Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Threats of violence

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The result of the debate was withdrawn by nominator/WP:SNOW close (see [1]). As noted, proposed policies tend to be kept even if rejected (prior discussion can be useful to future efforts). – Luna Santin (talk) 03:21, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Threats of violence

This essay, policy proposal is all a bit distracting I think. Our project is not about finding help for folks, and our project is not about being a clearing house. We ought not have essays, and such that distract from the project goal here. I would that deletion here would be in line with our goals, and we can all get back to editing articles, and article related stuff. NonvocalScream (talk) 01:04, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

  • No vote, but I'd like to point out that it's instruction creep for what common sense ought to dictate. MessedRocker (talk) (write these articles) 01:09, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
    • But it is an opinion and this isn't a vote anyway. :-)--Doug.(talk • contribs) 03:39, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep - This is a vital policy proposal that should stay. CWii(Talk|Contribs) 01:10, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep per MFD prerequisite #2. Will (talk) 01:11, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete. The advice is common sense and the sentiment is genuine, but it's an instruction manual for people to use in order to cause the sort of disruption one can cause by making a threat of violence. Nick (talk) 01:51, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep - with a note that I think we're all singing from the same hymn sheet here - what we're after is less disruption, more clarity, and for folk to apply common sense... Personally I think the concept of dropping a note 'Reported per WP:TOV' on a noticeboard, with further unnecessary discussion strongly discouraged to be the best net gain. Some people are genuinely unaware that the easiest and most sensible thing to to with even barely credible threats is just to let some authority know - hopefully this can sensibly show them the right direction, and help minimise repetitive discussions 'on-wiki'... Privatemusings (talk) 02:23, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep. My previously attempted !vote was blocked by someone trying to close this discussion. Now that it's open again, I agree with Privatemusings. That's basically what I was going to write. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 03:02, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep There are plenty of problems with the proposed policy (the rejection of which I have urged), and the very fact of its existence may ultimately prove to be one, but we generally, as Will observes, do not delete proposals that are made in good faith and that are broadly considered by the community; here, in fact, the community has yet to decide whether to give its assent to the proposal, and so even were MfD appropriate for rejected policies or proposals deemed by the community to be wrong-headed, this discussion would be altogether premature. Joe 03:06, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
  • N.B. - this discussion was withdrawn by the nominator here and then closed, the nominator then changed his or her mind and reverted the close and withdrawal comment here. This is messy and if you have to do something like this (i.e. reverting a close), it's really important that no substantive comments are removed, even if you change your mind about them. Much better to use strikeout if you really wish to retract a comment. Thanks. I include the diffs so others can view the comment in question.--Doug.(talk • contribs) 03:49, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for that, my comment was not substantive and related to the MFD process itself, not this particular case. NonvocalScream (talk) 04:08, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
You're right, substantive wasn't the right word, should've said material.--Doug.(talk • contribs) 04:18, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment Does this proposed guideline serve a purpose not already covered in the essay Wikipedia:Responding to threats of harm? Perhaps the work going into this new guideline/essay can go into the existing one instead. / edg ☺ ☭ 06:59, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep and speedy close. This is a proposed policy. Whether it becomes one, or a guideline, or an essay, or just tagged as not approved, should be decided there and not here at MfD. This discussion is the distraction. Please keep the discussion in one place. --Bduke (talk) 07:42, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Redirect to WP:VIOLENCE which is what I think Edgarde is getting at. It looks like an accidental policy fork. Redirecting would also satisfy Bdukes centralization motion. dvdrw 07:53, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
    • I'm not calling it a policy fork because WP:VIOLENCE is not a policy, but this new essay seems redundant, in which case it is WP:CREEP, a serious case since it involves a topic that would seem to be required reading. If there is anything new here, it should be merged with the existing essay. Otherwise I would say delete, or (if the writer intends to shoot ahead of the existing essay) userfy until this can be considered for guideline status. Keeping this in WP space may result in conflict and confusion, and certainly creates additional reading. / edg ☺ ☭ 17:11, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Strong keep as per Bduke. This is a policy proposed in good faith and with good reason. The discussion of whether or not to adopt it should take place there. Aleta Sing 16:12, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep all proposals. Obuibo Mbstpo (talk) 17:55, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep all policy proposals, no matter how bad or good they seem to you. — Κaiba 18:09, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep. The need for such a policy is obvious. A recent case has shown that there is not yet an agreement on how to react to threats of violence. Hence, both the discussion about the policy and the future implementation of the policy is needed. At a later point in time, the page could be merged with WP:VIOLENCE.--Abrech (talk) 22:22, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep and Speedy Close Do not delete proposals unless there is a strong reason otherwise. Merge them if there is consensus. Use editorial process, not deletion process, to clean it all up. (Above, it was suggested that work on this go into another essay. Great. Do it. Don't try to bludgeon other editors into doing it by deleting their work.--Abd (talk) 21:44, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep The community may wish to reject the policy but I don't think deleting it is appropriate. Bstone (talk) 00:22, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep, although in general I think it should be rejected. Christopher Parham (talk) 02:27, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep, MFD prerequisite #2, as many (including Nonvocal) have said, let's get back to the real discussion. - Dan Dank55 (talk) 02:53, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Strong keep - This should have the chance to be considered by the community. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) (talk / cont) 03:00, 16 March 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.