Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Don't just say it, prove it

 __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. Jackmcbarn (talk) 01:03, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Don't just say it, prove it


I don't believe this essay is helpful or reflective of even a minority opinion. This is one user's opinion and does not belong in project space, just look at the incoming links. Hardly any, despite how long it has been here. The user who wrote it was eventually banned, exported their disputes from here to several other WMF websites, then went on to become a serial sockpuppeteer, so userfying does not seem to be a viable option. (although I would note that repeatedly demanding more and more evidence, as advocated in this essay, is part of what got them banned all over the place) Beeblebrox (talk) 23:42, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep and possibly rename This hardly seems like minority opinion. Messages stating the importance of providing diffs are plastered at the top of WP:ANI and other pages pertaining to user conduct. I don't think there are any other essays emphasizing the importance of diffs so it seems like it could prove useful. Also this essay was never tagged as part of Wikiproject Essays, which could explain why it never got much exposure. I have tagged it as part of the project and plan to make some improvements to the essay. However I'd suggest moving it to Provide diffs so that the essay has a more self explanatory and catchy name. Bosstopher (talk) 23:17, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I think it might be better to just create that essay from scratch. I suppose it's possible my knowledge of the context in which this was created colors my perception of it somewhat, but I don't think this expresses its points very well. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:04, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Admittedly I dont know that much about the situation of the deletion but I have made some changes. I've generally tried to make the sentences more coherent, and have removed some ideas I dont agree with (e.g. admins who see a block with no diffs provided should immediately revert the block). But I must admit I am no skilled essayist, and the importance of diffs is not really a subject I have strong opinions about, so I'm not sure if my changes have made it anything worth keeping. Bosstopher (talk) 17:34, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
 * Delete per nominator. --Surturz (talk) 23:51, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete, single-issue essay by a now indef-blocked editor should be enough to warrant deleting this. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 18:38, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jackmcbarn (talk) 04:05, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete- Seems to be nothing but griping from an indef blocked user. In addition to the reasoning above, I think the title is misleading. I expected it to be something along the lines of WP:BURDEN. Reyk  YO!  08:00, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep, certainly a useful page, just content and tone needs to be better, and perhaps page should be renamed, per Bosstopher. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 14:32, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep, appears to describe best practices. -- SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:12, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I think Bosstopher did a very good job on the rewrite -- if I had seen the original, I might very well have voted to delete it without considering that it could be fixed. However, since I only saw the "fixed" version, I do support the points made there (although I didn't always do an amazing job of following them myself).-- SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:24, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete this was written by a now-indef blocked editor as a way of shielding themselves from criticism. I can only see one instance of anyone else referring to it, ever (and that person seems to have misunderstood the point). Although the essay has been completely rewritten during the course of this discussion I still don't think the revised version if very helpful. Notably the recommendation that blocking admins always cite diffs as evidence is rarely done and would be a waste of time if it was required. I'm sure it is possible for someone to write a useful essay about providing evidence for accusations but I think it would need to be rewritten from scratch and written for honest motives.  Hut 8.5  19:06, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment Several comments here just say delete because it was created by an indeffed user. How is that relevant? --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 06:58, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
 * It's not just that it was written by an indef-blocked editor, but that they wrote it to try to excuse or defend the conduct that got them that indef block, it only represents their opinion and there's no point userfying it as the creator is gone.  Hut 8.5  07:46, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
 * That is what I was trying to express in the nom, but I probably could have done a better job of it. Part of evaluating project space essays is also looking at how often users link to them. The vast majority of incoming links to this essay are from the creating user trying to draw attention to it right after it was written. I believe there is all of one instance of another user citing it in nearly four years of it being here. That strongly suggests the community does not find it useful. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:34, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Maybe nobody noticed that it existed? --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 14:05, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
 * The essay wasnt tagged as a part of Wikiproject Essays before the deletion nomination which could explain the lack of exposure. Bosstopher (talk) 16:53, 25 January 2015 (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.