Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Status quo stonewalling
- 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The result of the discussion was withdrawn. --BDD (talk) 19:32, 14 February 2013 (UTC) (non-admin closure)
Used exclusively (as far as I can tell) by the primary author to complain about people not changing whatever it is he thinks should be changed at the time. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:50, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
- Withdraw, snowball's chance in Miami that this is getting deleted. Speedy keep, anyone? --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:26, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
- Keep. The problem of severely biased articles defended by stonewalling is not uncommon, and now that I know about this essay, I will likely consult it in the future and maybe link to it on occasion. Hans Adler 18:16, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
- PS: Now I found where this nomination comes from. It is easy to see that MelanieN's [name corrected] characterisation of the essay in the discussion at WP:AN ("in which he dismisses as 'stonewalling' virtually all arguments in defense of the status quo [...], and pre-emptively defends himself against accusations of tendentious editing and TLDR posting") is unfair and, in fact, just wrong. No opinion on how the creator of the essay uses it, though. Hans Adler 18:26, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
- Strong Keep. I've never seen this essay before, but have seen some impressive stonewalling tactics in action. This essay outlines many and could serve as a useful link in discussion where things get bogged down because an editor or editors decides to use this method of avoiding discussion on the real issues.(olive (talk) 18:47, 10 February 2013 (UTC))
- Keep. Valid essay related to the project. Further, much of it I support, having seen the effect in practice all over this place in degrees. I think the nomination statement is correct. I am surprised that there are not more essays on the same lines. It connects to the old concept of WP:Soft protection. The author may be verbose, even tenacious, I'm not sure, I have interacted with him some but not much, but I am sure he is no fool, acts in good faith, and is not entirely wrong in anything I have read. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:38, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
- Keep. Seems like a valid concept to me. Arguably a good usage guide for using such tactics, but oh well. Mackensen (talk) 22:28, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
- Ugh. The notion that it could be used to encourage such tactics is depressing. But yeah, oh well. --Born2cycle (talk) 23:32, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
- Keep. The concept of the essay is a valid one, maybe it just needs a bit of a trim down and some humour injected into it. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:39, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
- Yeah, we probably want to do something to ensure people don't use this as a manual. But the subject matter is certainly essay-worthy. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 09:18, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
- Keep. For documented examples of such tactics, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Article titles and capitalisation#Statement by Born2cycle. LittleBen (talk) 23:17, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
- Keep In case you were still looking for confirmation that this isn't just one, I endorse it too. This is a real phenomenon that deserves discussion in essays. --BDD (talk) 00:59, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
- Comment. Agree with SarekOfVulcan, this appears to be a one-sided piece predominantly by a single editor; however, that in itself doesn't make it impermissible. That said, the piece should make it quite clear up-front that it's not a guideline and may represent an individual/minority viewpoint to be approached with discretion; the {{essay}} template (which I see another editor has now applied) helps with this.
╠╣uw [talk] 11:39, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
- You disagree with something significant in the essay? What, specifically? Whatever it is, you're free to edit it to better reflect what you believe to be consensus opinion, of course. --Born2cycle (talk) 19:11, 14 February 2013 (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.