Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:BRD misuse

 __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 no consensus. Salvio Let's talk about it! 23:18, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

BRD misuse


Delete: Non-constructive and barely intelligible rant page. Its WP:FILIBUSTERERS shortcut has been blacklisted as ad-hominem (so the author used WP:FILIBUSTERS, and usurped WP:FILIBUSTER from WP:TE, which I undid). It purports to be a page about "BRD misuse" (I think the author really means abuse, but it's hard to tell). It is actually an exercise in hostile labeling of other editors, as "edit ninjas", "revert ninjas" and "filbusters" [sic] (I corrected that to "filibusterers"). So, it violates WP:CIVIL, WP:NPA, WP:SOAPBOX, etc. It is riddled with grammatical errors (I cleaned some of them up, but gave up eventually), has no real logic flow, and doesn't add anything that is not already covered by long-established guidelines and policies. Well, other than name-calling like "edit ninjas" that doesn't mean anything to anyone but the author. Who linked to own personal blog several times (I removed those links per WP:EL, WP:SPAM, WP:COI, WP:NOT, etc.). To the extent that it is seen as making any valid point at all, it could easily be addressed by gaining consensus to modify WP:BRD itself where it is allegedly unclear. If this is kept as a separate page for some reason, it should be userspaced, and not redirected to by shortcuts. PS: A Related template was deleted already, and the majority of that debate, by far, is relevant reading. – SMcCandlish  Talk⇒ ʕ(Õلō)ˀ  Contribs. 19:28, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Delete:There would seem to be little use to be made of this page, which IMHO is not in line with our evolving increased sense of the need for civility. It was originally called BRD Violations, but toning down the title did not fix the defects, and there is much better advice available elsewhere in long-established guidelines and policies. NewbyG ( talk) 04:57, 22 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep. Valid essay.  While many editors support BRD, many others have problems with it.  True, this essay can be improved.  It is not particularly deep.  It has two thrusts.  1) BRD doesn't work well if there are multiple quick reverters.  One could also point to WP:OWN or Don't revert due solely to "no consensus".  2) WP:BRD doesn't work so well if others are severely verbose.  One could also point to WP:TL;DR, or simply rely on the support of other editors instead of trying to convince the reverter.  Overall, Revert only when necessary and then WP:3RR are better responses.  However, poor quality of an essay is no reason to delete.  Essays exist to document users' perspectives, and deleting them is a dangerous and easily counter-productive thing to do.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:30, 22 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Agree with removing the shortcuts. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:34, 22 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep for the reasons spelled out by SJ. This essay makes it clear that the "D" part of BRD is important and an edit ninja doesn't discuss, he just reverts. I also say keep the shortcuts. Telling someone that he's filibustering may be personal but it's not necessarily an "attack". It's a simple way of saying "this is what you're doing and it's wrong please stop". --Ron Ritzman (talk) 03:17, 23 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete or Userfy (if someone wants to clean up and refine it). Present text not up to normal Wikipedia-space standards, as pointed out by nom. -- Klein zach  08:54, 24 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Poor writing, inclusion of rant, etc, is a weak reason to delete. "Non-constructive" is a good reason, but I think "non-constructive" is an exaggeration here.  Userfication is not really appropriate for a multiple authored essay that is not actually alleged to be wrong (when deciphered).  Redirect to WP:BRD, with the option for interested editors to merge useful content (whether boldly or subject to consensus at WT:BRD).  I think there is useful sentiment, with it often complained that BRD has degenerated to BRRRRRRRRRRRD or BRDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDD.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:26, 26 October 2011 (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.