Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Community assent

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellany 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 strong consensus keep. Xoloz 05:19, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Community assent

This appears to have been created by Dzonatas (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log) as an end-run attempt. Dzonatas has been trying to change Wikipedia:Three-revert rule (edit · talk · links · history · watch) following warnings over edit warring and some blocks for 3RR violations. The content of this document amounts to a personal essay on Dzonatas' issues with editing, rather than anything which is likely to become policy. Just zis Guy you know? 10:02, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

• Strong Speedy Keep: This proposal is a part of ideas that have been in the works for awhile to validate pages. This complements Wikipedia:Stable versions, which both are very likely to at least contribute to guidelines. That is further supported by the broad interest in m:article validation. There is no need to delete this proposal before it has been properly given time for development and consideration. Jzg did not make a case to support if any inappropriateness exists with this proposal, and Jzg did not state why it could not be dealt with on the discussion pages as a matter of common practice for proposals. JzG's nomination for deletion of this proposal is highly irregular.

This is further supported by the statements under Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion#Before considering nominating a miscellany page for deletion, and specifically:

• Nominating a proposed policy or guideline page that is still under discussion for deletion is generally frowned upon. If you oppose a proposal, discuss it on the policy page's discussion page. Consider being bold and improving the proposal. Modify the proposal so that it gains consensus. Also note that even if a policy fails to gain consensus, it is often useful to retain it as a historical record, for the benefit of future editors.
• However, if a proposal is not serious or is disruptive (e.g. "Proposal to reject proposal foo") it can be nominated for deletion.

This is further supported by evidence:

• Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Wikidemia#To Secure Accreditation: Original entry made 01:28, 5 April 2005 by "Mr. Ballard" -- me under a now unused account. (reason other account is preserved and unused is given by last entry) That "to secure accreditation" entry is almost a year ago, which is way before what JzG's thinks the issue is about.
• JzG threatened to block me and continually has declared my edits as "gaming the system".
• If JzG didn't modify the 3RR page, the above MfD nomination may be a WP:POINT violation for its attempt to relate historic "blocks" to delete new proposals.
• The "edit-war" was actually declared by Katefan0 on wikien-l after a single edit to remove a redundant paragraph to the 3RR page, which JzG removed/merged later anyways.
• There is an RFC page that JzG could have properly used: Wikipedia:Community assent/Request for comments
• There is another competing proposal Wikipedia:Changing policies and guidelines. Although a different approach with few similar reasons, the gist is shared among us. Consider that it is "competing," it would be an unfair advantage to delete this without proper process.

— Dzonatas 14:21, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

• Strong Keep. The only evasion here is further attempts to bully and silence someone for saying something they dislike. Even if this is gains not a shred of further support in the next month, that is no reason to delete it now. I also know he is working in part from proposals made by TreyHarris and myself, and I encourage him to continue, and look forward to seeing the result. Go find something better to do that stiffle and belittle your critics! StrangerInParadise 17:58, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

• Comment: This is an evasion. The only edits to this article other than by the creator are to add a category and make a small gramatical fix. There is no evidence of support on the article or its talk page. Wikipedia is not a competition, a battleground or anything else. And the "competing"proposal is also highly unlikely to pass for precisely the same reasons as this one: it is unnecessary instruction creep with an agenda behind it. The "RfC page" is not canonical, and the comment on MFD about "active discussion" is mott since there is no active discussion here. Just zis Guy you know? 14:45, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

• Please keep this while we're looking at it and considering its implications. If it is not kept, it should be marked as rejected, not deleted outright, so that we can learn from past mistakes. Kim Bruning 15:36, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

• Comment: I don't see any harm in it. I think, however, that we ought to have a place to put policy proposals, or at least toughen up the wording of Template:proposed. "The proposal may still be in development, under discussion, or in the process of gathering consensus for adoption" makes it sound semi-official to me. --kingboyk 18:52, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

• Delete as an end run to the fact that he can't get what he wants under 3RR. Pegasus1138^{Talk | Contribs | Email} ---- 20:57, 3 March 2006 (UTC) Keep on second thought it should be given at least a chance to fail (which I believe it will) and there's no real need to MFD it since it isn't a bad faith page creation. Pegasus1138^{Talk | Contribs | Email} ---- 20:58, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Comment: I think the issue with the 3RR page is already resolved. — Dzonatas 02:12, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

• Strong keep. It's a personal essay being proposed as policy....mmmmm...so? Ashibaka tock 05:54, 7 March 2006 (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.