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: Keep and tag historical. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 06:50, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Ignore Meta[edit]

I am the primary original author of this, bit it has been modified quite a bit by other since then. This was created in response to a really awful, ridiculous incident that happened in early 2012. A dispute from here, that was eventually the subject of an arbcom proceeding, was allowed to continue at Meta despite the fact that their user community have no authority whatsover to determine how user problems are handled here. At the time, there seemed to be in some quarters there a palpable air of contempt for this project and open hostility towards it. This incident was instigated by such users enabled by by a small number of admins there who actively intimidated and bullied anyone who tried put a stop to it.

The end result of this debacle was the removal of the most abusive administrators who were involved and the introduction of a analog of WP:INVOLVED over there to prevent something like this happening again.

Observing these events, this essay was toned down considerably. In the intervening years the purpose of Meta has become more clear, and the advent of single unified login, global user pages generated at Meta, and other global policies and practices have further changed the purpose of Meta and the relative advisability of ignoring it.

In short, I don't think what happened four years ago would be allowed to happen there now, the lack of activity in the last three years at this essay suggests that it is having little to no effect here, and I just don't think we need it anymore. I am explicitly not advocating marking it as historical as I'd rather it was just gone as the incident that led to it seems well and truly gone and forgotten. Beeblebrox (talk) 06:55, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral - I'd probably rather see it marked as ((historical)) and kept, because I just read it and found it interesting. However, the nominator contributed the overwhelming majority of the essay, so I don't want to stand in the way of its deletion. Taking a look at the page history, the only other users who have made substantial contributions to the essay that survived were TParis and MZMcBride (i.e. this and half of this respectively). — Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 17:22, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I find myself in complete agreement with Godsy: I'd prefer that the essay be marked historical, but given that this largely remains Beeblebrox's essay, I don't want to stand in the way of a good-faith request for deletion by the author. A third option to consider: moving the essay to Meta-Wiki. :-) I think some of the criticisms captured regarding shared social spaces such as Wikimedia Commons and Meta-Wiki are still valid. --MZMcBride (talk) 20:50, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with both comments above. My options, in order: 1) Move to Meta. Really. If it was part of a change there, then it is more historcal there than here. 2) Mark historical 3) Delete. I think it would be interesting, after the 7 day period and a few comments, to know if Beeblebrox likes some of these options better than deletion? Nabla (talk) 11:24, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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.