Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiLawyering


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellany 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 Speedy keep as trolling. Phil Sandifer 22:29, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

WikiLawyering
Reasons why the page should be deleted Jon Awbrey 19:48, 29 August 2006 (UTC):

Please refer to the following informational, guideline, and policy pages:


 * Attributional bias
 * Stereotype
 * Trait ascription bias


 * Categorization of people
 * Civility
 * Naming conventions (categories)
 * Neutral point of view
 * Words to avoid


 * I believe the use of the current page title to label the current page content violates both the letter and the spirit of all of the above policies and guidelines, and its continuation cannot be tolerated in any namespace of Wikipedia.


 * The above considerations and principles vacate any claimed or established consensus among a small group of editors who indulge in this usage.


 * WP:Consensus applies only to questions that a reasonable adult would expect to be controversial among people of common sense, normal sensitivity, and sound judgment. It does not permit the appeasement of practices that would be frowned on in normal civil society.


 * The term WikiLawyering, in association with the characterizations listed on the project page, clearly exploits and perpetrates a host of biased and derogatory stereotypes.


 * Citing customary usage of the term by a small group of individuals is no justifcation for the use of derogatory stereotypes on any WP pages.


 * There is no justification for continuing abusive speech simply on the grounds that it may be an "established" usage within a small group of users. No good can come to Wikipedia, and no good can come to anyone else by tolerating and tacitly condoning the use of gratuitous defamations on official Wikipedia pages.  It is an embarrassment to the rest of the editors who have to work under the onus of being associated with a few people's lack of civility and sound judgment.


 * I mentioned the problem on the talk page and got what I took to be a lame but not really serious bit of grousing. So I changed the name, to protect the innocent, as they say.  I expected this to be a totally uncontroversial move, but was literally stunned to discover the level of stubborn resistance to what should have been a simple correction.


 * Please refer to relevant RFC dated 19:22, 28 August 2006 (UTC). Jon Awbrey 20:42, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

JA: Jon Awbrey 20:30, 29 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep. "Wikilawyering" is a well-established term, and it isn't really "stereotypically derogatory" against lawyers as this guy seems to believe; it simply describes what it is that lawyers do as their job, and why it's not appropriate behavior on this site.  Jon has been on a crusade against this page for a while, despite a complete lack of other Wikipedians on his side, and he has come close to WP:NPA by characterizing those who disagree with him as something other than reasonable adults. *Dan T.* 19:57, 29 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Strong keep It's a well-established terms for WP Munchkins. It's not derogatory at all. SchmuckyTheCat 20:37, 29 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep. I see nothing wrong with the page. Marc Shepherd 21:42, 29 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Strong keep. Agree with *Dan T.* as to usage, although I cannot confirm or deny his comment on Jon's activity.  &mdash; Arthur Rubin |  (talk) 21:50, 29 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Speedy Keep per Dan. Also, as per the GFDL, we can't delete a page on the basis of its name  - if we delete something, all the contents have to go too.  So deletion is unacceptable.  Guettarda 22:10, 29 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep page, delete nominator - Jon is trying to get rid of the term because he's been wikilawyering like crazy and just came off a 24-hour block for egregious disruptiveness. Presumably he thinks that if he can wikilawyer "wikilawyer" then Wikipedia will contradict itself, Mediawiki will output "DOES NOT COMPUTE", the server network will explode and the smoking remains will be scraped into a small dustpan and sold off to Britannica. Could someone speedy this one? - David Gerard 22:21, 29 August 2006 (UTC)


 * SpeedyKeep Nominator started out as an ACN and evolved as a chronic troublemaker. Fresh off a 24 hour block for disruption he made this nomination. More grist for the W:AN/I mill. FeloniousMonk 22:26, 29 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep per above. Nacon kantari  22:27, 29 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep - The article refers to an activity by its common name. The article should not change unless the activity name changes, even if the name and title are moderately offensive.  Claiming that it's so offensive that it has to be changed anyways is a gross exaggeration of the degree of offense that the name carries towards lawyers.  Georgewilliamherbert 22:37, 29 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep - The term very successfully communicates its meaning and words should be chosen for their ability to communicate what is intended to be communicated and not on other criteria. WAS 4.250 22:57, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Discussion


 * The page describes a set of "frowned upon practices" and caricatures a segment of society as symbols of those practices. Doing that makes a false generalization as to "what all lawyers do", and it invokes a pejorative stereotype of the legal profession as a whole.  There is no reall defense for this in WP, an far less egregious categorizations are oulawed by the policies listed above.


 * The intent of the project page is not to present a fair depiction of what lawyers do, for the sake of drawing on that balanced information. It exploits a reductive caricature to express what it frowns on, as if the legal profession reduced to what it lists under "See Also" —


 * Abuse of process
 * Barratry
 * Frivolous lawsuit
 * Malicious prosecution
 * Nomic
 * Rules lawyer
 * Vexatious litigation

JA: Jon Awbrey 21:20, 29 August 2006 (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.