Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Screambox

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous 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 . keep, does not violate any policies, and so far I have no seen any evidence how this page encourages incivility outside of this page. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 22:40, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Screambox

Content not suitable for an encyclopedia Sfmammamia (talk) 00:17, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

  • Well, this doesn't have to be suitable for an encyclopedia; it's project space. I suppose this is one way to help blow off some steam, so whatever floats people's boats, I guess. Weak keep.—Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 00:34, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete -- this page serves to lower Wikipedia's standards of civility, by encouraging the gratuitous use of crude, vulgar, and inflammatory language, a bad habit that will likely migrate significantly to discourse outside this particular project page once the use of such language on Wikipedia is regarded as inconsequential. John254 02:33, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
    • Crude/vulgar == incivil is a value judgment, and one I do not agree with. Incivility has many different faces, and worse ones, I'd argue. User:Dorftrottel 15:59, February 15, 2008
  • Comment, (leaning towards delete, but still, this needs to be said...) Wikipedia has a standard for no crude language? Yep. In articles. Except the article called Fuck. And except the userbox that links to WP:DGAF. I won't even link WP:NOTCENSORED here, because we all know that one. This project space encourages the use of crude, vulgar and inflammatory language in this specified place with specified parameters (no personal attacks being the biggest and clearest) to replace where it usually ends up - on talkpages of articles, AN/I, and most recently and prolifically, RFA. Yes, cursing is a bad habit and doesn't belong on those talkboards. But this is ScreamboxTM for <censored> sake! It is meant as humor, a place to let off steam on-wiki in order to avoid the use of such language in other venues, not encourage it. "Likely migrate?" See WP:CRYSTAL. This was developed (on a whim no less!) to curb what is already an inconsequential use of vulgarity. </humorously ironic support rationales with a delete !vote> Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 15:42, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Fully agree with Keeper76. Moreover, the nominating statement "Content not suitable for an encyclopedia" is clearly not valid as this page is not in the mainspace. Also, as the page creator I would have appreciated being notified of the MfD. Mainly for these reasons, I think the nomination happened in a good-faithed desire to cleanse Wikipedia of ugly words, which is albeit not compatible with policy. Therefore keep for now, pending an extended statement by the nominator. User:Dorftrottel 15:54, February 15, 2008
    • I apologize for my inadequate nomination statement. Although I have been editing for nearly a year, I'm still new to the deletion process, and the guidelines do not make clear the distinctions between appropriate reasons for deletion in article space and project space, at least I could not find a set of project-space-specific guidelines. I also apologize for not notifying the page author on his talk page of the MfD. Per John254's comment above, I believe that having such a page essentially legitimizes cursing and profanity on-wiki as an acceptable way to "blow off steam". In my mind, this is not in keeping with Wikipedia's other behavioral guidelines. In other words, if you need to "scream" in curse words, do it elsewhere. Also, I think having such a page encourages "peacock behavior" (my term) -- a "can-you-top-this" form of verbal competition that, in this case, serves no useful purpose to the encyclopedia. --Sfmammamia (talk) 18:08, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
      • Well, the stated goal of the page is to provide a confined space to let off steam, precisely so as to reduce it in other places. Also, the page contains a section title #Swearing is not a contest. I take it you read the explanatory sections? User:Dorftrottel 18:51, February 15, 2008
        • What that section head says, and what the actual content of the page evidences, are two entirely different things, and I see no evidence that examples of contest-swearing have been or would be deleted as unsuitable content. Verbal one-upsmanship seems to be all the page is really about. --Sfmammamia (talk) 19:03, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
          • The page is mainly about fun and blowing off steam, nothing else. Granted, a special flavour of fun, but no one is being forced to look at the page. And wherever else someone uses cursewords, there is now a place you can send them to. User:Dorftrottel 19:46, February 15, 2008

Delete Pointless page Alexfusco5 22:42, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

The only argument for eeping it is it helps you cool off just use the sandbox. I also say delete based on the nominators position. I just don't see any reason for keeping it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alexfusco5 (talk • contribs) 01:50, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
The Sandbox is mainly for testing wikisyntax. User:Dorftrottel 02:36, February 16, 2008
  • Delete. A ridiculous page that makes our project look like a giant fucking joke. Besides, funny shitstuff is not allowed here any more (see WP:BJAODN). Neither are community-building projects (see Esperanza). Dammit. --Ginkgo100talk 02:58, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
  • (Strike that for now, if people think it's worthwhile) Ok, folks. Tell you what. We had our fun with the page, and we'll remember it and I personally promise to beat up some arbitrary civility whiner each year on the anniversary of the deletion. But as the page creator, I hereby agree with deleting the page. I highly doubt there will be an unexpected turnaround in this discussion, so we might as well close it right away. Or let it run it's course, what the hell do I care... User:Dorftrottel 03:57, February 16, 2008
  • Keep. I think that if this page prevents even one count of profanity type vandalism on another page, then it is worth keeping. I would look at it as a sound proof room with a clear warning on the door as to what lies inside, if anyone does not want to hear (see) what is inside, they do not have to enter. Hennessey, Patrick (talk) 04:15, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep, it's kinda like an uncensored sandbox. Ron Duvall (talk) 06:31, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep I'm okay with the screambox as long as WP:NPA is followed and is routinely cleaned/archive to avoid large page load which might frustrate stressed users.--Lenticel (talk) 11:50, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Ya know, I'm kinda feeling like keeping this, much to my surprise. The delete arguments so far have amounted to WP:IDONTLIKEIT arguments, which are not valid in a deletion debate. The keep arguments are quite (surprisingly!) convincing! It's official. I'm switching from delete to keep. If it gets deleted though, I still DGAF. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 18:34, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment This was created after Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Seresin. Dorftrottel's initial comment "JESUS FUCKING CHRIST!!! I FUCKING HATE PEOPLE WHO ARE EASILY OFFENDED. GO TO HELL FUCKING WHINERS!!!!!" is directed at the people in the RFA who asked him to refrain from personally attacking other editors. --JayHenry (talk) 00:08, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
So, that being said, are you for, or against, or just commenting, the Screambox? Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 00:15, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Umm... is it not standard to bold the word comment to indicate one is just commenting? --JayHenry (talk) 01:04, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
And now, you've answered my question! Your neutral. Thanks! Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 01:06, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
No, JayHenry, it is not specifically directed against those who participated in Seresin'S RfA. It was meant as ironic and funny, given the context of the page. But thanks anyway for knowing better what I want to say than I know myself. User:Dorftrottel 20:23, February 19, 2008
It appears I was not sufficiently precise. In response to concerns at the RFA about incivility in discussion, Dorftrottel said, "People who are too easily offended are the far bigger problem, with their constant bickering about civility." People continued to assert that incivility was a problem. Dorftrottel later said, "FUCKING SHIT SHIT SHIT!!!! EVERYONE PLEASE TAKE A LOOK AT THE OPPOSE SECTION AND TELL ME IT DOESN'T LOOK LIKE YOUR TYPICAL RABID-INDISCRIMINATE-INCLUSIONIST CLUSTERFUCK, COMPLETELY LACKING IN RATIONALES, SIMPLY BRUTEFORCE-VOTING THEIR WAY THROUGH WIKIPEDIA." Rudget asked you to please stop the drama. Then you said DRAMA, LOL. Gotta hand it to you: I couldn't have made the point more efficiently. As always: If you don't like it, just ignore it. You see, this RfA was doomed from the beginning, so we might as well turn it into our collective scream-box. But hold on, maybe that's just what we need" Then, your very next edit was to start the Screambox. Your first comment in the Screambox is linked above. I'm not suggesting that I know what you want to say, Dorftrottel. I'm only relaying what you actually did say. --JayHenry (talk) 20:58, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Except you don't. You claim to know whom that was directed against when you do not. However, I still cannot recognise how any of what you said here so far is relevant to the question at hand. User:Dorftrottel 21:07, February 19, 2008
You said that "People who are too easily offended are the far bigger problem" with their bickering about civility and then, you said in the screambox "I FUCKING HATE PEOPLE WHO ARE EASILY OFFENDED" but you now contend that although this comment directly followed from the previous discussion it is in fact directed to a different category of people who are too easily offended? I believed I had made a straightforward reading of your own statements. I honestly did not intend to put words in your mouth. My intent was only to note the context of the Screambox's creation. A comment explaining the context of a page is not unusual at an MFD discussion. Screambox grew out of the RFA, as you yourself acknowledged, and the initial comment of the screambox criticized a behavior that you also criticized at the RFA. --JayHenry (talk) 21:25, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

<outdent>And all that to say, JayHenry, do you think the Screambox is a valid use of WP-space or do you think it should go? We are after all, trying to reach a consensus here, regardless of the motivations or timing for birthing such a page. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 21:29, 19 February 2008 (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.