Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Editors willing to make difficult edits 2


 * 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 debate was No consensus, default to Keep. WaltonOne 08:42, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Editors willing to make difficult edits
This is supposed to be the editors' version of Admins willing to make difficult blocks. I can't imagine any case where this list would be useful. In my experience, the fact that an "editorial action" might be seen as "risky" only seems to attract people who want to take such action. I've yet to see a situation that intimidated editors out of wanting to make edits. This page seems to me like a list of people who take their label as "editor" with a slight delusion of grandeur on the side.  Equazcion •✗/C • 05:55, 11 Apr 2008 (UTC) (t/a/c) 11:45, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep mainly for the reasons I expressed in the admin's version of this discussion (here). Again, I have as an editor (not an admin) received death threats, but I feel as though this page is less necessary due to the less binding nature of simply editing. However, I could still think of a few cases in which this could be used: For example, someone whose username is their real name, wants to improve the article on Child pornography, but would very much not like their name to come up in the page history. Among other reasons. Either way, there is a purpose to this page, and we don't need to go deleting it. Hers fold  (t/a/c) 06:03, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion was originally at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Editors willing to make difficult edits but was improperly closed by User:The Fat Man Who Never Came Back because it was overwriting an old discussion. Consider this a DumbBOT action. Hers fold 
 * Improperly closed? Ouch. all I did was revert the overwriting of an archived discussion.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 13:13, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Except you didn't then re-open the discussion elsewhere, and left it to someone else to remove the old discussion from this page. Perhaps that wasn't the best way to put it, but still. Hers fold  (t/a/c) 18:41, 12 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete even though I'm on it; doesn't really have much point. In an earlier state, with the overblown list of dire consequences of difficult edits, it served as a "semi-parody" of the corresponding admin page, but the current tame version lacks "oomph". *Dan T.* (talk) 12:05, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment Please note that the nominator (who did not realize this was listed just a few months ago) appears to wish to withdraw the nom .--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 13:13, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete - per User:FT2 in the earlier discussion Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/Wikipedia:Editors_willing_to_make_difficult_edits - I have serious concerns about editors asking other editors to make edits for them - sounds a lot like some sort of proxy or potentially inadvertent meat puppetry. The proper procedure is to just set up an alternative account, see WP:SOCK and Username_policy.  (Procedural note: The earlier discussion was five months ago and I don't read the nominator's comments as wanting to withdraw the nom at this point.  Sounds like the nominator didn't realize the earlier discussion had occurred and was willing to change his or her mind and not nominate at all for fear it would be seen as a waste of the community's time, but we're way past that point.)--Doug.(talk • contribs) 21:19, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep unless Admins willing to make difficult blocks is also deleted. Amerique dialectics 23:11, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Why? They are very different. WP:AMDB doesn't involve edits which require proper attribution and discussions which can often involve potential for sockpuppetry.  And an admin can't set up an alternative account to perform the block - there is no other choice but to ask someone else to do it.--Doug.(talk • contribs) 23:36, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
 * And that just seems to be a version of other stuff exists.--Doug.(talk • contribs) 00:24, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
 * They are both just means of organizing affiliations, nothing more, as far as I can tell. I added myself to this list because several Wikipedians I admire are on it, and because the category itself I basically saw as humorous, with or without the digs at the admins list. Perhaps the concern over proxy editing could be removed if the term "difficult edits" were qualified to mean "edits that require a visit to the library" or actual scholarship of some sort. Anyway, other than that I routinely make "difficult editing" choices all the time, most recently at University_of_California%2C_Irvine, and the term could mean little more than editors willing to make bold interventions to POV areas of the encyclopedia.


 * That being said, I'm mainly interested in saving the userbox and the category. I don't have anything invested in the page text as it stands right now. Amerique dialectics 00:54, 12 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Made a "difficult edit" to remove the material out of line of WP:SOCK:. Amerique dialectics 01:18, 12 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Meh. I don't see any big deal that would necessitate a delete.  It's just a list of people who cleave to WP:BOLD and decided to identify themselves as such.  I don't see the harm, unless the people on the list suddenly start going nuts with their edits.  --UsaSatsui (talk) 05:56, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Huh? It doesn't have anything to do with WP:BOLD, it refers to making edits that are difficult for a particular editor to make, that is one editor making edits for another editor, bold or not.--Doug.(talk • contribs) 02:21, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. There are situations where someone needs to make a difficult edit, yet can't do so for various reasons (ie, bias, their beliefs, the availability of their personal information, etc). It should be simple for them to find an editor who is free of those restrictions, and contact them to make the edit. Nwwaew (Talk Page) (Contribs) (E-mail me) 16:23, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep - seems harmless at the very least, and potentially useful in situations like that described by Nwwaew just above. If even one person makes use of this page, it's achieved its purpose. Terraxos (talk) 23:25, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep, harmless. In that it may prevent real-world harm to editors who may be using their real names, addresses etc... +Hexagon1 (t) 03:30, 14 April 2008 (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.