Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:The WikiCouch

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.

[edit] Wikipedia:The WikiCouch

This is a ridiculous idea, and likely to prove disruptive. Consider. User X is annoyed at having his painstaking edit reverted, and makes a snarky comment to User Y who reverted it. User Y suggests he go and sit on the 'WP:COUCH made of pure Wikilove'. User X tells User Y exactly where he can stick the #$%&ing couch. The situation escalates far beyond what it need have. Wikipedia already has firm procedures in place for handling problems with incivility, and there is no reason to supervene upon them with a twee, insipid contrivance such as this which is far more likely to spark hostility than a simple posting to WP:PAIN where the situation can be handled calmly, objectively and with no pretence at warmth and fuzziness. The Crying Orc 19:12, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

• Delete as a ridiculous idea. Glad to get in first on this one. —Doug Bell ^{talk•contrib} 19:19, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, wow, what a ridiculous, silly idea. If the media sees this we'll all just end up looking like fools, and lose even more respectability. "A couch made out of pure WikiLove" indeed. Fehhh. --Cyde Weys 19:20, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
  • I don't remember anywhere seeing that Wikipedia should delete anything that might make Wikipedia look bad. Actually, remember that Wikipedia is not censored. ~ PHDrillSergeant...§ 20:32, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
    • I suggest you read and understand what you just linked to, before making such ill thought-out statements. The essence of WP:NOT#CENSORED is "some articles may include objectionable text, images, or links if they are relevant to the content" (my emphasis). What does that have to do with the matter at hand at all? More importantly, what does having a reasoned discussion and arguing for deletion because of the potential for disrepute to the project have to do with censorship? Dmcdevit·t 21:42, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Cyde... Addhoc 19:25, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete AND SALT See, this is why I think Esperanza should be gotten rid of. Let's not even mention the fun parts where the guy creating it appearantly equates Esperanzans with admins. --Shrieking Harpy......^Talk|Count 19:26, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
  • No I don't. "the guy" (i.e., me) does not think Esperanzans are better than anyone. I just think that Esperanzans should be involved with things dealing with kindness and love. How am I putting th Esperanzans 'above'? ~ PHDrillSergeant...§ 21:29, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

  If there was ever an excuse for being uncivil, sir.... Nevermind. I refer to this, which you prudently changed, I see. But the original phrasing was "Esperanzans and admins". That, and the suggestion that this ... thing ... could somehow lead to users being blocked. Because an Esperanzan decides someone is being uncivil? I won't even go into the idea of people 'not being allowed to speak' or 'couch patrollers' ... if you cannot see that this actively hurts Wikipedia then you are, with all respect, not facing reality. I am trying very hard to keep civil about this but the more I read and think about this, and about the histronic attitude of some Esperanzans when something they do is opposed, the harder it is for me to assume good faith. --Elaragirl ||||||^Talk|Count 21:43, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

• Delete - No question that the author has the best of intentions, but for all the reasons cited above, it's just not a good idea. --Doc Tropics ^{Message in a bottle} 20:17, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
• KEEP per WP:ESSAYS:

"Essays about Wikipedia and related topics. These are not policy and are primarily opinion pieces." Essays do not violate the Wikipedia policies. I see nothing but assumptions of BAD FAITH on this page. But if you want to go ahead and crush something that might make Wikipedia better, please, go right ahead and do your thing. ~ PHDrillSergeant...§ 20:30, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

• Crush, crush,crush - this is only going to make Wikipedia far worse. The potential for abuse is enormous. The nominator is absolutely right, and it's hard to disagree with Cyde and Elaragirl. Delete. Burn with fire, lots and lots of fire. Moreschi 20:55, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Just a note...I find your "burn it with fire" comment just a tad bit rude, thanks. ~ PHDrillSergeant...§ 21:20, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
    • Once I'd got my head around 3 lines of bewildering sig...my apologies if you find that offensive, but IMO that is not a lot more than what it deserves. I'm sorry, but I was recently involved in a major dispute that went all the way to Arbitration and I find the idea that this could have helped me - or anyone else in their dispute, for that matter - bizarre. Moreschi 21:36, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete While this is an essay, the inclusion of material about trying to give other people some sort of time out (with some wording that seems pretty hostile for something that claims to be about "love") seems like some sort of attempt at policy. I'd be more inclined to forgive this if it stuck to something voluntary instead of bossing people around. --Milo H Minderbinder 21:11, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
  • "If you were sent here, YOU HAVE NOT BEEN BANNED (probably). In fact, you don't even have to remain here at all if you really don't want to. However, a user has requested that you take a break from all the action and chill out." How is that not voluntary? ~ PHDrillSergeant...§ 21:14, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Now. "Ugh" just about sums it up. Essay or otherwise, the whole concept is rediculous and makes Wikipedia look like a bunch of idiots – Gurch 21:48, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, a severely misguided attempt at policy, it's clearly not an essay, it's an attempt to insert a meat-punishment (naught-stool) into a non-meat situation. Ridiculous, bad, and actually the language for the "bad" side of the couch seems like a truly bad idea. Mak (talk) 21:55, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Too much ham fisted attempts to delete already. Just because something deserves to be deleted doesn't mean users should circumvent procedure several and repeatedly place speedy deletion tags on the page. There's too much favouritism on WP too, big chunks of useless fluff are left because a large enough group of supporters prevent any meaningful MfD/AfD, just look below at the Esperanza debate. Just my 2¢ anyway. Kind Regards - Heligoland | Talk | Contribs 22:05, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

I strongly object to the above comments by Heligoland, who has suggested both above and on my talk page that I have 'repeatedly placed speedy deletion tags' on the page. I did so once, but the request for a speedy delete was turned down, although the admin who did so pointed out that I could try this, so I did. I have not placed any more speedy delete tags on the article. I suggest, as I did on his talk page, that Heligoland go and sit on the dirty, smelly side of the couch until he can get his facts straight before perpetuating further misunderstandings. (See how well the idea works? I just got warned for civility [1] for telling him to go and sit on the couch! Mwahahahaha!)The Crying Orc 22:12, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Comment: I withdraw the damn article, {{db-author}} it, and sit on my own personal WikiCouch. ~ PHDrillSergeant...§ 22:09, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Okay, now I suggest that this deletion debate be carried over to User:PHDrillSergeant/WikiCouch, it's the same thing, just in a different place. It still doesn't belong on Wikipedia, and it still has potential for abuse ... just imagine someone telling someone else to go set on PHDrillSergeant's WikiCouch. --Cyde Weys 22:15, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Set up a separate MFD? Personally I still think it should go, even if it is in userspace...the potential of abuse, harm and sheer damage this could cause...Moreschi 22:33, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Concur a separate MfD would be appropriate. That said I'm going to vote delete again. Addhoc 22:38, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't think we should reward his attempt to save it by moving it elsewhere by restarting the process. The consensus establishing on here is pretty clear. You shouldn't be able to stave off attempts to get something deleted merely by moving it repeatedly and claiming that each one is new content and should be addressed in another MFD. This is very clearly the exact same content that was under discussion before. Let's just make a decision on it here and now and be done with it. --Cyde Weys 22:40, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

I understand PHDrillSergeant's wish to 'can' this discussion (it must be embarassing for him). I certainly do not wish to cause embarassment (we all get carried away and do silly things sometimes), but I do believe in calling a spade a spade. At the risk of violating WP:POINT I think I have shown how it can go wrong and be abused (and since I have not been directly admonished for that, I consider myself duly admonished). Maybe PHDrillSergeant would like to save the text he has generated onto his hard-drive, and then gracefully nominate the userspace page for speedy deletion 'author-request'?

Otherwise I agree that this MfD surely extends to a duplicate of the article elsewhere (for what purpose does it serve if not the original?). The Crying Orc 22:41, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

• WP:BJAODN it. The thing's written in a humourous manner, future users may find it funny. Extraordinarily bad policy ideas should qualify for BJAODN just as much as extraordinarily bad article ideas like an article about another Wikipedia article. Even if someone did attempt to invoke the proposal after it was BJAODN'd, I don't think anyone's going to take a request to sit on the BJAODNCOUCH offensively (Or at least no more than being told to get down from there!) so it shouldn't be misusable there. --tjstrf talk 22:53, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
• No, but thanks anyway. It's in my userspace for my own records, I would prefer if I can keep it there. But thanks for the suggestions. ~ PHDrillSergeant...and his couch...§ 23:41, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

  I think the point here is that it's not really your user space. Numerous people in the past have had stuff in their user space deleted, particularly so when the content there was deleted (speedily or through XfD). So moving the page to user space does not exempt it from this discussion. —Doug Bell ^{talk•contrib} 23:56, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

  • Except that it wasn't MOVED anywhere. The Userspace version existed first. Not only that, but I'm working on updating the Userspace version to a better policy. Thus is has a reason and a right to be there. ~ PHDrillSergeant...and his couch...§ 00:03, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

    Not to forecast the future, but I can't see this ever becoming policy, no matter how much you work on it. —Doug Bell ^{talk•contrib} 00:08, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
    AND PLEASE FIX YOUR SIG, IT'S MISSING A CLOSING </small>.

    • Guideline then. Or better yet, essay...Oh wait! That's what it was originally...~ PHDrillSergeant...and his couch...§ 00:15, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

• There are several rather obvious ways for someone to keep stuff on Wikipedia that they don't want to see deleted, and still want to be able to access whenever they want. Though the downside is that no-one else is likely to find it. But per WP:BEANS I can't tell you. And if anyone discovers you doing it, you'll probably get banned indefinitely. I've only just thought of this method. Is there a safe way to discuss it somewhere? Carcharoth 00:12, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

  I think I already know what you are thinking of. —Doug Bell ^{talk•contrib} 00:18, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

  • Fine. it is gone. Have a nice day. Oh, and goodbye.~ PHDrillSergeant...and his couch...§ 00:23, 15 November 2006 (UTC)