Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts

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 Speedy keep/improper forum. Per above prerequisites, "Nominating a Wikipedia policy or guideline page, or one of the deletion discussion areas (or their sub-pages), for deletion will probably be considered disruptive, and the ensuing discussions closed early. This is not a forum for modifying or revoking policy." The proper forum to discuss this is Wikipedia:Village pump (policy) or the WP:DR talk pages. Additionally, such pages would be marked historical rather than deleted, and MfD is again not the place to decide DR policy changes. Non-admin closure by 12 Noon ^2¢ 00:12, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts

WQA is too open to abuse by editors who will just file reports about people they don't like by finding random contributions, e.g. Zenwhat, before he turned bitter, filed a report about me, but later admitted he got the charracterization of me wrong. WQA also serves no purpose to sanction editors at all, so the question is: what really is it's purpose? Is it supposed to be WP:RFC/U without certification? If so, that's a bad idea, because RFC/U was only kept because nothing better exists. Will ^(talk) 09:56, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep Bad faith nomination by user who has decided that since he doesn't personally like WQA, it shouldn't exist. Has resisted all attempts by editors to explain the purpose of WQA and has not raised any valid reason for its deletion, other than his belief that it's a "lynch mob".[1] DanielEng (talk) 10:04, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The process did comprehensively fail to be of any help in dealing with Zenwhat. Addhoc (talk) 12:53, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AN/I also failed in dealing with Zenwhat. Should we delete that forum too? We can't solve every single case, any more than RfC or any other form of mediation can, and not everything brought to WQA is appropriate for it. That doesn't mean the baby needs to be thrown out with the bathwater.DanielEng (talk) 18:17, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep WP:WQA actually works quite well as an informal route before WP:RFC/U Mayalld (talk) 12:16, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and reform - share Will's concerns, however I think we should attempt reform before deletion. Addhoc (talk) 12:50, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep These discussions have to take place somewhere. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 16:13, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep - bad faith nom. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 16:35, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep. The nomination makes no sense. We can't delete every page that served as a stage for Zenwhat's erratic behaviour. Yes, this is often the first place outside article talk pages and user talk pages where problematic users go when they can't get their way in a content dispute. But precisely for this reason it is also often the first place where they are told by a neutral person that they are the problem. The purpose of WQA is to prevent (were feasible) escalation of conflicts to the point where a sanction against either side makes sense, or certification as an RFC becomes feasible. --Hans Adler (talk) 17:52, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That's not the reason, it's just an example. Will ^(talk) 18:12, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That's why the rest of my comment was about the rest of your nomination. I thought it might be a bad idea to start my comment with the Zenwhat example, but then I was (and am) in a hurry, so I was less careful about my rhetorics than I should have been. Sorry for the confusion. --Hans Adler (talk) 18:25, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep the potential for abuse exists in every Wikipedia process. Whatever "reform" or changes might be necessary, I can safely say that the WQA provides a place for disputes to be hashed out, sometimes solved, and sometimes directed to the right place to be solved. Rarely does a WQA happen where one of these to outcomes is not the eventual resolution. --Cheeser1 (talk) 18:57, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Please note that I am voting "keep" despite having had many frivolous and bad-faith WQA complaints filed against me. --Cheeser1 (talk) 18:59, 19 February 2008 (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.