Content deleted Content added
multiple hells no |
|||
Line 16: | Line 16: | ||
*'''Delete''' no need to handle ANY single editor this way, certainly not this one, - hope that he will serve the project at all, --[[User:Gerda Arendt|Gerda Arendt]] ([[User talk:Gerda Arendt|talk]]) 10:42, 1 January 2013 (UTC) |
*'''Delete''' no need to handle ANY single editor this way, certainly not this one, - hope that he will serve the project at all, --[[User:Gerda Arendt|Gerda Arendt]] ([[User talk:Gerda Arendt|talk]]) 10:42, 1 January 2013 (UTC) |
||
*'''Delete'''. I am not intimately familiar with the details of the case, but any such essay sets an abysmal precedent. [[User:Evanh2008|Evanh2008]] <sup>([[User talk:Evanh2008|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Evanh2008|contribs]])</sup> 12:07, 1 January 2013 (UTC) |
*'''Delete'''. I am not intimately familiar with the details of the case, but any such essay sets an abysmal precedent. [[User:Evanh2008|Evanh2008]] <sup>([[User talk:Evanh2008|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Evanh2008|contribs]])</sup> 12:07, 1 January 2013 (UTC) |
||
*'''Move or merge'''. This is a snippet of RfC/U material, and if you want to put it up, you should do so according to the normal process. Alternatively it might be a 'workshop' style blurb for some ArbCom case. What it isn't is a standalone WP essay. Think of it this way - if we let this stand, and someone else has a different opinion on this editor, he should add it in, and the opinions should stack up until we have something indistinguishable from an RfC/U, so we should call it that - and if we call it that, we should go by the rules for one. Lastly, it may or may not be a good idea to have a named redirect for dealing with an editor, but if so we should do so for every editor who has ever been taken to RfC/U, and for consistency/sanity it should include the entire username. [[User:Wnt|Wnt]] ([[User talk:Wnt|talk]]) 13:01, 1 January 2013 (UTC) |
Revision as of 13:01, 1 January 2013
Wikipedia:Malleus Fatuorum
- Wikipedia:Malleus Fatuorum (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
This is an advisory MfD. We just want to see if the community rejects the existence of this essay, or not. If not, it can presumably be applied in future. Herostratus (talk) 15:54, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
- Keep as author and nominator. This is an advisory MfD. The intent here is to address a particular situation. Let's vote it up or down. Herostratus (talk) 15:56, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
- Keep We need this. Users like me have already stuck up for Malleus so many times that we can use this to refer to anybody trying to block Malleus. It's really useful, no scrap that, it's essential! ☠ Jaguar ☠ 16:28, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
- Delete - We don't write essays on how to deal with individual editors. Period. That's the end of it. This is not a slippery slope argument, that this will devolve into whatever. It's not. If you want an essay that says that blocking successful content creators is bad, be my guest. If you want an essay that says that Regular Contributors™ need a stronger consensus before blocking, I'm cool with that too. If you want to say that civility is a malleable standard (pardon the pun) and that civility blocks should be weighed against the harm it would cause if that contributor was no longer writing, I'm good. But to simply say that one particular editor should be treated differently is something I can't condone, and that I wouldn't be willing to put my name on. Achowat (talk) 00:12, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
- OK, but you don't have to put your name on it. There are lots of essays that one doesn't agree with but that that still ought to be able to exist. Let's think this through together. To me, "We don't write essays on how to deal with individual editors. Period. That's the end of it" sounds a bit like "I cannot get my mind around this". This is very understandable and I expect that. However, my question then would be: what is the underlying principle? To say "We don't... Period. That's the end of it" means "We don't, even if will save countless man-hours and otherwise enhance the Wikipedia is many ways". That's fine if there;s an underlying principle at stake. For instance, we wouldn't "out" someone egregiously even if it might be helpful to Wikipedia. The underlying principle here is "don't damage people's real lives, if possible" which is a subset of "don't act evilly". What's the principle here? We've had lots of pages about specific editors (I wrote one myself) when we used to keep pages on prolific vandals. (We don't anymore, but for pragmatic reasons I think.) Is it a slippery slope you're worried about? That's a possibly real concern and we can talk about that if you like, or whatever else the issue is. But "Period. That's the end of it" leaves us nothing to work with. Hey, maybe there is an underlying principle and I just haven't seen it. Help me out here. Herostratus (talk) 02:43, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
- Delete per Achowat and the spirit of WP:UP#POLEMIC --Surturz (talk) 01:06, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
- Delete - firstly, this is not and never has been policy, and doesn't belong in policy space. Secondly, its description of Malleus, whether fair or otherwise, borders on violating WP:NPA. Overall, I find it difficult to see how this page existing in Wikipedia-space is likely to improve collegiality or address the problem it purports to address; it's just likely to provoke further time-wasting arguments. Robofish (talk) 01:26, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
- OK, fine. What's your solution then? In fact, for all the "Delete" voters, I'd very much like to see something along the lines of "Delete, instead let's address the situation by doing X", where X is something that can actually be implemented (if a policy, then one that in actual reality could garner ~75% acceptance, for instance, rather than being a typical "perennial proposal"; if a mode of being, then a mode of being that people will really do; and so forth.) Alternatively "Delete, solution in search of a problem, everything's OK" would be good too, if one believes that. But just "Delete, situation is not solvable" I don't find too helpful. Herostratus (talk) 02:53, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
- Well, I guess the question becomes "Is Malleus a specific instance, or are there de facto policies in place that can be made more general?" I think the latter is true. I think that the way we do business is that we weigh a user's contributions when we make blocks for incivility and rough-edgedness. I think that if you want a quick WP: shortcut to point to that says "Don't block this guy just because he's difficult to work with", then that's all well and good. A simple essay on the block policy that suggests blocks need to be weighed against the standard "what would do more harm to the encyclopedia" is all we need. If blocking a successful content creator is needed because of some egregious offense, then that's fine; but if the block would diminish the quality of work on the project overall, then it's not good policy. In the sense of full disclosure, I'm not an admin, I don't have the block button (so the essay isn't really for me), the only time I ever run into Malleus is during RFAs, and I've never had issue with the substance of what he's said there. But, if Malleus is the only one to gain protection from blocks because of content creation, then I'm opposed to the substance of the essay. If Malleus is not a special case, then I'd like to see the essay more broadly defined. Achowat (talk) 06:57, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
- OK, fine. What's your solution then? In fact, for all the "Delete" voters, I'd very much like to see something along the lines of "Delete, instead let's address the situation by doing X", where X is something that can actually be implemented (if a policy, then one that in actual reality could garner ~75% acceptance, for instance, rather than being a typical "perennial proposal"; if a mode of being, then a mode of being that people will really do; and so forth.) Alternatively "Delete, solution in search of a problem, everything's OK" would be good too, if one believes that. But just "Delete, situation is not solvable" I don't find too helpful. Herostratus (talk) 02:53, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
- Delete should we create special essays for every user? This is clearly WP:CREEP. And there should only be one special user on Wikipedia, that is User:Jimbo Wales, this creates a special preferred status for someone other than Jimbo. -- 70.24.248.246 (talk) 10:23, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
- Comment I've pinged Jimbo. -- 70.24.248.246 (talk) 10:31, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
- Delete no need to handle ANY single editor this way, certainly not this one, - hope that he will serve the project at all, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:42, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
- Delete. I am not intimately familiar with the details of the case, but any such essay sets an abysmal precedent. Evanh2008 (talk|contribs) 12:07, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
- Move or merge. This is a snippet of RfC/U material, and if you want to put it up, you should do so according to the normal process. Alternatively it might be a 'workshop' style blurb for some ArbCom case. What it isn't is a standalone WP essay. Think of it this way - if we let this stand, and someone else has a different opinion on this editor, he should add it in, and the opinions should stack up until we have something indistinguishable from an RfC/U, so we should call it that - and if we call it that, we should go by the rules for one. Lastly, it may or may not be a good idea to have a named redirect for dealing with an editor, but if so we should do so for every editor who has ever been taken to RfC/U, and for consistency/sanity it should include the entire username. Wnt (talk) 13:01, 1 January 2013 (UTC)