Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Competence is required

 __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The result of the discussion was  withdrawn by nominator. (non-admin closure)  sonia ♫  09:17, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Competence is required


Seems like the sole purpose of this is to put people down and give up on the idea of being an Encyclopedia anybody can edit. It's entire focus is on how many people are totally hopeless. This goes against founding principles of the project. Why on Earth would we allow anybody to edit if we feel this way? Now, an essay, even if opposed to accepted policy, is well worth discussion, most of the time. But, there is nothing positive that can come out of this essay. A look through What links here suggests it's a way of telling others to give up. Rob (talk) 02:17, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep - and suggest the nominator meditate on the meaning of the essay. The simple fact of the matter is not everybody can edit Wikipedia; they cannot write for whatever reason, or are unable to grasp even the most basic of rules. This essay is essential and absolutely should not be deleted. We must be able to point to it--or something which says exactly the same thing--when explaining to some people that yes, Virginia, there is a basic level of competence required before you get to edit here. Welcome to life. → ROUX   ₪  02:40, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Nobody disputes we have to have standards. There are things that you must do in order to be able to edit.  However, we don't write off a person completely because of most of these things.  Most of the things it mentions, are things a person can work to improve.  Those that can't be fixed, can be dealt with by working around them.  This page encourages people to focus on a problem person, instead of problem behavior, which can be fixed.  If we believed in what this essay says, than we would demand credentials before allowing editing.  But, we don't.  The great irony of the essay, is that the people who it applies to the most are the most likely to use it against others.   --Rob (talk) 03:13, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep This is a very helpful essay that explains an important point relating to the fact that Wikipedia is not a place for everyone to do whatever they want. Sure, anyone can edit, but if the edits are not helpful they will be reverted, and if the editor persists in making unhelpful edits despite explanations being provided concerning the problems, the problem editor will be blocked. In short, competence is required. If someone is abusing this essay by using it to be uncivil, that person needs attention, not the essay. BTW it is very unhelpful to start an MfD with no discussion that I can see. Johnuniq (talk) 03:17, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't do a lot of MfDs, so sorry I may not have followed the normal protocal. I thought the MfD was the discussion.  I don't see anything redeemable in this.  So, I didn't bother going to the talk page to discuss changes.  Also, I think you simply missed the whole point of the essay.  Without this essay, its well established that anybody can edit, but can't edit however they wish.  This essay is based on the premise that no, many just can't edit at all, no matter hard they may try.  Almost all editors who are banned, could have, but chose not to, behave different.  That's not a competence issue.  --Rob (talk) 03:30, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep - Some people are simply too stupid to become a functional or useful editors here at the Wikipedia. We aren't here to hold hands, to help people figure out why they can't add the latest rumour from TMZ.com to a BLP, why they can't write an article about the coolest band they ever saw playing in a friend's basement, or why the girl who can get 4 penises (penes?  penii?) into her vagina in that Vivid Video DVD can't have a Wikipedia article.  Some people can't drop their face four times onto the ~ to sign a post.  I know the politically-correct, everyone-gets-a-ribbon-if-they-try world that many of you grew up in thinks it's mean to label people failures, but y'know, in real life, sometimes there are.  Not everyone gets to be an astronaut when they grow up.  Deleting a wiki-essay ain't gonna change that. Tarc (talk) 03:28, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Actually, lots of people with trouble signing their name, sourcing facts properly, or writing in general, do have their hands held, and do improve a great deal. Often, people who started with adding badly sourced facts, end up becoming fact checkers themselves.  Many people improve and help others with things they used to have problems with.  You're not obliged to hold anybody's hands.  But, there are plenty of people happy to do that, and would hope you don't chase away people with potential.  I think the tone of your comments illustrate the attitude that goes along with this essay.    --Rob (talk) 03:39, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Those "lots" should be subject to simple WP:RBI so we don't have to waste so much time. I can put it into a Dickensian "decrease the surplus population" whimsy if you like. Tarc (talk) 05:22, 13 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep - Tarc, I think that you summed it up perfectly. I don't really think that I have anything to add.  Hi 8 7 8   (Come shout at me!) 03:40, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep per WP:SNOW, as I don't believe this page has a "snowball's chance in Hell of being deleted". As a side note, this essay was mentioned as part of a comment to an evidence presentation in an Arbitration Committee case; Thivierr has consistently commented in that case in support of the "accused party" at the core of that dispute, and this essay was cited by another editor that has commented against the accused party.  Imzadi 1979  →   05:11, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I did find that use to be a personal attack and unacceptable. But, I didn't need that case to prove why this should be deleted.  I saw no reason to use this venue as a means to attack somebody over there.  There have already been too many cases of people linking back to the ArbCom or RfC..  I did look through "What Links Here" and found plenty of other examples of people using this to attack people.  So, no need to use that as my basis.  However, you clearly followed my User Contributions to come over here, and attack me, even though, as you say, you saw this was a snowball.  It boggles the mind, that you would engage in the same problematic behavior that your pretending to offer solutions to over there.  You have substantially misrepresented my involvement in the ArbCom.  It is far to complicated to say one "supports" this or that party.  I haven't given blanket support to anybody.  Regardless, I would have opposed the same essay be used against any other party, and even if it was used against you.  I notice that in your whole attack on me, you failed to refute anything I said.  Rather, you just attack my motive.  I'm sorry having to go over this here, but, if attacked, I feel I have a right to defend myself.  Feel free to close-up. --Rob (talk) 06:58, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I found the timing very disingenuous, and no, I didn't need to look at your contributions to see the MfD. There's a large box that contains eight lines of text at the top of the essay that appeared when I clicked on the link in the ArbCom page. I had clicked on that link to see what was meant by the reference. Seriously, you could have made a note of this essay and nominated after the case closed, obscuring any link between the two.  Imzadi 1979  →   07:09, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I have no desire to "obscure" or hide anything. That's what dishonest people do.  Anybody can see what I've done, if they wish.  I just saw no reason to bring up the ArbCom case.  I've often nominated regular articles for deletion, because they happened to be mentioned in some discussion somewhere else, and I looked at them and saw they warranted deletion,  and I usually don't mention how I came to find the page, but just give the reasons for the deletion.  While I would like this page to be deleted, I'm not so obsessed with it that I'm going to bide my time to stealthily delete it later.  That's one of the weirder suggestions I've ever heard of.  Anyways, I don't mind you following my User Contributions (pretty obvious), and your welcome to oppose the deletion, I just objected to the needless attack, which you knew required a defense, and was a totally necessary sidetrack.  You could have said something on my talk page, if you just had to.  --Rob (talk) 07:21, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
 * This discussion is not appropriate for this page. Please move it somewhere else. kthx. --Rschen7754 07:23, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep It's an essay for crying out loud. An essay that is quite true. --Rschen7754 05:13, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep- expresses an opinion which many editors hold and which is consistent with policy. No problems with it. Reyk  YO!  06:31, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Withdraw I see where it's going, so let's end this. --Rob (talk) 07:24, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep because it's an excellent guideline ESSAY only. We should hope that it would become an official WP policy one day but it is not that at this time. So what's the big deal. This nomination is surely an over-reaction. IZAK (talk) 08:07, 13 May 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.