Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:The best way to avoid ever being blocked

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 discussion was no consensus.  Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 09:33, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:The best way to avoid ever being blocked

Wikipedia:The best way to avoid ever being blocked (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Seems to be an attempt to undermine policy. I can't see anything remotely humorous in it either... Nikthestoned 08:40, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

• Delete – Designed for humorous reading rather than a true interpretation on policy. Move to user space if not delete, although the creator has left Wikipedia. HeyMid (contribs) 08:47, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
• Keep. The humour is in the "Flaws" section, and in the essay author currently being indefinitely blocked. Little humorous essays like this are a permitted use of project space unless it can be demonstrated that they are detrimental in some way. No sensible person would follow the advice provided in this essay, or seriously expect it to work; and if disruptive editors do follow the advice provided, then it will at least avoid them being able to make use of Wikipedia:Civil POV pushing. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 08:50, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
• Keep: as a serious piece of policy advice, WP:IAR would overrule this. If you really managed to get 1,000+ people "involved", they could surely seek consensus from uninvolved editors rather than administrators (through an AN/ANI thread) to decide whether blocking or banning is appropriate. Given this, it is quite evidently not intended to be serious, so therefore shouldn't be judged as serious but judged as a piece of humour. It seems reasonably amusing, so keep it. —Tom Morris (talk) 08:59, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
• Keep or userfy to User:Mbz1/The best way to avoid ever being blocked (regardless of the user's status). It is a valid reflection on project policy, although weak and flawed. If no user other than the author thinks it useful, then it should be userfied. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:15, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
• Hadn't notice the author was blocked, I'll agree that's worth a chuckle. Disagreed re: the Flaws section, but that's personal opinion I suppose. Would perhaps suggest removing both the "Essay" and "Humorous essay" tags and replacing with one "Humour" tag to make it more clear that this is in no way a guideline or advice. Nikthestoned 10:03, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
• Keep per WP:BJAODN. --Joshua Issac (talk) 15:48, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
• Delete. Like Wikipedia:Properly follow a proper policy, this is very thinly veiled complaining about the user's checkered history of well-deserved blocks, rather than an actual reflection on policy. This is particularly true as that's not how INVOLVED works anyway. WP is not a blog. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 23:15, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

I might just not connect with the logic, but I'm missing how it's a complaint, or could be interpreted that way. Could you elaborate? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 07:30, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

• Delete - This is not reflective of anything other than the personal opinion of one of the worst battleground-mentality pov-warriors to grace the I-P topic area in recent memory. Repeatedly blocked and now indef'ed, this last finger-in-the-eye to the Wikipedia community should not be left to stand. Tarc (talk) 01:55, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
  • Is that not just a little too combative? Perhaps we could focus on the merits of the essay, rather than its author. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 11:59, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
    • As the two are impossibly intertwined, no, we really can't do that. This is not the first time that mbz1 has attempted to turn project-space into a platform from which to vent her grievances with editors and administrators alike. And that an indef'ed user is allowed to continue to use their talk page to attack others is troubling as well. Tarc (talk) 12:24, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
      • All of which is irrelevant to the merits of this essay. And it's a little hypocritical that you would use this part of the project space to attack another editor for doing so. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 13:13, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
        • It is quite relevant to establish a pattern of problematic editing, as a user is clearly using essays to advance attacks on other users. I have no regrets in bringing this tangent to this MFD, and will not hesitate to do so if a similar situation arises in the future. Tarc (talk) 12:49, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

• keep to the above saying that it's a guideline to circumventing policy, the humor in the essay lies in its impossibility. It is materially impossible for anyone, even Jimbo, to be personally involved with every last admin at the same time. And even if such a theoretical superuser existed, if they went bad the WMF would take them out right quick. That's why it's funny, it's pointing out a catch-22 in policy, not a practical one, but one nonetheless. HominidMachinae (talk) 03:40, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
• Keep At the bottom of the page it clearly states: "This humorous essay contains comments by one or more Wikipedia contributors. It is not a Wikipedia policy or guideline". So nobody ever claimed it is a Wikipedia policy or guideline and if some of you cannot understand the humor it is not a reason to delete this very funny humorous essay. Broccolo (talk) 20:51, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

We are aware of what essays are. WP:ESSAY explains that essays are not policies or guidelines, and that they reflect the opinions of editors and don't have to be agreed-upon by a consensus. But this isn't an essay. It's just complaining about the user's personal history masquerading as commentary on policy, and not masquerading very well. Personal complaints belong on blogs. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 21:37, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

What do you have against Mbz? Your comments are mostly personal attacks on a significant contributor to the project and less about the discussion at hand. --Shuki (talk) 22:36, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

I think "this is not an essay, it is not about any Wikipedia policies that actually exist in the real world, and it violates NOTBLOG" is more than adequate. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 05:17, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

• Userfy - I don't see how anyone could find this useful, but if the user really wants it to be kept, it could just be moved to their userspace. ~~ Hi878 ^{(Come shout at me!)} 23:23, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
  • No strong opinion on what to do with the page, but if the consensus is to userfy and folks have a problem with userfying to an indef'd editor's userspace, I don't mind having it in mine. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:58, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
• Userfy or delete. per HJ Mitchell etc. --Kleinzach 01:38, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
• Delete Confuses readers about what "uninvolved" means in the context of dispute resolution.  Cs32en Talk to me  03:50, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
• Keep per Demiurge. Should be a bit clearer though nonetheless. Plot Spoiler (talk) 03:59, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
• Delete or Userfy most essays have some level of seriousness about it. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 17:40, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
• Keep per Demiurge1000, Tom Morris and HominidMachinae. A little self-deprecating humor never hurt anyone. 28bytes (talk) 19:50, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
• Keep - It's harmless, if not really very witty. No reason to man the barricades. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:56, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
• Keep - Humorous essay. Oh @#$%, now I'm involved too! :-) Reaper Eternal (talk) 21:10, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
• Keep, doesn't hurt anything, and some of us find it funny. Nyttend (talk) 00:11, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
• Delete or userfy. Only represents the ideas of one editor, and it's not even remotely funny or witty, not in the least because WP:INVOLVED is commonly ignored. This essay has zero useful links to it, and I doubt it would be a useful or amusing "see also" anywhere. Nobody ever cited it, not even its creator. FuFoFuEd (talk) 01:57, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
• Keep - It seems to be a successful attempt at humor. --Σ ^talk_contribs 03:42, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
• Keep - Harmless. In being indef blocked, the joke ends up bieng on the author - you just can't plan this stuff! - BilCat (talk) 05:10, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Actually, it may have been planned, as it seems the author requested indef-blocking. Hmmm. - BilCat (talk) 05:27, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
• Keep - As it was meant to be in the very first place, a funny/humourous essay! As an aside, the person (an avid photographer not unlike me, contributed over 1000+ images to WP) who wrote this article sent an email to the SysOp Rd232 for a block to enforce his own wikibreak, nothing wrong with that. --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫®} 06:29, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

  It wasn't to enforce a wikibreak; the editor in question agreed to go away if certain entries in her block log were expunged. It is unfortunate that the expunging now gives outside viewers the less-than-whole-truth about this editor. Tarc (talk) 11:57, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

• ¡Ay, caramba! Mum's the word, I had no idea it was a she... time to slip under the radar and beat a stealthy retreat. (Hell hath no fury like a woman scorned!) --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫®} 12:15, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

• Keep somewhat per FuFoFuEd. It is not the opinion of one editor only. --Shuki (talk) 20:46, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
• Keep It's funny and can't be misunderstood by anyone with a clue.--SPhilbrickT 00:26, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
• Keep — It says "This humorous essay..." right at the top of the page. That's what the template is used for, right? ℥^nding·start 01:18, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
• Keep. Not funny in a "ha, ha, ha" kind of way, but reflective of Wikipedia's personality—intensely social and in ways paradoxical. Bus stop (talk) 03:11, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
• Delete Wikipedia is not a webhosting site for lame humor, or for describing ineffective attempts to game the system. Edison (talk) 00:33, 4 August 2011 (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.