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 debate was speedy close as improper use of MFD. See WP:MFD#Prerequisites, which specifically states:

Nominating a Wikipedia policy or guideline page, or one of the deletion discussion areas (or their sub-pages), for deletion will probably be considered disruptive, and the ensuing discussions closed early. This is not a forum for modifying or revoking policy.

I am interpreting this to apply to proposed policies or guidelines as well. This is not the place for these discussions. Please take it to the appropriate talk page. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 02:27, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:School threats[edit]

Yet another attempt to move WP:TOV into policy. Nakon 01:35, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Frankly, no. I was against TOV, am still against TOV, and yet I think school threats are a wholly different ball of wax. Incidentally, TOV survived an MfD by a wide margin - because we don't delete policy proposals, especially not immediately - we reject them after appropriate discussion. Where is the deletion rationale in this nomination? Avruch ^T 01:40, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and immediate close We either accept or reject policy and guideline proposals, not delete them (even if they fail). Please close this MfD. Bstone (talk) 01:42, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I'd agree with you, except this is essentially TOV applied to schools only. There's no substantial change to the proposal, and no real need to discuss it all over again when there is no difference. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 01:55, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: should be treated the same as any other threat of physical harm to others. Really, though, the Foundation should take the lead on this, not us. 69.140.152.55 (talk) 01:57, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: If this is a proposed policy, it's utterly pointless - local projects have no authority to deal with this. This should be directed to the Foundation as the basis of this proposed policy is the Foundation level privacy policy. If it's a guideline, which makes much more sense, then it needs to remain a guideline for ever more. Nick (talk) 02:16, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Guideline or policy, either one works for me. Why would local projects (and local editors) not have authority to report threats against schools to the police? Also, is this an argument for or against deletion? Avruch ^T 02:17, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Neither, it's a discussion, not a vote. I'm discussing the merits of the page and I would expect the closing administrator to look at the arguments and discussions before coming to a decision on a closure.

I never said users don't have the authority to report threats, I said the local community has no authority to make policy which impacts on personally identifiable data and could potentially contradict and clash with the Foundation privacy policy - two very very different things. Editors are perfectly entitled to raise concerns with their local law enforcement services if they feel there is a problem, but we cannot make a policy that requires users to do so, indeed, such a policy might be counter-productive. We need users who have all the necessary data to contact the authorities, so checkusers, arbitrators, the Foundation representatives and the Foundation staff, not a couple of confused new editors who have read over some policy and dial 9-1-1 or 999. There is nothing wrong with guiding users on this subject, giving them a little information on what they might wish to do, i.e contact someone in authority, be it a checkuser or a Foundation person, or contacting the local authorities if they wish to do so. We also couldn't have a policy that requires a checkuser to disclose private information without the Foundation and board approving such a policy (which I believe they would likely do, as the privacy policy has a suitable clause for release of information in the interests of preserving the safety of persons and property). I am therefore recommending that the page be permanently tagged as a guideline until such times as discussions with the Foundation and board are undertaken and they give their approval for a local or Foundation level policy to deal with threats of violence. Nick (talk) 02:30, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Keep (edit conflictx3) per MfD instructions clearly noting that: "Nominating for deletion a proposed policy or guideline page that is still under discussion is generally frowned upon. If you oppose a proposal, discuss it on the policy page's discussion page. Consider being bold and improving the proposal. Modify the proposal so that it gains consensus. Also note that even if a policy fails to gain consensus, it is often useful to retain it as a historical record, for the benefit of future editors." - Note: I closed as non-admin closure, but this was reverted. If nominator feels this is a duplicate and unnecessary, he should oppose and discuss on the proposal's talk page. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 02:18, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete No appreciable difference between this and the previously rejected WP:TOV policy. New proposals need to be significantly re-written to be submitted for reconsideration, and this has not been done. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 02:20, 20 May 2008 (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.