Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Accountability


 * 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 Tag . This tagging shall be binding by this mfd, though not withstanding a showing of community consensus on the approriate talk page to reinstate. This will be temporarily enforced with page protection as well. — xaosflux  Talk  04:26, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Not binding, per WP:CCC. Page protection is also strange. Will go discuss with xaosflux. --Kim Bruning 04:36, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
 * See response on MFD talk. — xaosflux  Talk  23:28, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Accountability
This is a rejected proposal that the author keeps tagging as a guideline. It never had any consensus, its supporters numbering two at best, the author included. The page is convoluted and makes no sense. The idea behind it seems to actually go against guidelines; The page says to leave an edit summary and create an account, which are already recommended by other guidelines, but are specifically not required. Equazcion (Talk • Contribs) 15:10, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Tag as rejected proposal, and make sure it stays tag as a rejected proposal. This is not a bad idea, but it doesn't need to be a guideline: see WP:CREEP. Tagging it as an essay is also a good idea, since it's written like one. Grace notes T § 15:32, 6 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree that tagging it appropriate is probably preferable to deletion. No reason to get rid of the record that someone tried to make this a guideline.  Friday (talk) 15:35, 6 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment The page has been tagged as rejected/essay many times already, but the author seems to take this as an insult and revert each time. This despite many attempts to explain the issue to him/her. I'm not sure what can be done about that. I also see the basis of the page as inherently flawed, although I think an essay on accountability in and of itself might be a good idea. Equazcion (Talk • Contribs) 15:43, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid Equazcion has a point. Delete and/or userfy, this user does not appear to understand that we hold people accountable regardless of whether we have a policy that says so.  &gt; R a d i a n t &lt;  15:55, 6 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't see a reason to believe this will solve the problem. If it's really a user conduct issue, a deleted page can be recreated quite easily.  There may be a good reason to protect the page, but deleting it?  I still don't see why.  Friday (talk) 16:07, 6 September 2007 (UTC)


 * You're right, it basically is a user conduct issue. I hadn't thought of page protection as a possible solution. That seems like a good idea. Equazcion (Talk • Contribs) 16:13, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
 * or reject & protect, because that's a good idea. Thank god it's Friday :)  &gt; R a d i a n t &lt;  16:16, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Well yes that's what I meant. It wouldn't make much sense to protect the page in its its proposed or guideline state. Equazcion (Talk • Contribs) 16:30, 6 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Tag rejected it's very unclear what exactly this is trying to achieve or whether we need a guideline to demonstrate it. There is certainly no consensus for this being tagged as a guideline on the discussion page. If the author carries on removing the tag we can always protect the page. Hut 8.5 16:06, 6 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Tag rejected and protect. There's no need to delete - the ideas contribute to overall debate. AndrewRT(Talk) 16:34, 6 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep, and with some modification hopefully upgrade to an official guideline. It's a good page which brings up some valid and important points, although I agree with the nominator that the guideline shouldn't try to mandate creating an account. I also think we could add more about the necessity of admins being accountable to the community for their actions. WaltonOne 17:10, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep personally, I think we should re-open the discussion. I am not sure it would be rejected if further discussed--and possibly this MfD might trigger such as discussion. DGG (talk) 23:56, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Tag as rejected and protect. Given that this proposal hinges on an assertion that editors have positive "duties", I am personally certain that it would be rejected if further discussed. If there are good points here, better to extract them and use them for a new proposal; this one can't be fixed. — Gavia immer (talk) 13:36, 7 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Tagged as guideline or policy. I have to say, "What a nonsense! This trial is aiming to puff up Vandals who won't achieve accountability appropriately." Probably, I'm leaving Wikipedia. Please read well below, if you want to know the fact. -- PBeaver 19:49, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
 * My Contents For YOU GUYS/GALS
 * Wikipedia talk:Accountability
 * Wikipedia talk:Accountability
 * Village pump (proposals)
 * Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Do you know Wikipedia:Accountability?#Round 2
 * Wikipedia talk:Accountability
 * Wikipedia talk:Accountability ( Be Considered )
 * Wikipedia talk:Accountability ( Important Information Only For Decent Editors )
 * Wikipedia talk:Accountability ( There Is A Consensus That New Better Revision Should Come As Policy )
 * Wikipedia talk:Accountability ( Must Go Together )
 * Wikipedia talk:Accountability ( Recognize The Fact )
 * Wikipedia talk:Accountability ( Do It Yourself )
 * Wikipedia talk:Accountability ( YOU Yourself Demonstrate A Consensus About Its Being Policy )
 * Wikipedia talk:Accountability ( A Mass Of Contradiction )
 * Tag as rejected, enforce with page protection if necessary. You just can't say "oh, well this is true, so I don't need consensus to make it a guideline. -Amarkov moo! 22:55, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Oh, and you can't declare that people who disagree with you are vandals either. -Amarkov moo! 22:58, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Tag as rejected - I'd like to see someone try to nutshell this proposal. People are held accountable by not deleting their posts from the Wiki, so the proposal itself seems misdirected. In any event, there has been plenty of discussion on the matter and it has been rejected. Tag, bag (protect) if necessary, and lets move on to something else. --  Jreferee  (Talk) 05:52, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Tag as rejected - This proposed guideline says nothing of any substance. Completely redundant with other guidelines and policies. To sum it up in a nutshell - what is good is not original and what is original is not good. Tim Vickers 00:48, 9 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Tag rejected. We probably should start sanctioning people for listing rejected guidelines for deletion (after sufficient fair warning has been given on relevant public wikipedia pages that we'll start doing so): WARNING ABOUT DELETION --Kim Bruning 05:32, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
 * This wasn't proposed for deletion just because it was rejected, but because the remaining proponent refuses to stop tagging it as a guideline when it isn't. Anyway, MfD seems to have "tag as X" as an outcome a lot, so I'm not sure that the possible permanence of deletion is relevant. -Amarkov moo! 15:39, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Then MFD is (once again (...ironic that :-P ) ) misnamed, according to you? it's still called a nomination for deletion though, isn't it? Hmmmm :-/ --Kim Bruning 03:11, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Yep. It used to be deletion, but it's pretty much become a place to discuss enforcing historical/rejected tagging as well. -Amarkov moo! 03:14, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
 * edit conflict... What's in a name? We're gathering to discuss the best course of action for a particular page. Often that starts with someone who thinks the page should be deleted (someone like me), but if the page can be salvaged and the issue resolved without deletion, then isn't that a good thing? Who cares if it started out as something called a "deletion discussion"? Equazcion (Talk • Contribs)03:16, September 11, 2007
 * Because I notice that people get confused by newspeak, among other things. Like in the case of "Votes For Deletion", it took over a year to convince everyone that we weren't *actually* voting, it was just the name of the page :-P If you want to delete something, say you want to delete it. If you don't want to delete it, don't say you want to delete it. Life is simple. ;-) --Kim Bruning 04:24, 11 September 2007 (UTC) Of course, if you actually *did* want to delete a clearly historic page, shame on you! You didn't really, did you?


 * Tag rejected (and protect if necessary) or move to userspace and tag as an essay. It mostly seems to be a personal rant, redundant to existing policies and guidelines, and goes too far in some areas, such as demanding edit summaries and accounts. Insofar as it's not redundant, it consists of ideas that have been firmly rejected time and time again.  Due to cultural differences, I can see why something like this might have been accepted on ja.wikipedia, but it's not going to be accepted on en.wikipedia.  User should also perhaps be warned against referring to established editors and admins as "vandals" simply because they disagree with his ideas.  Xtifr tälk 19:41, 9 September 2007 (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.