Wikipedia talk:Avoiding talk-page disruption/Archive 1

Comment 8
This proposal is totally without merit, whether is be called an essay, a guideline, an edict from the true deity, or anything else. It is nothing but a continuation of the posturing of an editor banned for tendentious and disruptive behavior, an editor who has never shown the slightest regard for the opinions or consensus of others and insists on presenting himself as a victim.

Tim Shuba (talk) 23:24, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I think someone needed to mention the elephant in the room. I said above that the "proposal is not suitable as a guideline as its main effect would be to encourage wikilawyering by those defending unsuitable text", but that was insufficiently clear. I think the page should be moved to user space as it never will be more than an attempt to rewrite rules to encourage behavior that has been clearly rejected by the community. Johnuniq (talk) 02:20, 22 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Yes, I've been trying to address the issues in this directly but that has been the back of my mind. It's why I've been asking for examples of problems this is meant to solve, not as I think think they exist (they don't) but as I think they are the flawed recollections of an editor blocked repeatedly for his disruptive editing and still unable to recognise that those blocks were entirely due to his behaviour. So instead he's trying to 'fix' Wikipedia, by creating a guideline which would disrupt the perfectly good processes that got him blocked and banned.-- JohnBlackburne wordsdeeds 02:48, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

remark
Well, it may also be worth pointing out that Tim Shuba was rather involved in that dispute; so as much as Brews' history could be said to be coloring his motives here, so could Tim's in his making that characterization.

I usually try to stick to commenting on content rather than editors, unless they give me some reason to do otherwise. This is just an essay with a 'proposed' tag on it, and if it truly has no merit, there's nothing to worry about: live and let die.

It might be wise not to stir up year-old conflicts by following each other around Wikipedia just because there is now the opportunity to do so. Equazcion ( talk ) 04:47, 22 Mar 2012 (UTC)


 * Thank you for that note of civility, Equazcion. The edit history of Avoiding talk-page disruption indicates the adoption of changes in content in response to comment about its subject. The rallying cry by Shuba, Blackburne, and Johnuniq suggests for these three, however, content may not be their primary preoccupation. Brews ohare (talk) 15:30, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
 * This is not a content issue though, as the proposed document is a proposed behaviour rather than content guideline. It makes sense therefore to ask exactly what behaviour this is meant to address. Not in the abstract but real examples, of users who have been affected by this problem. If none exist, or if they turn out to be editors whose own disruptive behaviour was the real cause of their problems, then there is no need for this guideline.-- JohnBlackburne wordsdeeds 16:25, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Asking for examples is fine. I was commenting more on the remarkable lack of judgment that led to the comment that began this section. Note though that it's also perfectly valid to write an essay (or even propose a guideline) on a perceived general issue even if the creator himself can't or doesn't wish to find examples; perhaps someone else might even bring them. Either way, let's reserve judging this based on the guy that started it. Anyone who feels this has no chance and is a waste of time is not required to waste their time on it beyond simply leaving their oppose comment. Equazcion  ( talk ) 16:33, 22 Mar 2012 (UTC)