Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:BLP Admin


 * 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of the debate was keep per WP:SNOW, especially since the rejected tag is sticking now and the nom has provisionally withdrawn this nomination. —Doug Bell talk 19:37, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

BLP Admin
Normally we don't MfD proposed policy changes while they are under discussion, but there are exceptions for disruption and I think this qualifies. CyberAnth is unhappy that some people objected to his mis-use of the WP:BLP policy to edit war over things like whether or not Hank Aaron is in the baseball hall of fame. When he failed to get much sympathy over this from admins he went to Jimbo... when he didn't get a different answer there he proposed this. There is no need for a different class of administrators... just for people to use WP:BLP responsibly rather than as an excuse to be disruptive over anything and everything. --CBD 12:27, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Wouldn't it be better if we just kept it as a rejected idea? That way, people can see whay it was rejected and will probably not have the inclination to suggest the same. Fram 12:30, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
 * There is edit warring over the 'rejected' tag. As to avoiding the possibility of someone proposing it again... that seems unlikely, and retaining the page would not prevent it. If someone does make such a suggestion again they can be pointed to this MfD as easily as any rejected proposal. Stopping the ongoing disruption (as per 'edit warring over the rejected tag') is of more import IMO. --CBD 12:34, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually, pointing them to this MfD is not going to have the same impact as refering them to the failed proposal...which won't be possible if it's deleted. —Doug Bell talk 12:37, 6 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Addendum: I don't care whether the page is deleted or marked rejected and moth-balled... just so long as the whole divisive and inflammatory mess goes away. If the 'rejected' status sticks I've no objections to closing this. --CBD 19:05, 6 February 2007 (UTC)


 *  Speedy keep (edit conflict) since we don't normally delete failed (or failing) policy proposals. I'd be curious to here CB's rationale for why this one is an exception and needs to be deleted. —Doug Bell talk 12:32, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
 * OK, rationale provided (edit conflict again), but still not sure about deleting. —Doug Bell talk 12:36, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep - discuss on talk page. If edit warring over tag is going on, protect in disputed state until issues are resolved. If wheel-warring ensues, open RfCs on the wheel-warrers. Pointing to the MfD is not enough. If it is rejected, blank and leave summary of discussion on front page, with the history in the page history for those who are interested later, and then throw on the dustbin of history. Please don't start down a slippery slope of deleting some policy proposals but not others. Ideas can always be resurrected, changed, improved and accepted later. Carcharoth 12:45, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Or possibly userfy as an essay for a proposed idea that was rejected. But I favour an open and above board rejection, with the history visible for all to see. Otherwise people will never learn from past discussions. Carcharoth 12:48, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep - there have been plenty of bad ideas on Wikipedia, but they get tagged as rejected, not deleted. --BigDT 12:52, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep and mark rejected, obviously not going to fly but no reason to delete.  &gt; R a d i a n t &lt;  13:51, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Weak keep and mark rejected per Radiant!, although I am tempted to argue delete as a WP:POINT creation. --Core desat  14:00, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. It must be some sort of guideline that we don't delete rejected proposals. I strongly object to an MfD result saying it is marked as rejected. -Amark moo! 14:36, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Not really, we sometimes do delete them. Why do you object to an MFD result saying such? This page attracted quite a lot of dissent within a single day.  &gt; R a d i a n t &lt;  14:49, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Because MfD is not tagging war resolution. It's one thing to mark something that hasn't been edit warred over, but this has. -Amark moo! 14:53, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
 * It's true that MFD doesn't resolve tag wars, but an influx of people stating it's a bad idea does mean a de facto rejection.  &gt; R a d i a n t &lt;  14:58, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep to remind people of what a bad idea this is. :: Colin Keigher ( Talk ) 14:55, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep and tag as rejected per the clear consensus on the proposal's Talk page. As others have already said, we keep bad policy ideas around so we can learn from them and not make the same mistakes again.  Rossami (talk) 15:03, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep and tag as rejected. Policy proposal is horrendously misguided but in good faith, and we should preserve the discussion to illustrate why this is a bad idea. Sjakkalle (Check!)  15:06, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep and mark rejected per Radiant! I don't particularly approve of the idea, but I don't think deleting this is appropriate.  Nish kid 64  15:18, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep It is a policy proposal. Also, to address the nominators concerns regarding CyberAnth, I suggested he create this policy proposal.  I am very disappointed reading bad faith accusations regarding CyberAnth.  This is a good editor willing to stand up for what he believes is policy.  Even to the point of proposing new policy.  What is that harm in a proposal?  Discuss the merits and lack of merits on the policy, not the perceived motivation of the proposer. Apologies for the long comment. Regards,  Navou   banter  /  review me  15:21, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
 * No 'bad faith' involved. CyberAnth edit warred over things he shouldn't have. Then he complained to admins. Then he complained to Jimbo. Then he proposed this. Those are all historical facts... not assumptions of any kind. I haven't said anything about his 'motivations', which could be entirely positive, just his past actions... which weren't. --CBD 19:05, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep as rejected per Radiant!, since it’s merely a bad idea that is worth documenting, not a disruption. —xyzzyn 15:23, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep as rejected. If edit warring continues, it can always be protected. WJBscribe 15:36, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Relist at MfD Keep - (i) Keep issue - There is no basis for this policy proposal to be deleted; it should be kept. The proposal itself has no disruptions. As for any disruptions on the talk page, disagreements should resolved through polite discussion and negotiation, in an attempt to develop a consensus.  Deleting the project proposal because there may be disruptions on the talk page is not a basis for deletion.  (ii) Rejected issue - Two days is not enough time to establish a consensus.  Creating a different class of administrators is a huge deal and the proposal should receive a significant number of comments before a consensus is declared.  The present MfD discussion was created to consider the miscellaneous page for deletion, not to consider the acceptance or rejection of the proposal within the page.  It would be inappropriate to mark the proposal as rejected based on the present MfD. -- Jreferee 15:54, 6 February 2007 (UTC) The proposal now has been rejected.  I believe this substantial change in circumstances directly affects the present MfD as it creates a significantly different issue - should this rejected proposal be kept or deleted? -- Jreferee 17:04, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Per nomination. Telly   addict Editor review! 16:29, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep and mark Rejected. If the dispute is over the rejected tag we can settle that here.  Durova Charge! 16:47, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Note: has been marked rejected here with rationale under the "rejected" heading of this diff here. Regards, Navou   banter  /  review me  17:01, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep and mark rejected, however it may be preferable to delete it if the proposer decides the policy proposal was a mistake and the page is embarassing. JChap2007 17:38, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep No reason to delete. Frise 18:06, 6 February 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.