Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Don't poke the bear


 * 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 speedy keep per WP:SNOW; potential bad-faith nomination. – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 18:17, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Don't poke the bear
Pointless essay which is basically interpreted to encourage vandalism/trolling etc on soft targets. Exactly what we don't need here. -- C.U.T.K.D  T 09:21, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep I do not see the inference, and it is just as valid as "don't disturb a sleeping dragon" from Rowling. No reason for deletion - ergo Keep. Collect (talk) 10:41, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep, in need expansion, not deletion. And I don't think that's what it encourages or discourages. –xeno talk 17:18, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep: I'm having difficulty understanding the nominator's argument. --MZMcBride (talk) 17:24, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Disclosure: This MFD was linked from ANI.
 * Delete I'm having difficulty understanding what this essay is for? Perhaps if it can be rewritten to say something worthwhile that is likely to actually do some good, I'll be happy to change my mind but I have to agree that it looks pretty pointless to me and may do more harm than good. Theresa Knott | token threats 17:28, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I think the most recent incident with Giano exemplifies the need for this essay. Surely the underlying message is clear enough? --MZMcBride (talk) 17:31, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
 * It could use some clarity... I was trying to figure a way to add clarity, but was finding it tough to continue with the bear analogy. Perhaps the rest of the essay should be written plainly. –xeno talk 17:38, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Put into creator's userspace. This seems a little similar to WP:BEANS (if I've got a good handle on policy, that is...) JulieSpaulding (talk) 17:45, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep and comment - The point of the essay is that one should not "poke" or needlessly start arguments with or do actions around valuable team members who are likely to react poorly. It's very simple. How CUTKD manages to take this as encouraging vandalism on soft targets is .. mindboggling. There are some people who are .. touchy on certain subjects. Is it REALLY neccessary to drag up to someone why they got desyssopped when they are just minding their own business? To me, it is saying if you do something likely to set someone off, don't go crying that you've been personally attacked if you brought it on yourself. -- Logical Premise Ergo? 17:47, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Well he probably came up with that interpretation based on the discussion on the talk page. My owwn reading was something akin to "don't annoy the admins which was something that I am extremely uncomfortable about. If it's more about the likes of Giano - then perhaps it could be salvaged but I think an name change is in order because it implies that there is a certain class of people who are special and need special treatment. Theresa Knott | token threats 18:02, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep as it's a quite useful essay, even if some people need it spelled out to them a bit more. DreamGuy (talk) 17:59, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep a nice little essay that delivers a very good point about how to avoid needless drama. John Sloan @ 18:14, 22 May 2009 (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.