Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Liar Liar Pants on Fire

 __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:  Keep. RL0919 (talk) 22:23, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Liar Liar Pants on Fire


I think this contradicts consensus, and is therefore in violation of our policy on essays, which states:, except that there is no primary author. Of course, I can only speak from my experience, but I have been called a liar or incorrect (whether directly or indirectly) on deletion-related matters pretty much as this essay describes many, many times by veteran editors and even admins without anyone considering it a personal attack or invalid argument. I don't know if this was the norm when this was first created, but if it was, I'm pretty sure the norm has shifted since then. Adam9007 (talk) 19:19, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep well over 1,000 links to this essay throughout Wikipedia support that it is widely accepted (or at least widely referenced). Calling another editor a liar without evidence is considered a personal attack under "Accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence" under WP:NPA which is Wikipedia policy.  With that, I request the nominator to provide references to this alleged widespread consensus that it's okay to lie and/or accuse editors of lying.--Paul McDonald (talk) 20:25, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I never claimed there was a formal consensus for it being okay, but there are a fair few instances across the project of editors doing what I think is the kind of thing this essay describes. This and this are two examples, but these are not isolated incidents. Adam9007 (talk) 22:08, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
 * It seems you have received the brunt end of bad behavior (which stinks). Bad behavior on the part of one editor doesn't make it okay.  And if several people do it that doesn't make it okay either. Even if a majority do it, it still isn't okay.  Even if lots of people violate policy, that doesn't mean that Wikipedia automatically changes policy.  The essay in question supports Wikipedia policy and should stay.--Paul McDonald (talk) 22:47, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I thought you would say something like that. However, the fact that things like that have happened (okay, perhaps on reflexion 'many, many times' is a slight exaggeration) several times and noöne has called anyone out on it makes me question whether the wider community consider it to rise to the level of a personal attack or even simply a bogus argument (this essay seems to say that it does). If my experience is anything to go by, they do not, which would put this essay at odds with consensus. Adam9007 (talk) 23:07, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Question away!--Paul McDonald (talk) 23:52, 21 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep - The real problem is that we are not enforcing the rule against personal attacks. When a few "excellent content contributors" get four-day blocks for personal attacks, it will send a message to everyone that accusations of lying are a bad idea.  Robert McClenon (talk) 17:07, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep While we can debate on the relative merits of whether it is ok to call other editors "liars" all we want, the fact that there is any debate means we should keep this essay, as the essay appears to represent a viewpoint that is held by at least a minority of Wikipedians. Grognard Extraordinaire Chess (talk) Ping when replying 21:04, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep per those above. — Godsy (TALK CONT ) 11:27, 24 October 2018 (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.