Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:ANI's discuss rule

 __NOINDEX__
 * 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:  keep. (non-admin closure) — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 23:32, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia:ANI's discuss rule

 * – (View MfD) &#8203;

Seemingly inflammatory "rule" created by a single user in 2014 which does not seem to have any actual bearing on how WP:ANI operates. No incoming links to speak of. Edit summary of its creating edit ("Silly rule") seems to suggest it is WP:HUMOR, but it was not tagged as such, and even if so it isn't particularly funny. Proposing either deleting, or moving to the creator's userspace. silvia  (User:BlankpopsiclesilviaASHs4)  (inquire within)  08:36, 1 December 2022 (UTC) Keeping, I now accept the rationale that this is allowed in projectspace as a valid viewpoint to express in an essay. Forgot to mention this here earlier, but I have since made some edits to the essay to try and make it closer to what the original author stated as their intent when they weighed in on this MfD. While I hold that I feel the essay as it previously existed was not appropriate, I think that it is okay for it to continue to exist so long as it takes a better tone. I also support the suggestion of moving the essay to a new name so as to make it more clear that it's not describing a rule, but this can be decided later. silvia  (User:BlankpopsiclesilviaASHs4)  (inquire within)  21:35, 7 December 2022 (UTC)


 * Delete it reflects how I think a lot of people view ANI (i.e. a shit-show biased against less established editors with BOOMERANGs flying at every opportunity) but it also encourages assuming the worst possible faith and not even attempting cooperation. Even if it’s satire it’s a net negative, a better way to improve process would to make a reasoned complaint at the Village Pump. Dronebogus (talk) 12:53, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
 * First step in solving a problem is defining it. That's what I'm doing here.  Putting context and words to an idea.--v/r - TP 21:00, 2 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom and Dronebogus. —  Sundostund  mppria  (talk / contribs) 12:59, 1 December 2022 (UTC)


 * Keep/Userfy Struggling to see how this essay violates deletion policy. Author is an established editor (and admin). It's marked as an essay, and while it's clearly a minority viewpoint, it is a viewpoint nonetheless. Perhaps would better off in userspace, but should not be deleted.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 14:05, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Maybe also mark as “humor” based on first edit summary if it is kept. Dronebogus (talk) 14:16, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
 * It's definitely not humor. Harassment and bullying on the drama boards isn't funny.--v/r - TP 20:53, 2 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I’m not trying to imply anything about the author by stating this, but admins are not automatically right Dronebogus (talk) 16:09, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
 * True. Pizzaplayer219TalkContribs 17:14, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Userfy per PK3.--🌈WaltCip - (talk)  13:30, 2 December 2022 (UTC) On second thought, keep. Since when did we start deleting essays we disagreed with?--🌈WaltCip - (talk)  02:43, 3 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Which policy is WP:PK3 exactly? I can't find it by searching. silvia  (User:BlankpopsiclesilviaASHs4)  (inquire within)  17:55, 2 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Walt is referring to me and my reasoning above :) Pawnkingthree (talk) 18:05, 2 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep: Essays are used to convey ideas when writing them in the middle of a discussion would be distracting and unhelpful. This one discusses how the noticeboard process systematically marginalizes new editors through the use of the "watch this page" feature and the fact that established editors have a large following.  Notifying an established editor on their talk page also notifies their entire following and cavasses support to the established editor while new editors do not enjoy just privilege.  It documents a technical feature that results in a WP:CANVASS.  It captures how the discuss rule is manipulated so that a new editor has a far greater hurdle to seeking resolution than an established editor does.--v/r - TP 20:55, 2 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks for coming to offer your comments and clarifying the intent. It seems reasonable, and, while I lack experience with ANI, I might be even inclined to agree on this. However, I'm not sure that the essay says any of that. It just seems to say "don't even bother discussing with the editor; they are out to get you." Which is why I sent it in for discussion here, since, as Dronebogus says, it looks like it encourages bad faith. Perhaps if you rewrote the essay to be more specific about the systemic issue you're describing, I might change my opinion? Just a thought anyway. As it stands I'm in agreement with Pawnkingthree, userfying it seems like the best compromise. silvia  <small style="font-size:65%;">(User:BlankpopsiclesilviaASHs4)  <small style="font-size:75%;">(inquire within)  21:15, 2 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I see it as covering both options (do and dont) and showing the perils of both. A "no win" for newbies.--v/r - TP 21:36, 2 December 2022 (UTC)
 * keep. Reasonable essays with broad project application belong in userspace projectspace .  This discussion belongs on the essay talk page, with no deadline. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:13, 2 December 2022 (UTC)
 * When you say essays with broad project application belong in userspace, do you mean to suggest that this should be userfied? — <span style="background: linear-gradient(#990000,#660000)"> Red-tailed hawk (nest) 06:29, 4 December 2022 (UTC)
 * It suggests that I should read more carefully what I have written before pressing the publish button. SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:45, 4 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep appropriate for a projectspace essay. I think the title could be improved slightly, like "WP:ANI's discuss rule is problematic" (swap in whatever word you want for problematic) that makes it clearer it's taking a stand as an essay and not an info page trying to describe a rule. Legoktm (talk) 06:11, 6 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep poorly written and pointless, but I don't see how it violates essay policy. Coretheapple (talk) 18:15, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <b style="color:red">Please do not modify it.</b> 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.