Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Mass revert

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 I'm closing this a tad early as an overwhelming Delete. I also considered briefly blocking Ed for disruption -- he really should know better than to argue in this manner. Proposing a "policy" you dislike to "show other editors how wrong they are" in using it is an act of bad-faith, besides being a WP:POINT violation. Xoloz 14:53, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Mass revert

Created by User:Ed Poor to make a point. --ScienceApologist 21:28, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, I made it because you said it was policy. Did you (gasp) lie to me? --Uncle Ed 21:49, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Now User:Ed Poor apparently thinks it's within his perrogative to lie about what other users "said". What kind of Unificationist is he? --ScienceApologist 00:36, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• delete unless Ed can explain what its for William M. Connolley 21:35, 2 June 2006 (UTC); clearly just POINT, from Eds comments here William M. Connolley 13:56, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete. WP:POINT. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 22:12, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: shouldn't this be at miscellany, and not here? --badlydrawnjeff talk 22:22, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or userfy of something. What are you trying to say Ed? — Dunc|☺ 22:45, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Ed's making up his own rules to support his naughty behavior. FeloniousMonk 23:46, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not making this up, it's what you, SA and your gang always do. I think this is wrong, and I don't do it. You guys say it's policy. I want it put to a vote. --Uncle Ed 21:49, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Sig... er, I mean, Delete. -- cds^(talk) 23:56, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

*Send to WP:MfD if there is an explanation by 4 June, otherwise WP:IAR and delete on 5 June. GRBerry 01:25, 3 June 2006 (UTC) struck because I want to let MfD handle it, and I don't know standards here yet GRBerry 00:57, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Shouldn't this by on MfD in any case? AdD is not the right spot. --Lambiam^Talk 01:42, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Send to WP:MFD. AfD is only for mainspace articles. --Metropolitan90 04:02, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• I'm confused by the page and don't understand its intent. On the other hand, it's clearly in the Wikipedia space and it doesn't seem actively harmful. Keep but if it remains ambiguous or if the community decides that it's a bad idea, tag it {{rejected}} perhaps. Rossami (talk) 13:03, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

---

Comments above this line were made while this article/proposal was listed at AfD; comments below this line are comments made after this article/proposal was moved to MfD. DarthVader 00:34, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Like all other good-faith editors, Ed deserves the right to make policy proposals. --TantalumTelluride 15:34, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. In light of Ed's comments above and below, I now see that this is a violation of WP:POINT. There are better, less disruptive ways to resolve disputes on Wikipedia than to disrupt the deletion process with this kind of cruft. --TantalumTelluride 15:53, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: If this is deleted, will SA, FM, et al., admit that they have no right to act as if this were a real policy? If this is kept, then I'll stop objecting to their actions, because it will be policy. --Uncle Ed 21:49, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• comment - I think if implemented this would cause more problems than it solved. It reminds me of the zero-revert rule that someone floated a few months ago: well-intended but impractical. Tom Harrison ^Talk 00:29, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Revert to its original state (nonexistence). Pretends to be policy, when it is not. If it were a proposed policy, it would still be misnamed. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 01:01, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete (or move to userspace and delete redirect). Although WP:POINT gets thrown around a lot, this actually is a good example of disrupting Wikipedia to make a point (namely, that users should not follow such a "policy"). Ed, please write your essays in your personal space. Your creations end up being deleted quite often, far more than any other editor I know, and you are an experienced and well-established user—you should know that these essays are not appropriate for the main space or Wikipedia space. — Knowledge Seeker দ 07:25, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Userfy per Knowledge Seeker because of WP:POINT, without prejudice to an eventual recreation as an actual, intelligible policy proposal (which will very likely fail, of course). Sandstein 12:17, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per KS. Clear WP:POINT violation. Guettarda 15:03, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - looks like a personal squabble and definitely falls under WP:POINT. Vsmith 15:13, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and censure Ed Poor (talk · contribs) for once again violating WP:CIVIL and WP:POINT. -- Antaeus Feldspar 16:28, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Antaeus Feldspar. --Coredesat 19:56, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - an admitted WP:POINT. It's also just a restatement of existing policy - WP:CON and WP:DR --HughCharlesParker (talk - contribs) 14:04, 5 June 2006 (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.