lawyer. --- RockMFR 21:49, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Mfd nom is suspicious and the comments are in userspace and are mostly about what can or cannot be done about another website that is attacking Wikipedia editors. It doesn't suggest that Wikipedia or the foundation itself is going to sue the ED website. It's no different than if I created a user subpage that asked who on Wikipedia has a beef with the ED website. Sorry, I can't see a reason to delete this.--MONGO 20:34, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
• Strong delete. Wikipedia is not a forum to wage counter attacks against other websites. Not to mention, the way they are handling it is completely flawed. The site that they are trying to shut down thrives on the dramatic reactions of other people in response to the content on their webpage. Not only is it wrong to use Wikipedia as a place to plan out an attack against them but actually trying to plot anything against them is just giving them the attention that they want. In short, they should just ignore them and then things wouldn't escalate to where they are now. The page in question should be deleted before this turns into an all out internet war causing needless drama resulting in nothing but everyone simply embarrassing themselves any further by providing ED additional content for their website through the drama. --machriderx 20:46, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. This site does coordinate actions against other groups as necessary. See Wikipedia:Abuse reports for an example on how we try to stop vandals who won't quit. Since the issue being discussed here is much more important (a site that is trying to ruin the lives of notable Wikipedians, and probably has opened the spam flood gates to some of them by publishing their email addresses), we need to keep this page. Jesse Viviano 21:33, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Comment - the page doesn't discuss abuse reports of vandalism, edits to Wikipedia or account creation on Wikipedia. It's entirely about another site. It would be foolish indeed for Wikipedia to distract itself with off-wiki crusades, as you seem to suggest the abuse reports page is intended for. Milto LOL pia 21:41, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

• Delete, exporting page history onto another wiki if necessary - been following this for days and was going to nom this myself. Wikipedia is not a support group, nor a front for legal action. The page is nothing but troll-feeding (bad idea) and a drama bomb anyway. Who cares about Cunderpants, ban him as an SPA if that's the procedure, what's important on this MfD is whether the page is worth anything or not. Set up an offsite forum or editthis.info wiki for this sort of support group, this page has nothing to do with the encyclopedia. Milto LOL pia 21:41, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

  In a completely unpredictable turn of events, the userpage has turned into a flame war. Milto LOL pia 05:03, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

  I am being called an idiot and a twat. I am being told to stay away and that I will come running to my mum once the troll community finds out what was being said on that page. Who is flaming who? We were having a discussion until ED turned up out of no where. But I'll keep this in mind. Don't mention ED even when several editors here have a clear conflict of interest including the person posting "warnings" on my talk page. Just pretend like everything is fine and sweep the problems under the carpet. That will make them go away. MartinDK 05:37, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

  I wasn't warning you. I was pointing out gross incivility on your part-DESU 06:20, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

• Delete Completely irreleveant to the encyclopedic mission of Wikipedia, also WP:DENY. —MichaelLinnear 23:12, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. The page is being used as a forum, with a subject only marginally related to Wikipedia, and it gets too close to something we do not want around here. Please take that discussion elsewhere. And there's nothing wrong about the nominator, nor with the nomination (that account was not created solely for dealing with the page in question, which did not even exist when the account was created); there's no need to call for him being blocked or even for his opinion to be discounted. --cesarb 23:28, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

  Looking closer, the user almost admits it's an alternate account, created explicitly to avoid retaliation in a matter related to the exact group in question. Since there's no way to know if the user also commented here with his real account, I can see why his opinion might have to be discounted. --cesarb 23:37, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

• Well, I'm against having Wikipedia play any role in organizing an "attack page" against anybody else, and that doesn't change even if that other entity is itself engaging in attacks; we shouldn't sink to their level. On the other hand, I'm not big on exerting WP authority to suppress a page in userspace. But ultimately, since the content of that page involves legal threats, the decision ought to be placed in the hands of Jimbo, the Wikimedia board, and their legal counsel, since they're the ones who would possibly get dragged into it if actual legal action happened. *Dan T.* 01:02, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
• Very Strong Keep for the sake of users whose lives are made whatever degree worse by the site. —  $PЯINGrαgђ  P.S. The nominator has only nine edits. 03:22, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, despite the nominator being a SPA. Would we allow a page attacking Uncyclopedia as an evil website? I doubt it. Should ED be treated differently because they troll us more? No. -Amark moo! 03:58, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete No legal threats, and make no mistake that is what this is. SchmuckyTheCat 04:21, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

• I've tagged this for speedy deletion, as WP:LEGAL is non-negotiable. --- RockMFR 04:42, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

• Keep but rewrite. Also ban the nom. Page should stay but just be a link to somewhere offsite (like an offsite forum or offsite wiki). Also nom is a sock of an ED troll See contribs and nom should be banned. SakotGrimshine 05:41, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Um... that's not keeping it. Replacing with a solitary link is not just doing a rewrite. Besides, then the solitary link would be MfDed as pointless, and there would be nothing to rewrite. -Amark moo! 05:43, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
    • No, the point is that people should be able to communicate on Wikipedia about how to protect each other from ED, but the whole trying to shut the site down needs to be done offsite. SakotGrimshine 06:59, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. This shouldn't be here, as it has nothing to do with Wikipedia or the Wikimedia Foundation. It's quite close to being a legal threat, and even if it is not, it is a discussion forum, which Wikipedia is not. --Coredesat 05:50, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Fine, delete it then. Once ED turned up nothing good came out of it anyway. But Wikipedia shouldn't prohibit people from informing others about the very serious off-site harrasment that will follow from editing here. MartinDK 05:56, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Not a legal threat and user space is good focal point for collecting all information. --Tbeatty 06:48, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
• Strong delete There is, I think, a serious misunderstanding of WP:LEGAL here; such policy means only to go those threats toward the Foundation or other editors, which threats are disfavored in view of their tendency to impair collaboriatve editing (neither, it should be observed, does the existence of this page, at least to my mind and pace Dan T., open the Foundation to any legal claims or insinuate the Foundation into any prospective litigation). Irrespective of that, though, this page surely contraves WP:USER and WP:NOT, to-wit, that Wikipedia is not a web host, and, per Coredesat, serves no encyclopedic purpose. In view of Azer Red's having brought the question of the propriety of this page to AN/I, I was disinclined to MfD this straightaway—I imagined that he'd copy the text off-site and {{db-user}} it—but now that it is at MfD it plainly needs to go. Joe 06:57, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

• WP:LEGAL still applies as the owners of that website are users on Wikipedia (I believe a recent Arbcom decision confirmed this). --- RockMFR 07:01, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Since aside from a few editors here that I am aware of, those "owners" must edit using different usernames and have not identified themselves. At least one admin here is a regular contributor to that website, but not sure if he is an admin there and frankly don't care.--MONGO 07:26, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

• (after edit conflict with MONGO) Well, I'm not certain that I'd agree with your interpretation even were the "owners" of ED also (openly) editors of Wikipedia, but I don't see any factual basis on which you might rest the idea that the owners of that website are users on Wikipedia. To be sure, some who edit Wikipedia also edit (sometimes qua sysop) ED, but I don't know that there's any on-Wiki activity on which one could base your supposition; have I overlooked something in the MONGO RfAr (to which I imagine you to be referring)? Joe 07:29, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

• Comment In so far that ED exists to intimidate and harass Wikipedia editors and admins, the Encyclopedia's interest is served by countering that intimidation and harassment. The arbcom decision is clear that links to attack sites can be removed precisely because of the harassment and intimidation. This page serves the encyclopedia by working to provide relief to editors and admins that are subject to ED abuse. Some choose to ignore ED and this might be the correct course of action. Others believe that a unifying approach is best. Regardless, efforts to provide relief to editros and admins of Wikipeida should be supported. If Azer red believes that his page does this, then WP should support it. --Tbeatty 07:11, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

• Guess - Arbcom wanted links to be removed so ED would get less attention. Milto LOL pia 07:13, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
• There is, of course, a distinction between our not contributing to harassment and intimidation (by, for instance, our linking to pages on a putative attack site) and our undertaking actively to prevent such harassment and intimidation. Most significantly, though, I'd wonder whether ED has really disrupted the project more than cursorily. I readily recognize that some editors, irked by their being attacked as a result, at least at the outset, of their editing Wikipedia, have been contributed less frequently or have left the project altogether, and I certainly understand such election, but I would suggest that the losses to and disruption of the project have been de minimis and that our having discussions such as this has served to consume the time and energy of more editors than ED has cost the project; it is not, in any event, for us to be particularly concerned about the loss of a handful of contributors or the general discouragement of current or prospective editors from participating (I mean not to sound discourteous; I simply don't think the project to be affected by the loss of but a handful of editors, irrespective of who those editors might be). Joe 07:29, 31 January 2007 (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.