Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:KatherinePanciera/WPMentoring

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

[edit] User:KatherinePanciera/WPMentoring

The outcome of this discussion was a consensus to keep per withdrawal by nom and negligible risk of disruption to the project. Gwen Gale (talk) 12:27, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Soapbox page. BoL (Talk) 04:24, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

  • I apologize. Can I withdraw? BoL (Talk) 04:31, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Speedy keep Nominated for wrong reason, and retracted 7 minutes later after being warned of mistake --Enric Naval (talk) 04:40, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete - Links to this are being canvassed across many user talk pages. Also, userspace is not supposed to be used this way, to further a study or program outside Wikipedia. This could probably also be considered a role account and should be blocked. The nominatory comment was inaccurate but that's neither here nor there, as the page and the account are pure spam and should go. Equazcion •✗/C • 04:46, 4 Apr 2008 (UTC)
I guess that the page creator didn't think of asking an admin about the rules before creating the page and spamming users --Enric Naval (talk) 04:52, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
It's already been explained that this really doesn't count as disruptive canvassing. Yes, it is a greater rate of posting than we normally allow, but so far it hasn't been disruptive, we've asked the user to stop sending individual messages, and none of the recipients seem bothered by the message. No harm no foul. -- Ned Scott 06:46, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
Whether or not it technically counts as canvasing according to our policy might be questionable (I'd have to read through it). But it is fundamentally spam regardless. I'd hate to see stuff like this allowed. And I really don't think it normally is. Equazcion •✗/C • 06:49, 4 Apr 2008 (UTC)
I can think of at least three other times when this has happened and the community was generally fine with it. It will take me some digging to find two of the examples, but the 3rd can be seen at WT:ANIME#Academic Research on WikiProjects. That guy is even going to interview me tomorrow via Skype, and I'm very excited about it. Anyone who wants to study how we do things is likely going to find out things that will be to our benefit, and I'm more than happy to help them, and so is a great deal of the community. -- Ned Scott 06:54, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
I'm all for it, but there's a right way and a wrong way. This way was spam. If this is the way it was also done previously, then I disagree with that too, and had I been around at the time I would've protested it. Equazcion •✗/C • 06:57, 4 Apr 2008 (UTC)
Had they not given individual messages or not does not change this user subpage. The messages have been sent, we can't change that, but there's no reason to "punish" this person by deleting a subpage that would exist for a single message or for multiple messages. -- Ned Scott 07:03, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
You're right. Userspace shouldn't be used to advertise an outside study. Thats the long and short of it. Equazcion •✗/C • 07:07, 4 Apr 2008 (UTC)
There's no reason why it shouldn't be, and we've been fine with it in the past. There's not a single policy or guideline that discourages it. -- Ned Scott 07:14, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
The reason is that I think it's improper. WP:USER mentions it a bit, that userspace shouldn't be used to advertise non-Wikipedia-related organizations. This might be Wikipedia-related, but not quite "enough" if you ask me. This isn't a project within Wikipedia. It just has to do with Wikipedia. It's research on human relationships, using Wikipedia as the test medium. I really don't think this qualifies enough as Wikipedia-related, as it won't end up benefiting Wikipedia in any foreseeable way. Equazcion •✗/C • 07:21, 4 Apr 2008 (UTC)
. -- Ned Scott 07:29, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
I understand if you have nothing further to say. Equazcion •✗/C • 07:37, 4 Apr 2008 (UTC)
Lol, equazcion, Ned is right, you are grapping at straws here. With "WP:USER mentions it a bit" it's clear that you have run out of relevant policies to cite. Other editors don't agree with you and they have cited policies and examples. Just drop the matter and let the author contact the wikipedia foundation for handling this issue, as it should have been done from the start. I invoke WP:IAR ignore all rules to ignore the nomination rules and pass the matter to wikipedia foundation's hands, deleting this page is not useful to wikipedia goals and could hurt them. --Enric Naval (talk) 08:33, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
Comment For a successful precedent of invoking IAR policy to close a nomination debate against other policies, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Telly Awards --Enric Naval (talk) 09:35, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
I didn't begin by citing policies. I only started looking for them because Ned seemed to demand it. No one needs to cite policies in order to make valid arguments on Wikipedia. Not that I don't continue to believe WP:USER does prohibit this. And kindly, sir or madam, don't ever tell me to drop anything. See WP:JDI for my thoughts on that. Equazcion •✗/C • 08:37, 4 Apr 2008 (UTC)
Oh yes, they do need to cite policies, see Wikipedia:Deletion_policy#Deletion_discussion "These processes are not decided through a head count, so participants are encouraged to explain their opinion and refer to policy" (emphasis on the original). Now I ask you to please cite a policy or drop the argument --Enric Naval (talk) 08:57, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
Oh no, they don't need to cite policy. If I thought this were a head count I would've simply said keep and not spent half this page arguing my side. I explained my opinion quite thoroughly. And not to mention, I did cite policy. Your interpretation of those policies differs from mine, but that doesn't mean I didn't cite them. And no, of course, I won't be dropping it. If you'd like to drop it, though, you're free to do so. The best way for it to be dropped is for you to just do it, rather than demanding others do. It's all in the essay. Equazcion •✗/C • 09:04, 4 Apr 2008 (UTC)
You cite of WP:USER is referring to this sentence "Advertising or promotion of a business or organization unrelated to Wikipedia (such as purely commercial sites or referral links) ". This page clearly does not qualify, since it's promoting a study on wikipedia. Now, I have cited IAR to skip rules because they can prevent something useful for wikipedia like a research project on it. Now, this is citing the IAR policy for the purpose it was intended to, against citing USER based on a point that does not really seem to apply for this page in particular. Sorry, but I just find your interpretation of USER to be too far-fetched, and not enough to warrant deletion, and much less to go against IAR. However, it's the job of the closing admin to decide which interpretation has more weight, not our job, so I'll guess I'll have to drop it after all, since I already stated my opinion on the nomination. I shouldn't have asked you to "drop it", I'm sorry, will you pardon me? :) --Enric Naval (talk) 09:18, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete Completely inappropriate use of user space. Cleo123 (talk) 06:12, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
    Could you explain your issues, why you think this is inappropriate use of userspace? --Kim Bruning (talk) 09:37, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete Comment User has been given foundation contact info. Gwen Gale (talk) 06:36, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Speedy keep absolutely nothing wrong with this subpage, and generally speaking the community welcomes these kinds of studies. Funny that this is happening today, seeing as tomorrow I've offered to give an unrelated user a Skype interview about WikiProjects for his study. The nom is way off, this isn't the kind of thing WP:NOT#SOAPBOX is for. No reason to delete, related to the project, and it's extremely rude to jump to MfD when we're trying to calmly explain to this user how to best conduct herself and make everyone happy, without freaking her out. Man you guys are vicious tonight. -- Ned Scott 06:43, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Yeah, you're never vicious, are you, Ned? :) Anyway: I think this is improper use of an account. You don't use a userpage to advertise a paid study, even if it has something to do with Wikipedia. Especially when that's all the account seems to have been created for. That's my opinion. Equazcion •✗/C • 06:45, 4 Apr 2008 (UTC)
  • There is nothing in policy or guidelines that says the use of an account like this is inappropriate. The only thing you've cited is the role account page, and it's pretty clear there is only one person using this account. They probably didn't know that they're not supposed to offer money or gifts on Wiki, but I bet they would make those into donations if we asked. -- Ned Scott 06:50, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
  • It's using userspace to advertise an outside project. There's no question in my mind that it's inappropriate. I understand you disagree, so I guess that makes us in disagreement. As for donations instead of gifts: you mean like, for every participant, we'll donate ten bucks to the foudation? I'm not sure if that'd really be appropriate either. We're an encyclopedia, not a group of test subjects for rent. Again, IMO. Equazcion •✗/C • 06:53, 4 Apr 2008 (UTC)
  • (EC) You must not know about WP:BOUNTY, which you'll see that I even have an offer for. We "advertise" a lot of off-wiki projects, such as Wikipedia:Semapedia. -- Ned Scott 07:00, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
  • I'm not sure what a method for getting articles to improve has anything to do with this. They both involve donations? That's not really the point... Equazcion •✗/C • 07:05, 4 Apr 2008 (UTC)
  • Ned I wholly agree with the spirit of your thoughts above (and also agree it has not been established this is a role account). I hope she gets her study going but I don't think this page, at this time, is the way to solicit subjects for it. I think she should have a chance to discuss this on a professional level with someone at foundation. Gwen Gale (talk) 06:56, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
  • That's never been a requirement for anyone before. -- Ned Scott 07:01, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Whether it's a requirement or not, spamming the notice and advertising in userspace is not the appropriate way to go about this. Equazcion •✗/C • 07:05, 4 Apr 2008 (UTC)
  • (Yes, that's the pith, spamming is not the way) Gwen Gale (talk) 07:07, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
  • That was done with the foundation. I've suggested she approach them too. What am I missing? (no sarcasm) Gwen Gale (talk) 07:14, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
  • It's just an example of Wikipedia "advertising" something off-wiki. My point was that giving notice about something, especially when it might benefit us (not just by possible donations, but such studies are likely to be to our benefit from a reflective point of view), has long since been acceptable. -- Ned Scott 07:19, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
  • No one said Wikpedia didn't advertise itself off-wiki... just that no one should advertise something else on wiki. Equazcion •✗/C • 07:23, 4 Apr 2008 (UTC)
  • You misunderstand me, I meant that Wikipedia was giving a page telling people about the 1-click product. This is/was "something else" "on wiki". -- Ned Scott 07:27, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
  • ...that was done via communication with the foundation. Equazcion •✗/C • 07:36, 4 Apr 2008 (UTC)
  • Ok. Meanwhile I do agree this deletion debate isn't about a soapbox page, so maybe I shouldn't be supporting a malformed MfD? Gwen Gale (talk) 07:04, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
  • The nominator's criteria doesn't determine whether or not the MfD is warranted. The nomination is just another comment in the discussion. Supporting a delete is not necessarily supporting the nominator's criteria. Equazcion •✗/C • 07:09, 4 Apr 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep The user's past behavior aside, a study of Wikipedia could certainly help improve Wikipedia. (If only by providing more information for one of the article about Wikipedia). At worst, this could serve as some sort of opt-in sign-up page. I'd argue that WP:IAR and WP:BITE trump role account issues. (As has been said above, this has been okay before (academic study of wikipedia that is, not the canvass thing)). --Bfigura (talk) 07:22, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
Oh, someone had already cited IAR =) --Enric Naval (talk) 09:40, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Speedy keep - No need to circle the wagons here. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) (talk / cont) 07:23, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Speedy keep for all the reasons above. ViridaeTalk 08:04, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep Not sure about the speedy (This is technically an appropriate MFD I suppose). I would like to see a copy of the study of course. Must be presented at wikimania next year? <looks hopeful>. Well alright then... speedy keep as per nominator wishing to withdraw MFD proposal. --Kim Bruning (talk) 09:29, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Extremely strong speedy keep I have no idea what the people who voted to Delete are thinking. I would suggest strongly that they reconsider and change their votes. What about WP:BITE? What about WP:AGF? What about WP:CIVIL? These policies are basically taking precedence over ALL OTHER policies, at least in practice, currently on Wikipedia. Frankly, in the present climate, I would not be surprised if assorted deletionists like those voting Delete about this kind of a page did not end up with administrative sanctions at some point for exercising extremely bad judgement and violating WP:BITE, WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL and maybe WP:HARASS. Deleting this page is a bad, bad, bad idea, for a number of reasons.--Filll (talk) 12:09, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Ok, so there's 2 deletes and the rest is all (speedy) keeps. If we can get the 2 delete folks to go neutral, this gets speedy kept. :-) --Kim Bruning (talk) 09:35, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.