Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Policy shopping

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 Keep ~

Wikipedia:Policy shopping

This essay came up for Mfd under Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Blaxthos/Policy shopping. The consensus at the time was a keep, based mostly on the fact that this essay was in user space. It is now in WP namespace, which gives it an air of legitimacy. I happen to believe that the premise behind this essay is terribly flawed, and it disregards the very foundation of western discourse, namely the Socratic method. I have already had this essay cited to me by an editor who is losing an argument based upon the merits, throwing out the charge of "policy shopping" to disregard valid points of policy. It does not belong in WP namespace, it should be moved back into the users space. Crockspot 19:51, 19 July 2007 (UTC) PS, I screwed up and Mfd'd the talk page instead of the essay. But they go together. I copied the template onto the essay page, will try to clean up some of these links. - Crockspot 20:00, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• MfD repaired with a move and a redirect. Deleted template from essay talk page. - Crockspot 20:04, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closing admin - The author of the essay in question has engaged in

Contacting all the participates of a previous deletion discussion is not canvassing, and is in fact standard procedure when a page is relisted for deletion so soon; this would be that "Friendly notice" section mentioned in

WP:CANVASS. The fact that everyone believed it should be kept last time (with the exception of the person who initiated this discussion) is a mere coincidence. - auburnpilot talk 17:27, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

There was a nominator (Guy), myself, and Moreschi who supported deletion. (That's three) Most of the other keeps based their !vote on the fact that this essay was in user space. I do see that Moreschi was also canvassed, but since Blaxthos has also expressed the opinion that I was the only delete vote in the past, it could have been an oversight on his part. He did not canvass the nominator of the original Mfd. Also note that I am not advocating for deletion at this time, but a move back into user space. - Crockspot 17:39, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, so it was a mistake that Blaxthos correctly notified everyone who participated...right, well done with the

good faith. Couldn't possibly be that Blaxthos was correct, or that he forgot to notice who nominated the page, as I did above (by only noting you and Moreschi). - auburnpilot talk 17:45, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

Blaxthos has stated on more than one occasion that he is under the impression that I was the only delete vote in that Mfd. So much for the

WP:AAGF. - Crockspot 18:09, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

He wasnt asking editors to take any stand. Rather he was just informing. That does not sound problemmatic to me. --soum ^talk 17:29, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And looking at it a little more closely, note Moreschi (talk · contribs), who also believe the page should be deleted, received the same notice. [19] - auburnpilot talk 17:32, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I took the liberty of notifying Guy, since no one else here apparently wishes to. - Crockspot 18:29, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Crockspot, come on man. Everyone was notified except the admin who handled your

WP:AN report, nominated for deletion not a month after a previous MFD in which there was overwhelming consensus to keep, and now you accuse me of vote canvassing (when that is clearly not the case). Given the lengths to which the nominator has gone I'm starting to wonder if this is more of a personal vendetta than a valid nomination. At any rate, I am both awed and humbled by the community's overwhelming support not only to keep the essay, but the validation they've show regarding the points contained therein. I think it's time to move on, Crockspot... /Blaxthos 00:59, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

Comment response to Crockspot -

WP:CANVASS addresses proper use of cross pointing in "no consensus" result on XfD. Notifying all partisan participants (all editors who are on the record with a specific opinion) in a prior Keep XfD will skew the new results towards keep. The failure to weigh such consequences when canvassing does not make the canvassing more acceptable. Controversial canvassing was done in this MfD and it was made worse by the failure to inform each person solicited that they should post in this MfD that their participation was solicited for this MfD. -- Jreferee ^(Talk) 19:37, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

FTR--I was made aware of this MfD because Blaxthos's talkpage is on my watchlist, so when he was notified, I was notified. I suspect that for a few of the editors in the list above, that may be the case. In addition, this is not the first time I've been asked to give a second or even third opinion on an Xfd through my talk page. Sometimes I respond, sometimes I don't. No one ever forces participation. Requesting opinion appears to be SOP for XfD. So I must respectfully disagree that any controversial canvassing occurred here, especially when opponents were notified as well. It isn't Blaxthos fault that Crockspot could not garner more support in the previous MfD. Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 21:00, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, I agree that if this were to become policy, or even a guideline it could be seen as a trumpcard in policy related debates. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 20:59, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Well, we have policy, and you apply it. That's not policy-shopping, that's called policy-application. This will just encourage obfuscation.
   MortonDevonshire  Yo  · 21:12, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep as author. This is not a proposed policy, nor is it in danger of being confused as such. There are dozens (if not more) essays of this nature --
  WP:IDONTLIKEIT, etc. You need not agree with the essay, but there is absolutely no reason or justification to delete. As a side note, the nominator attempted to have this essay deleted before it was even finished (by way of an AN report), claiming that policy shoppers did not exist (but now acknowledges they do) and that the content "troubles" him. I can find no Wikipedia policy or criteria for deletion under which this nomination falls -- disagreeing with the content of an opinion essay is NOT grounds for deletion. /Blaxthos 22:09, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep per Blaxthos. Obviously good essay. Does not violate AGF any more than many other good pages, including
  doesn't like it - someone quoted it to him. And this is the thing - this is an essay, not a policy. The Evil Spartan 22:18, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep.
  Wikipedia:WikiLawyering, a simple discussion of a common misapplication of policy. Gamaliel (Orwellian Cyber hell master) 22:24, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep Just an essay. Essays do not represent policy, unless the community decided to adopt them as policy, but they do represent one perfectly valid way of suggesting policy. WPedians have the right to have& express opinions on WP, and since essays have from the start been acceptable in WP space, we shouldnt be removing them on the basis of whether we agree. If one doesn't like the ideas, the talk page for the essay is the place to say so. DGG (talk) 22:27, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep It isn't policy, it's an essay. There are plenty of those I don't like or don't agree with, but it doesn't mean they have to be deleted. I think it makes valid points. --John 22:28, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Essays are OK, in my opinion, even when they are in Wikipedia space. My continuing problem with this proposal is that it gives no examples. I personally remember one adherent of Lyndon Larouche who kept re-stating the same arguments about an opponent who allegedly had a COI in different forums. After I finally caught on that all the parallel cases were based on the same data, I complained. I would have benefitted from having a terse summary of why his procedure was a bad thing, but the only thing we have currently is
  WP:MULTI, which is not well-explained anywhere. I'm receptive to something better, but it hasn't appeared yet. EdJohnston 22:35, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep. Essays do not trump policy, and this page serves no greater purpose than to reflect the views of its authors. The essay describes a behavior I've seen many times, and describes it quite well. There's simply no reason for it to be deleted. - auburnpilot talk 22:45, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per all above votes, they pretty much describe the article: it's an essay, and disagreement regarding its content is not a valid reason for deletion. Otherwise we'd have to delete
  WP:AADD.--WaltCip 23:05, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete Our policies lately are becoming viewed as just suggestions. Remember this - Wikipedia is not a democracy, just because many here say it is something harmless and it should stay, it really shouldn't. And yet lately, it seems that anything goes. I see this as a dangerous trend for the project overall, and it looks like this essay is an attempt to weaken the enforcement of our core policies in due time. Ask me how you can boil a frog to death. It's easy - that is if you have the time to spare. JungleCat Shiny!/Oohhh! 23:12, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"...this essay is an attempt to weaken the enforcement of our core policies" Where did you get that idea? This essay is about doing just the opposite, by encouraging people to stop throwing random policy and guideline at a problem, hoping something will stick. If anything, the behavior described within this essay is what degrades our current policies. - auburnpilot talk 23:19, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Read it for yourself (I know you have, but for the others here) - ''Policy shopping is the attempt to force a change in Wikipedia content by attempting to incrementally apply different policies to effect the same net result... Are you going to use this essay at a future AfD if someone sees a violation of multiple policies, and perhaps takes a different approach (from a previous AfD) to enforcing our rules? JungleCat Shiny!/Oohhh! 23:34, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No because an essay is not policy.Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 23:39, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's not policy now, but perhaps give it time. Did you know that

WP:IDONTLIKEIT is part of an essay which is well accepted? JungleCat Shiny!/Oohhh! 23:48, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

So your logic is let's delete it now before it becomes accepted by the community? There are so many flaws in that argument (for deletion) that I'm not sure I can (or should) address them. /Blaxthos 00:50, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Was Wikipedia ever a democracy? Was it ever meant to operate until the mob rules? Can the community re-write how we operate? Our policies take a back seat when it comes down to the POV violating, infested areas of the project. But hey, your contributions keep it going. [20] JungleCat Shiny!/Oohhh! 01:18, 20 July 2007 (UTC)\[reply]

What? I don't understand even the slightest bit, what you're trying to say. What does Wikipedia not being a democracy have to do with this essay? What does "mob rules" have to do with this essay? An essay does not re-write how we operate, it expresses the observations of its authors. I'm seriously confused by your argument for deleting this page. - auburnpilot talk 01:24, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps I need to write an essay of my own. That is something I will consider. JungleCat Shiny!/Oohhh! 01:40, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free, that's why there are essays. Let's just hope it does not come up for an MFD for the simple reason someone doesn't like it for reasons they cannot even articulate. Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 18:55, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep This is a well-written and entirely helpful essay on a relevant issue that occurs on this project. I agree with the premise that if you are desiring a change, come with all the reasons you have at first. If you think of something later, come back and state it then. Nothing in the essay advocates preventing a user from doing so. However, if the reason you wish to make a change is simply that you don't like it, say so upfront and don't waste editor's time with baseless accusations that it violates NPOV, then that it violates WP:RS, if that doesn't work, then it's WP:Weasel, BLP, so on and so forth. Finally, the essay blends well with the essays on wikilawyering,
  don't be a fanatic, and tendentious editing. Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 23:39, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep. It's an thoroughly well-written, helpful article. --Eleemosynary 23:46, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep It's practically censorship to delete an essay just because you don't think it's right. It's an essay. It won't be confused as a policy or guideline because up at the top, the very first thing you see (after the deletion notice) is "This is an essay. It is not a policy or guideline." --Ybbor^Talk 00:39, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, because it is just an essay—a particularly valid one, at that. JungleCat's argument about
  cool stuff) 02:37, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Strong keep; policies should be invoked only when the content does not fit into the realm described by the policies, not when you (a generic you; not any particular user) feel something does not fit here (or belongs here). It is the later instance of groping in the dark to catch hold of something that legitimizes the concern using some corner case interpretation which the essay discourages, not the first one. And that is only reiterating the spirit of having policies in the first place, not weaken them. In that sense, it is no different from the essay against
  wikilawyering. --soum ^talk 06:22, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Strong Keep - as an essay, it presents a reasonable point of view. Essays are not themselves policy or even guidelines. You do not have to agree with it in order to see it as a valid point of view worth preserving as part of the panoply of views people have. But more importantly, given the voices here, I suspect this is not just some minority viewpoint but one that many people actually think has a lot of validity. I do. I would like to see it moved from essay to guideline, actually. (with some more editing first, perhaps) ++Lar: t/c 12:15, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - it's just an essay, and it's darn good advice. If everyone abided by it then talk page discussions would move alot faster.Yilloslime 17:04, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep. As per previous user. Extremely sexy 01:21, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep Yilloslime has it exactly right. David in DC 01:25, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. While legitimate argumentation might be mistaken for policy shopping, policy shopping itself is grossly evil, and editors whose style is easily mistaken for policy shopping need to recognize that their rhetorical style is offensive. —SlamDiego_←T 14:55, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. WP articles are not "innocent until proven guilty." (Unlike WP editors for whom we "assume good faith.") An article has to prove itself against all criticisms. If I see a bad article and want to help improve it I often don't want to make all my objections at one time, but give editors a chance to correct one problem before bringing up another. Steve Dufour 15:22, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • “I have a number of objections, and don't want to make a muddle of things by throwing them all out at once. Let's just start with…” —SlamDiego_←T 16:14, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thats not being discouraged by the essay. Rather what is being discouraged is, say, you dislike one particular snippet of information, and then you say it violates policy X. Others point out a flaw in your logic. Following which you try another policy Y and so on. Rather than respecting consensus and backing off, you keep on trying again and again. This is what is being discouraged. --soum ^talk 16:18, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Soum is correct -- this essay was written with regards to multiple policies to try and effect the same change, not to be applied regarding multiple changes. Sorry for the confusion. /Blaxthos 17:03, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Thanks for clearing that up. I'll vote to keep then. Steve Dufour 19:26, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. This seems like a worthwhile thing to keep in mind. I do have a slight problem since I feel that the intent here is to give support to the "article owners." Generally, I think WP policy should favor the "article critics." Steve Dufour 19:26, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - disagreeing with an essay is not a rationale to delete it. The fact that people agree with it, and you don't like that, is also not a reason to delete it. Claiming that it being in WP space "gives it legitimacy" is silly, since it is clearly labeled as an essay, and not any kind of guideline or policy. --Haemo 04:35, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep' - It's just an essay. ~ Wikihermit 14:27, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Obvious Keep - Yes. Obvious. It's an essay - your opinion of the subject matter is immaterial. Drew30319 05:14, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - a while ago, I was concerned by a trend wherein essays people disagreed with were being brought to MFD. The trend has not died out (and I doubt it ever will), but it is my hope that this essay can be kept in order to maintain centralized discussion about and reference to a phenomenon some editors recognize as a problem. The essay expresses a reasonable opinion—no problem with that, in my mind. As the nominator mentioned, the essay should be referenced responsibly, not polemically; this is true of all essays.
  Gracenotes^T § 06:16, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep - There's not a policy expressely prohibiting essays, so there's no need to go round trying to delete every essay you don't like. There's actually no good reason given for this MfD, the nomination is a complete farce, to be perfectly honest. Having an essay pointed out to you because you were policy shopping isn't a reason to go delete the essay. It doesn't make your behaviour suddenly right. Nick 09:50, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - While I strongly disagree with the content of this essay, I haven't seen any policy argument that suggests it should be deleted. According to
  WP:POLICY
  - "Essays do not carry any authority, and editors are not obliged to follow their advice". So why does it need to be deleted just because I (and others) disagree with it?

In fact, it doesn't. Also from

WP:POLICY - "Essays need not be proposed or advertised; you can simply write them, as long as you understand that you do not generally speak for the entire community." Sounds pretty clear to me here that there's wide latitude to write essays and not expect them to be deleted. Cogswobbletalk 15:04, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

• Keep - it's just an essay, I haven't seen it overused, or overabused in Xfd's and I've participated in more than a few of those (compare with
  WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS and other shortcuts to that essay. Yes, I disagree with its content, but so what, it's just an essay. If someone wants to move it into guideline or policy that's when I'll scream. Carlossuarez46 15:58, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep It is an essay and the noted problems can be addressed by
  WP:SOFIXIT. If you have reason to believe otherwise, please post a note on my talk page. -- Jreferee ^(Talk) 19:05, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]

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.