Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Dont slap the regulars with policy

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 Delete. — xaosflux ^Talk 15:53, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Dont slap the regulars with policy

There are various problems with this essay:

Doesn't define "regular"
Implies policy is only for newcomers, not "regulars"
Essentially duplicates Wikipedia:Don't template the regulars, which is better written, giving more detailed reasoning
Impedes notification of users of policy violation by adding the extra step of figuring out whether they are a "regular" without giving a guideline for determining such IPSOS (talk) 21:29, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - stub-essay with very little history and duplicates Wikipedia:Don't template the regulars. Carcharoth 23:08, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - implies that some people are above policy. ←Ben^B4 03:25, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - contradicts should-be policy WP:TROUT. Or more seriously, the best way to explain how a policy doesn't apply is: explain how the policy doesn't apply, not pull out an essay. Gracenotes^T § 04:15, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Elitist essay, certainly not in Wikispirit.--WaltCip 15:21, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There are real faults with this essay. Given how many "regulars" have issues with being civil and personal attacks, how is it "pointless and disruptive" to remind them of the policies they are breaking and the consequences for that. 65.102.3.211 20:39, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete everything that is not duplicated from Wikipedia:Don't template the regulars is harmful to the project. Hut 8.5 08:39, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Because we all know that Wikipedia regulars never need to be reminded to be civil or assume good faith...wait, what? --Haemo 09:11, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all above. I can think of at least one former arbitrator, and plenty of admins, who at certain times forget policies such as WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF. I also freely admit that, despite having been around for a year and an admin for several months, I myself sometimes forget some of the nuances of policy. Being a regular does not mean one is immune from being reminded about policy when one does not follow it; and, per WP:AGF, it's better to assume that someone doesn't know or has forgotten the policy, rather than that they are maliciously refusing to follow it. Walton^One 14:58, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Walton One. Elitist essay. Being a regular does not make one immune to policy. Bart133 ^{(t) (c)} 21:09, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Regular editors should know policy. If their behavior is sufficiently out of line to make someone feel the need to remind them of it, then they should not simply be given a free pass— it's even less forgivable for a longtime editor to be uncivil, for instance. — Coren ^(talk) 21:34, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. If the regulars can't be reminded of policy, the only alternative is to immediately block upon any infraction. That is a terrible idea. -Amarkov moo! 02:58, 4 August 2007 (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.