Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Vandalism-only account


 * 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 don't delete. There is no consensus on what to do with it now, though. Discussions on whether to redirect, merge, or keep the page as-is can be carried out on the talk page.--Aervanath (talk) 06:06, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Vandalism-only account
On the basis that this has been declared by the originating editors to be a putative policy, this is a redundant document which has reached no consensus and has been subject of an attempt to bludgeon it through by labelling it with a policy flag. As such it is yet another item of WP:CREEP and the continual thrust towards more and more and more petty bureaucracy.

However it is not a policy, and is not written as a policy. This leaves me gasping at the way the word "policy" is interpreted.

Instead it is a definition which could be incorporated in one or more policies, but is probably only relevant to the Blocking Policy. Wikipedia is not the place for mini-lawyers and mini-lawyering. The best outcome for this document is deletion and merging into the Blocking Policy. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 07:23, 6 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep/Merge The nomination is conflicting itself. Either merge or delete - not both. If anything needs to be done I'd say merge. Agathoclea (talk) 07:56, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment If you merge it and delete the original, that is merge and delete. Seems clear to me.  Fiddle Faddle (talk) 09:26, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
 * See WP:MAD. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:07, 6 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Redirect to Blocking policy, we do not delete policy proposals, especially not serious proposals put forward as policy by a long standing editor in good standing. We never delete such things.  If a consensus cannot be established there are various options.  The most obvious is to tag as failed.  Converting to a redirect to an existing policy page is also justifiable.  Soemtimes, we turn these things into essays, although some wikipedians object to that.  The history must remain accessible.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:25, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment That is just it. It is not a policy proposal.  It is a definition that may or may not be useful as a part of a policy.  Fiddle Faddle (talk) 09:26, 6 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep It is a bit more than a mere "definition" as written.  If an editor disagrees with it, then edit.   The policy tag was removed, making that issue moot.  The nom has been a participant on the talk page for the article, and voiced no opinion there that it should be deleted, which is the first thing he ought to have done.  And as to the rationale that it should be part of an existing policy to avoid "creep" - that is not a specific reason for deletion here, but belongs in the discussion on the topic, or an RfC on that talk page.  This should not be MfD, it should be RfC on the talk page. Collect (talk) 11:24, 6 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment Thank you for a clear explanation of what you feel I should have done. We disagree on that.  I have re-read the article and do not see in any part of it where it is "a bit more than a mere "definition" as written" since all it does is to define a Vandalism Only account.  Definition is not policy.  A policy requires definitions but also has actions that are to be performed based upon definitions.


 * Delete - This isn't a concept that requires concrete terminology and definition. "Vandalism-only account" is a colloquialism we use simply to describe the most extreme version of vandalism. When someone vandalizes repeatedly, they get blocked. An account used solely for vandalism is merely the most extreme example, and doesn't require any new information on appropriate response. The term itself is barely even a term -- it's just describing an obvious situation in as few words as possible. If you're one of those people that feels every oft-used term must appear in some policy, I'd call that the tendency towards WP:CREEP. But if you absolutely must, just discuss a possible addition to blocking policy, on its talk page, instead. PS I'd also be fine with marking this as a failed proposal.  Equazcion •✗/C • 12:39, 6 Mar 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per Equazcion; Unnecessary dicdef of a term which is already self-defining. Almost rulescreep; no longer a proposed policy but may be used as one to wikilawyer. KillerChihuahua?!? 13:44, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Merge to WP:Blocking policy. I agree that the page as it stands seems mostly a dicdef, but the important material could be merged to the blocking policy page, since it does mention the term. Raven1977 Talk to me My edits  15:37, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Merge to WP:Blocking policy - per Raven1977. It would be better if the vandalism only account was moved to there. It is kind of short. Versus22 talk 18:23, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. It is well-settled that rejected proposals are tagged rejected, not deleted. No objection to merging. Stifle (talk) 18:41, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment on marking as rejected - I think of proposals as new ideas, and rejected proposals as new ideas that didn't gain enough support to be implemented. This isn't a new idea; it's an existing term that we don't need documented separately. The material is superfluous rather than disallowed. Keeping this around with the 'rejected' tag might even give the impression that people aren't supposed to use the term, which isn't something we intend to say.  Equazcion •✗/C • 18:55, 6 Mar 2009 (UTC)
 * Agree wtih comment - this should never have been a policy propoasl, that was a misnomer. Its an unneeded definition. Tagging it "rejected" is not the appropriate response to this. KillerChihuahua?!? 20:24, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep although not a policy it is a useful essay or text on this phenomenon. It is a bit more than definition. Redirect to another policy only adds confusion, but it should link to the policy. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:21, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
 * comment This is not an essay. it is purely and simply a well architected definition.  It is also surplus to requirements since it should be incorporated as that definition within the policy that it is used in. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 22:42, 6 March 2009 (UTC)


 * keep or merge somewhere as a clear section. A useful guideline page. The term "V-O A" is quite often seen in wikipedia, hence must be clearly explained. In particular, the part about IPs is especially instructive: - and hence goes beyond dicdef. Laudak (talk) 21:22, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
 * comment It cannot "go beyond a dicdef", because it is a dicdef. It's an expanded definition, certainly, and it's a competent one, but a definition is what it is and is all it is.  Fiddle Faddle (talk) 22:39, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
 * What in However, if an IP address has been used only or mostly for vandalism, it is included in Category:IP addresses used for vandalism. These IP addresses may be subject to very long blocks, up to a year and occasionally even longer. is a dictdef? These are clearly instructions how to deal with the situation therefore policy/guideline/opinion. Also MFD is not he place to decide policy. Agathoclea (talk) 22:49, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I do not recall attempting to decide policy because this is not a policy. It is a redundant definition which requires merging with the blocking policy and discussing there.  The text you quote as if it were an instruction is a statement.  That statement is part of the definition.  MfD is to decide the fate of this article, project page, whatever it is.  But policy it is not, and belong here it does not.  Fiddle Faddle (talk) 22:54, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
 * This isn't really a policy decision. If the tag were theoretically placed on the page, nothing would really change. We'd just have an extraneous definition that everyone knew already, and in fact don't even need to know (per my previous comments).  Equazcion •✗/C • 23:00, 6 Mar 2009 (UTC)


 * Note that rejected is deprecated and redirects to failed. This was long discussed, finally at Wikipedia_talk:Policies_and_guidelines/Archive_8, also at Template talk:Failed.  Project ideas can fail for whatever reason, without the implication than any underlying idea or component is “rejected”, where some read “rejected” to imply a consensus for a counter-view.  Here, one could say the idea is failed because it is not needed.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:24, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
 * If it were an idea then one could. But it is a definition.  Fiddle Faddle (talk) 23:25, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I think he means "the idea to have this page become a policy", which has indeed failed. However my concern is that the average passerby won't interpret it that way. Also, the failed tag, I think, serves the specific purpose of keeping unique ideas in existence for posterity. As basically lacking the merit of an idea whatsoever, I don't see the practical use in keeping this particular page around.  Equazcion •✗/C • 23:34, 6 Mar 2009 (UTC)
 * I share your concern. failed speaks of a proposal, and this is not a proposal.  It is simply a definition in the wrong place.  If we are to seek to use precision in Wikipedia at all we need to be careful to use it with proposals, with policies, with guidelines, etc etc. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 23:46, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I'd gone off on a tangent here. I don't support failed, but a redirect to to Blocking policy.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:56, 6 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep If it's wrong, fix it. If it's redundant, merge/redirect it. If it's to be rejected, reject it. Don't delete policy/proposed policy/guideline/proposed guideline/essay pages unless there is very strong reason. --Abd (talk) 03:46, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment It is none of the things you state it might be. It is a definition. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 07:23, 11 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep and label as an essay or as a historical, rejected policy, or merge/redirect to another page. MfD is not an appropriate forum for rejecting policy proposals.  The nomination incorrectly states that it's just a definition, when in fact it is not just a definition but contains assertions such as "Vandalism-only accounts are usually blocked indefinitely".  If some users are claiming that an essay is policy or labelling it with a policy tag, I'm sure there are processes to deal with that; however, MfD is not the the right way.  ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 23:57, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment Unless English is not one's first language it seems to me to be wholly bizarre that one can look at what is written and suggest that it is different from a definition. It is not an essay.  It is not a policy.  It is, purely and simply, a definition.  Definitions can and do contain modifying statements that elaborate on the definition, but the presence of those does not remove the blindlingly obvious fact that it is a definition.  Fiddle Faddle (talk) 07:23, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

the material is important, so it should be merged to the only relevant article, namely WP:Blocking Policy. Oldlaptop321 (talk) 03:26, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Merge to WP:Blocking Policy It seems as though this article is needless, but
 * comment I would ask for it not to be merged but kept as a separate item. vandalism only account is not the same idea as blocking policy. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 04:36, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
 * The page advocates blocking. It is directly relevant to blocking policy, and relevant to nothing else.  It is therefore nothing more than a spill-out of blocking policy, and is creep.  If you are sure that you disagree, then this MfD should be closed and the discussion moved to Wikipedia talk:Vandalism-only account.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:12, 11 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment I don't get it. We have always done it this way and will continue to, this document just describes that. I suppose it belongs in the blocking policy, it used to be there. Deleting it seems just odd. Chillum  04:35, 12 March 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.