The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous 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 discussion was keep.  Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 10:39, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:BLP zealot[edit]

Wikipedia:BLP zealot (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Provides no useful advice, may be construed as a personal attack, and is redundant with WP:CRYBLP. SDY (talk) 17:05, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There is a prior XfD which is closely related but not the same, Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:BLP Nazi. SDY (talk) 17:11, 19 June 2011

It is the same page, it was moved to this title as the result of the MfD. Hut 8.5 20:22, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - just appears as an attacking rant, potential to use to demean and divide. Off2riorob (talk) 17:50, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep-merge with WP:CRYBLP The entire article is not useless but WP:CRYBLP does cover much the same material in a better manner.--BruceGrubb (talk) 19:50, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep valid expression of opinion. It isn't a personal attack as it does not name any specific editors or incidents. It does have a useful purpose in reminding people that it is possible to overapply the BLP policy and that such application causes harm. I am not aware of any policy that mandates the deletion of something just because it is divisive, and just about any essay on a subject where there is not universal agreement could be perceived as divisive. I don't think this essay is any more harmful than a variety of deletionist/inclusionist essays. I suppose it could be merged but that is a separate issue from deletion. Hut 8.5 20:22, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There isn't a policy that says "all essays must be nice" but there is WP:NOTSOAP - if it's not useful towards building an encyclopedia and it's just a personal rant, it should be deleted. Honestly, this probably falls under that WP:BEANS nebulous territory. Merging is a perfectly valid alternative for a deletion discussion, but honestly I don't see anything here that WP:CRYBLP doesn't already cover except for straw man arguments about the type of editor. I suppose it could be repurposed to a wiki-fauna page, but it would likely be in poor taste. SDY (talk) 22:10, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOTSOAP explicitly says it does not apply here (This applies to articles, categories, templates, talk page discussions, and user pages) and it certainly is not intended to prevent people expressing opinions in essays about the project. Hut 8.5 09:05, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Explicitly does not address" and "does not explicitly address" are different, but let's not get bogged down in the exact wording of policy. It also talks "Non-disruptive statements of opinion..." Again, I'm being a little flexible with the wording here since this isn't a user page, but the essential argument is that this page is disruptive, and it's not really a statement of opinion on policy, it's a statement about other editors. SDY (talk) 11:25, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, we permit expressions of opinion as essays. There's plenty of precedent for essays that disagree with policies or that disagree with interpretations of policies, and this really doesn't have any personal attacks. Nyttend (talk) 00:47, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per my rationale on the previous MfD. Nothing has changed since then, except this has a more acceptable title now. Gigs (talk) 02:20, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - I'm not convinced this is a useful essay, as I'm not aware of any editors who've ever taken such an extreme position on BLP as this page suggests, trying to remove statements about animals, plants and ethnic groups on 'BLP' grounds. Hence, this essay only exists to attack a strawman. Of course enforcing BLP policy can be taken too far, but WP:CRYBLP is a much more helpful essay about that. I can imagine linking to WP:CRYBLP could help resolve a dispute; I can't imagine linking to this one ever could. Robofish (talk) 11:01, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The over-the-top strawman is the point in my eyes. It's kind of like "Don't do what Johnny Don't does". Gigs (talk) 13:13, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • It crosses the line once, but I'm not sure it crosses the line twice. Adding a humor tag to the essay might ameliorate that, but honestly, while we're on the topic of essays, WP:SARCASM is obviously something to drop in. I've accidentally stepped into the BLP firestorm, and given the heat and light I've seen, the opinions as directly read from this essay would fit right in. I suggest you read some of the links in BG's case study below if you think WP:BLP zealot is intended to be sarcastic. SDY (talk) 23:11, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • I would like to mention my efforts to add these links (along with the less extreme Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard/Archive119#Juice_Plus.2FJohn_A._Wise) as examples to WP:CRYBLP have been hampered by two editors one of whom claimed "BLP is not being used as censorship at all" after I presented them at Wikipedia_talk:Biographies_of_living_persons#Where_BLP_does_and_does_not_apply and the other was found by the community to be as user:Jclemens stated to be "Making edits and calling them "BLP" when no BLP issue actually applies is disruptive editing, as I've articulated in WP:CRYBLP." Seraphimblade and Born2cycle said we need examples so this article wasn't such a strawman but with this kind of opposition on the more moderate WP:CRYBLP essay how can such a goal be achieved here?--BruceGrubb (talk) 03:28, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • I hear you on that. There seriously is a problem if people refuse to recognize that editors can and do misuse BLP, but this essay doesn't really help with that issue since it's so bombastic and overblown that it becomes a straw man in itself. It almost seems like there's a need for a strongly worded "BLP can be, is being, and will continue to be abused" essay, and CRYBLP seems like a good home for that argument. The thrust of WP:BLP zealot seems to imply that it's an overzealousness for BLP that causes the problem, but the history seems to be that BLP is most egregiously abused by people who are trying to work the system to get their way on some content dispute, not necessarily because they're obsessed with BLP but because it's a tool they can use to win. There are serious questions that have been raised about "what should Wikipedia cover for BLPs?" and there are a lot of valid and contradictory conclusions in those arguments. WP:BLP zealot is not part of that serious conversation. SDY (talk) 04:14, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
          • Good point but if you look at the talk pages WP:CRYBLP had for all practical purposes fallen off the planet until I tried to add the examples above to while WP:BLP zealot attracted editors to its talk page. Again without actual real world examples being provided how do you counter claims like "These essays appear more like attacks on the policy than beneficial informative essays."? Without examples how do you show that even the more moderate WP:CRYBLP has merit?--BruceGrubb (talk) 05:31, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(←) That it has merit, or not, isn't really what I'm concerned about. That it's badly written isn't really a problem, the civility issue is the main reason I'd rather see this go. As for "real world" examples, this one uses Polanski, where the importance of the charges is controversial outside of Wikipedia and it's clearly a dispute about a BLP. Examples like that weaken the argument, because it looks like the essay is a temper tantrum about a valid content dispute. If the point was to attack policy, I wouldn't dream of deleting it (disagreements about policy are why we have things like essays), but it doesn't disagree with the policy, it just whines about editors. The only message in this essay is "I hate people who disagree with me on BLP." Is that really worth keeping? SDY (talk) 12:57, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment (case study) "I'm not aware of any editors who've ever taken such an extreme position on BLP as this page suggests". I would like to point you to Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard/Archive97#Noticeboards.2C_source_criticism_and_claims_of_BLP_issues which was escalated to Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents/Problem_on_BLP_noticeboard. The talk pages of at least 5 different editors were effectively flooded with BLP claims and related material ("since the 20th I count 15 posts to BruceGrubb, 34 to Griswaldo, 31 to the Founders Intent, and 50 to me" (User:Ludwigs2) But even self admitted BLP hawk administrator User talk:Scott MacDonald stated "In order to assess the reliability of a source, one needs to discuss the credibility of the person making the claims. Everything here looks like fair comment and justified discussion. I think stuff like this should probably be aggressively archived once a conclusion is reached, and pages ought to be {noindex}, but even that's probably being over-cautious. Nothing here is libellous in my quick checking, and nothing is gratuitous." IMHO if there ever was a real world textbook example of Wikipedia:BLP zealot it was the BLP claims regarding the efforts of editors to inquirer into the credentials of Stephen Barrett for WP:RS in the Weston Price biography.--BruceGrubb (talk) 22:18, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Good example, and should be noted in the essay itself so others don't leave with the impression that it's unneeded and overstated. --Born2cycle (talk) 18:31, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Why is this essay "needed?" The only possible use I see for it is encouraging people to go uncivil early in discussions about BLP. Frankly, if the only purpose is to invigorate hardened edit warriors, we actively do not want it. Essays spewing hatred and gratuitous accusations of tendentious editing definitely is absolutely contrary to our expectations about civility. "I disagree" and "I HATE THEM THEY'RE EVIL I HATE THEM" are two different things, and this essay clearly falls into that second group. A community statement of "no thanks" to those who want to continue with the flamewar over BLP would be a welcome change. SDY (talk) 00:05, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and redirect to Wikipedia:Crying "BLP!" aka WP:CRYBLP. This is a serious policy matter, and these views should be aired and debated, whether to develop policy, or to thrash out interpretations and educate editors. Deletion is a poor reponse to criticism of policy. That said, this does not look like a particularly productive essay, and it is on the exact same subject of WP:CRYBLP, which looks more productive. "BLP zealot" is too easily read as a personal attack, and "Crying "BLP!"" much less so. "Merge and redirect" should serve to bring separated discussions together. I see that WP:CRYBLP is currently protected over a reasonable dispute, but don't see any connection to this nomination. I'm inclinded to support User:BruceGrubb in what I see as an attempt using academic principles to develop the discussion. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:06, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. While this essay is an exaggeration, there is some substance to it. The author is entitled to their opinion. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 06:45, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Argument for deletion is weak. I disagree there is no useful advice here... it's useful in cases where adherence to BLP is, well, overzealous. That it "may be construed as a personal attack" is neither here nor there. Obviously the essay itself does not attack any person in particular. The only valid point is possibly about redundancy, but that's an argument to merge, not to delete. In many ways this essay is stronger and more effective than WP:CRYBLP, and that should be retained. I see no problem with keeping both essays, each referring to the other. These are essays, not policies. --Born2cycle (talk) 16:11, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• keep and cleanup this needs some serious cleanup because it's redundant, not all that clear and doesn't really say what I think it's meaning to say, but it has a valid point. It is the opinion of this essay that BLP issues should be narrowly construed and that there are editors that inappropriately use BLP concerns to attempt to whitewash articles of any negative information when the point of BLP is to carefully avoid not all negative information but libel and slander (known untruths and callous disregard for whether or not what the article says is true or not), that's a valid point and one that needs to be made. It is not redundant to CRYBLP because this one is about editor attitudes and BLP is a "what to do when" page. HominidMachinae (talk) 09:09, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Violates no policies, and is a valid essay as far as I can tell. We do not delete every essay we dislike. Collect (talk) 19:13, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Should be titled "BLP zealotry", not "BLP zealot", as it is not the editor that is being discussed, but the unsavory practice of misapplying BLP policy. Bus stop (talk) 02:21, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If it actually were about BLP zealotry instead of about BLP zealots there would be little reason for deletion, but it is very clearly about editors and it is accurately titled. SDY (talk) 05:33, 27 June 2011 (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.