Wikipedia talk:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiLawyering

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 have vacate any claimed or established consensus anong 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 judgement. 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 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 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 the following RFC:


 * (pending)

JA: Jon Awbrey 20:28, 29 August 2006 (UTC)