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 Delete - headcount is about three to one against. Without an overriding, compelling policy, that carries the most weight. Beyond that, the complaint that it's disruptive, and serves to escalate conflict rather the diffuse it seems to have merit (i.e., that it runs afoul of WP:POINT). If you want the content to try and write a real essay about blocking vested contributors, ask me or anyone in Category:Wikipedia administrators who will provide copies of deleted articles. If you need someone to block Malleus, try Category:Rouge admins. WilyD 09:52, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Malleus Fatuorum[edit]

Wikipedia:Malleus Fatuorum (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

This is an advisory MfD. We just want to see if the community rejects the existence of this essay, or not. If not, it can presumably be applied in future. Herostratus (talk) 15:54, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as author and nominator. This is an advisory MfD. The intent here is to address a particular situation. Let's vote it up or down. Herostratus (talk) 15:56, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep We need this. Users like me have already stuck up for Malleus so many times that we can use this to refer to anybody trying to block Malleus. It's really useful, no scrap that, it's essential! ☠ Jaguar ☠ 16:28, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - We don't write essays on how to deal with individual editors. Period. That's the end of it. This is not a slippery slope argument, that this will devolve into whatever. It's not. If you want an essay that says that blocking successful content creators is bad, be my guest. If you want an essay that says that Regular Contributors™ need a stronger consensus before blocking, I'm cool with that too. If you want to say that civility is a malleable standard (pardon the pun) and that civility blocks should be weighed against the harm it would cause if that contributor was no longer writing, I'm good. But to simply say that one particular editor should be treated differently is something I can't condone, and that I wouldn't be willing to put my name on. Achowat (talk) 00:12, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • OK, but you don't have to put your name on it. There are lots of essays that one doesn't agree with but that that still ought to be able to exist. Let's think this through together. To me, "We don't write essays on how to deal with individual editors. Period. That's the end of it" sounds a bit like "I cannot get my mind around this". This is very understandable and I expect that. However, my question then would be: what is the underlying principle? To say "We don't... Period. That's the end of it" means "We don't, even if will save countless man-hours and otherwise enhance the Wikipedia is many ways". That's fine if there;s an underlying principle at stake. For instance, we wouldn't "out" someone egregiously even if it might be helpful to Wikipedia. The underlying principle here is "don't damage people's real lives, if possible" which is a subset of "don't act evilly". What's the principle here? We've had lots of pages about specific editors (I wrote one myself) when we used to keep pages on prolific vandals. (We don't anymore, but for pragmatic reasons I think.) Is it a slippery slope you're worried about? That's a possibly real concern and we can talk about that if you like, or whatever else the issue is. But "Period. That's the end of it" leaves us nothing to work with. Hey, maybe there is an underlying principle and I just haven't seen it. Help me out here. Herostratus (talk) 02:43, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Achowat and the spirit of WP:UP#POLEMIC --Surturz (talk) 01:06, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - firstly, this is not and never has been policy, and doesn't belong in policy space. Secondly, its description of Malleus, whether fair or otherwise, borders on violating WP:NPA. Overall, I find it difficult to see how this page existing in Wikipedia-space is likely to improve collegiality or address the problem it purports to address; it's just likely to provoke further time-wasting arguments. Robofish (talk) 01:26, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • OK, fine. What's your solution then? In fact, for all the "Delete" voters, I'd very much like to see something along the lines of "Delete, instead let's address the situation by doing X", where X is something that can actually be implemented (if a policy, then one that in actual reality could garner ~75% acceptance, for instance, rather than being a typical "perennial proposal"; if a mode of being, then a mode of being that people will really do; and so forth.) Alternatively "Delete, solution in search of a problem, everything's OK" would be good too, if one believes that. But just "Delete, situation is not solvable" I don't find too helpful. Herostratus (talk) 02:53, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, I guess the question becomes "Is Malleus a specific instance, or are there de facto policies in place that can be made more general?" I think the latter is true. I think that the way we do business is that we weigh a user's contributions when we make blocks for incivility and rough-edgedness. I think that if you want a quick WP: shortcut to point to that says "Don't block this guy just because he's difficult to work with", then that's all well and good. A simple essay on the block policy that suggests blocks need to be weighed against the standard "what would do more harm to the encyclopedia" is all we need. If blocking a successful content creator is needed because of some egregious offense, then that's fine; but if the block would diminish the quality of work on the project overall, then it's not good policy. In the sense of full disclosure, I'm not an admin, I don't have the block button (so the essay isn't really for me), the only time I ever run into Malleus is during RFAs, and I've never had issue with the substance of what he's said there. But, if Malleus is the only one to gain protection from blocks because of content creation, then I'm opposed to the substance of the essay. If Malleus is not a special case, then I'd like to see the essay more broadly defined. Achowat (talk) 06:57, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete should we create special essays for every user? This is clearly WP:CREEP. And there should only be one special user on Wikipedia, that is User:Jimbo Wales, this creates a special preferred status for someone other than Jimbo. -- 70.24.248.246 (talk) 10:23, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I've pinged Jimbo. -- 70.24.248.246 (talk) 10:31, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete no need to handle ANY single editor this way, certainly not this one, - hope that he will serve the project at all, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:42, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I am not intimately familiar with the details of the case, but any such essay sets an abysmal precedent. Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 12:07, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Move or merge. This is a snippet of RfC/U material, and if you want to put it up, you should do so according to the normal process. Alternatively it might be a 'workshop' style blurb for some ArbCom case. What it isn't is a standalone WP essay. Think of it this way - if we let this stand, and someone else has a different opinion on this editor, he should add it in, and the opinions should stack up until we have something indistinguishable from an RfC/U, so we should call it that - and if we call it that, we should go by the rules for one. Lastly, it may or may not be a good idea to have a named redirect for dealing with an editor, but if so we should do so for every editor who has ever been taken to RfC/U, and for consistency/sanity it should include the entire username. Wnt (talk) 13:01, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Misses the point: our civility policy needs fixing. While it is unworkable we have no standard against which to measure anybody's behaviour. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 13:30, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep with a bit of work. Change it to Wikipedia:Vested contributors (you'll have to swipe that redirect away from Wikipedia:No vested contributors, and remove all references to any specific editor. Then it will be a useful essay, and a counterpoint to the "no vested contributors" noted above. It is simply acknowledging the current reality in the project right now, not proposing anything new. Tarc (talk) 14:33, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Query: Does acknowledging a bad practice make it other than a bad practice? - 23.16.41.247 (talk) 01:04, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete; the very idea of vested contributors is a terrible one to set. Ironholds (talk) 15:31, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The idea that we should single out one editor like this as being someone not to be blocked goes completely against my image of what Wikipedia should be doing, and I completely agree with Ironholds. Dougweller (talk) 16:18, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep but merge or rename - I think the topic applies but I think it needs to be renamed and rewritten to not single out one specific editor. Kumioko (talk) 16:27, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete; per Achowat. It is attacking to suggest the entire civility conundrum does revolve around a single, named editor. That notion insults every editor who realizes the scope; knowing it impacts every editor who ever has, or ever will, press the save button on Wikipedia. It already is current ad hominem to sidetrack discussions by implying that any issue remotely similar to MF is proof that it really is a bad faith campaign to smear MF. Consider this recent example: This is just whiny backlash from the recent Malleus kerfuffle. They failed to make a block stick, so now they channel the spirit of Mary Whitehouse and scour the Wikipedia for "nasties." I have observed many others as well; diffs exist. I think every editor has some limit to what they are willing to tolerate, and many have stated they would retire "if this or that" happened. Establishing this special status for any single editor will see the end of my participation; ironically that is the only good reason for doing it. But who would say "we did this thing, against our better judgement, because the end justified the means and we were able to rid ourselves of Strat". Wow, could I ever be that significant? I hope not. --My76Strat (talk) 16:30, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• keep Who would want to delete this pearl of wisdom? /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 16:34, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete — Following Achowat and Ironholds, this essay sets an unwelcome precedent, encouraging a systemic bias towards particular individuals, and the rationale for keeping, renaming, or merging fail to address the implications. Mephistophelian (contact) 16:54, 1 January 2013 (UTC).[reply]

Perhaps it sets the example that we should be enforcing policy evenly and fairly. Not when and upon whom we feel like. Just because this user has a long history with the project does not excuse the behavior they have shown repeatedly. There are better ways to act and there is no excuse for it after this long and this many times. Let them be an example to the others! Although I agree we should not be identifying the individual. The topic does fit and we have plenty of essays that are just as bad or worse than this one to use as precadent to keep this one. Dick, Diva, etc. Maybe also Please be a giant dick, so we can ban you which contains several references already to things he has said. Kumioko (talk) 17:16, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently some people are never going to understand the basics of how any disruption surrounding an editor must be measured:

• How much of it is the editor's fault? (A block that is immediately reverted because it was poor is a lot more disruptive than a block that that was completely justified and therefore sticks. The additional disruption is mostly not the blockee's fault but the blocker's.)
• To what extent is the disruption caused by cultural misunderstandings? (In the UK, words such as "fucking" generally function as pretty innocent intensifiers which can provide a clear signal to the other party that they have crossed a line. Some puritan Americans think that editors unwilling to conform to American-style superficial standards of language use have to be eliminated from the project, and at the same time are regularly breaking the much more functional British standards of civility in the worst ways imaginable. A good example for this is Jclemens, whose block for an outrageous personal attack against Malleus did not stick − apparently because he didn't use any 'bad words' and so by American standards was completely innocent.
• What was the root cause of the conflict that became disruptive? (When very productive editors are involved, this is often behaviour of the ostentatiously clueless and obnoxious kind which for some reason appears to be more common and more accepted in the US − at least outside academics − than in the UK, and which due to AGF cannot be dealt with as trolling, as extreme stupidity is always a plausible alternative explanation. This problem is also mentioned by many experts when they explain why they don't want to edit Wikipedia.)
• Is any problematic behaviour by the editor typical for them? (To see this, the frequency of disruptive behaviour must be put in relation to edit frequency, time spent on Wikipedia per unit of time, and net contributions to Wikipedia per unit of time.)

If I thought of Wikipedia as primarily a power game rather than a place for writing and developing encyclopedic content, then I might not see these points either. That would be for selfish reasons that contradict the first pillar of Wikipedia.

It makes no sense whatsoever to single out specific productive editors. Giano was once the most popular victim, now this has shifted to Malleus.

I have said it before and I am saying it again: The way Giano and Malleus are treated amounts to mobbing. Neither is completely innocent, but it is very rare that mobbing victims are completely innocent. That is never an excuse. Creating such a personalised pseudo-policy or a redirect to it is a blatant act of mobbing.

Wikipedia's open tolerance for blatant mobbing − sometimes even Jimbo takes part in it − is why I no longer consider myself part of this community and have reduced my activity dramatically from thousands of edits per year to practically zero. Hans Adler 17:22, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If someone uses incivil words because he's from another culture, but those words are widely recognized as incivil here, you could argue that he be given another chance and be told that the words are not acceptable. If he does it a second time, however, he should no longer have "cultural misunderstandings" as an excuse, since he was warned the first time. It is the responsibility of Wikipedians to understand the cultural norms of Wikipedia.

Furthermore, I doubt that this has anything to do with cultural misunderstandings. Wikipedia has plenty of people from the UK--it's not exactly an obscure place where there are only a handful of Wikipedia editors. If there was really that big a cultural misunderstanding, to the point where an editor from that country could be around for years and still genuinely not understand our standards, we'd be seeing Wikipedians from the UK be kicked off left and right since none of them would be able to act civilly. Clearly that's not happening. Ken Arromdee (talk) 20:03, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe this one either for similar reasons: if it's just a frequency problem, why don't a lot of other editors with similar numbers of edits also get in trouble? Ken Arromdee (talk) 20:03, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As it's poor form to insert your comments inside another editor's comments, I've taken the liberty of moving Ken's to the appropriate place. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 20:45, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per WP:ILIKEIT.--В и к и T 18:01, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Complete and utter instruction creep, and an absurd idea to begin with. Why treat Malleus like he's been listed at long-term abuse? WikiPuppies _bark ^dig 19:18, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Obviously. Joefromrandb (talk) 19:32, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - Actually there is great wisdom in this piece, even though it was written with sarcastic intent. It would nice to preserve this with a HUMOR banner. It's absolutely a relic of site history that should not be annihilated... Carrite (talk) 20:05, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - divisive and disruptive - Youreallycan 22:06, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete This is blatantly disruptive, doubly so given that the creator immediately nominated it for deletion. There are much better ways to raise whatever point the author was trying to make, be it an RFC on the Civility policy, an RFCU on Malleus, or something else. Even if meant in humor, the idea that one editor should be held above all others is completely inappropriate and corrosive to the ideals of the project. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 22:08, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I firmly reject that some editors are more equal than others. Further, specifying a single editor might be a form of harassment (even if the original editor didn't intend it this way). A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:09, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Achowat. --Rschen7754 22:12, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as divisive, disruptive and extremely corrosive. The idea that a certain contributor ought to be subject to special blocking rules is appalling. Apart from Jimbo Wales' the only circumstances I can think of when an editor should have a special projectspace page devoted to them are abuse pages for dealing with banned editors. Hut 8.5 22:28, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Whether serious or not, it is WP:POINTY in the current situation. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 22:33, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Of course this is absurd, although I give you credit maintaining as neutral a tone as could possibly be done with something this off base. But this is incompatible with policy. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 22:36, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• History merge with Wikipedia:Wikipedians who are not a Wikipedian, rename WP:Difficult case studies of management of Wikipedian incivility and blank until someone can think of an acceptable way to review our history of incivility without naming anyone accused of incivility. Move to a subpage of Wikipedia talk:Civility. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:43, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Leave it up to Malleus and put one of those "this is meant to be humorous" templates on it. The people who are genuinely angry about this (on both sides) will eventually look back and laugh, after all. The goal of building an encyclopedia is a serious one, but the pursuit of that goal is supposed to be a hobby (and fun!)... whatever you might think about the status quo vis a vis Malleus, the existence of this page doesn't change any facts about the status quo, and frankly it's pretty funny. OTOH, if he finds it offensive in a personal way, then yes, delete it. --SB_Johnny | ^talk✌ 23:02, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete It seems this page was created to make an utter point and is very creepy, in my opinion. We do not need pages on how to deal with specific editors. In addition, the page is disruptive, uncivil, and possibly offensive to Malleus Fatuorum (talk · contribs). I would be probably. Do not treat Wikipedia's volunteers like they have problems or something. TBrandley ^{(what's up)} 23:27, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Just that last sentence. Why not treat Wikipedia's volunteers like they have problems when they have problems? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:38, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep but only if someone writes equivalent Wikipedia:Volunteer Marek with the exact same wording in the lede, just with "Volunteer Marek" substituted for wherever it says "Malleus Fatuorum". You can skip the rest of that page per WP:WHOREALLYCARES?. If that doesn't happen then THIS NEEDS TO BE DELETED IMMEDIATELY TO PREVENT GRAVE DISRUPTION!!!!!!".Volunteer Marek 23:40, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I've a mind that there should be a WP:Betacommand if this is kept -- 70.24.248.246 (talk) 02:11, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, per Tarc. --MZMcBride (talk) 23:48, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, as being probably the most important essay on Wikipedia.  — Statυs (talk, contribs) 01:28, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete (or move), obviously. I won't bother reading the whole thing to see if it is intended seriously or sarcastically, but either way putting this kind of essay up in policy space isn't conducive to the orderly creation of an encyclopedia. Nothing wrong with having this kind of page in somebody's own user space, or expressing these views (and later, pointing to them if that's the wish) in discussion next time MF is blocked for incivility. However, making a signpost out of this is just WP:POINTy. - Wikidemon (talk) 01:55, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep kinda accurate, no need to beat around the bush. Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 02:09, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Does this policy only apply to Malleus? If I were to create the kind of content that he does and be a general pain to people I work with (not saying that Malleus is or does, but in this hypothetical), would I be under similar protection? If so, why have a name on the page. Create an essay that says blocks should only be used if it is to the benefit of the encyclopedia. I'll support that! But saying that Malleus gets special rules? Sorry, no dice. Achowat (talk) 03:19, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Contrary to Wikipedia:Malleus_Fatuorum#To_whom_this_applies, it applies to any user. If any user's productive output is very high, then there is leeway for collateral damage. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:56, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Then is should be renamed and edited to say so. Achowat (talk) 04:26, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Edited like this? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:34, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Perhaps entirely rewritten like WP:Fearlessly block instead. ;) --Lexein (talk) 08:59, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as sufficient evidence of why Malleus and a bunch of others should be banned from the project. And also agree with Tarc. And no, I've never met Malleus. This is of course unless someone argues that the page is not accurate. B^e——C_ritical 03:51, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - the essay has no place as a Wikipedia-space essay, as long as individual editor names are retained. If names are removed (at least to footnotes, as examples), and the tone is changed to direct speech, instead of sarcasm, then it might have general utility on the question of contributions vs. civility, with regard to block/ban discussions. I'm going to want examples beyond Malleus, in that case.
  Notes: No editor's contributions outweigh ongoing, abusive, degrading incivility. If their contributions stop for a short time, or a long time, the encyclopedia will not fall. If they leave, the encyclopedia will not fall. I don't see any foundation for any editor to either "support" or "oppose" Malleus personally: the talk page and edit summary behavior speaks for itself, and alleged article good-editorship (IMHO) cannot override that evidence. WP:DR works, if escalated dispassionately. If escalation rises to blocking to force cooling off, so be it. Nobody here should be a fan or a hater of Malleus - proceed based on evidence alone. --Lexein (talk) 05:47, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I've written WP:Fearlessly block in response to the essay under consideration for deletion here. --Lexein (talk) 08:59, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And that's nothing but a personal opinion, just like this piece is. Carrite (talk) 16:45, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - The idea that a user could be considered above the rules that apply to the rest of us editors is offensive and something that, where it comes up, should be argued against, not the subject of essays. ˜danjel [ talk | contribs ] 07:23, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Satire can be an effective educational tool. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:25, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is not satire, it's a mockery. ˜danjel [ talk | contribs ] 14:27, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It is undoubtedly satire. Mockery is a standard technique in satire. See satire and especially satire#Censorship_and_criticism_of_satire. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:27, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. WP-space essays about individual editors are pointy, disruptive, and this one is verging on NPA territory. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:24, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Achowat, completely ridiculous idea.--Staberinde (talk) 15:01, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - an essay on how to deal with any single editor seems like an inherently bad idea to me. LadyofShalott 18:34, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename - it's a lovely example of everything that's wrong with Wikipedia - people writing crap like this essay instead of writing decent articles. Rename it "I can't write decent articles so I stuck my fingers down my throat and spewed up this word salad!" Parrot of Doom 19:07, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Very WP:POINTy, and, as LadyofShallot says, a very bad precedent. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:46, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep provided that it be expanded a wee bit to apply to anyone with more than 40,000 edits if more than 50% are to articles! :-D Montanabw^(talk) 20:57, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Banana or even Tangelo. The words of Alexander Portnoy are apropos here: "American society [...] not only sanctions gross and unfair relations among men, but it encourages them."→StaniStani  21:54, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per CREEP --It's Atreem (From the planet Venus) 23:12, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep but move out of Wikipedia space assuming my assumption of why this was written is correct. To me this clearly seems to be a comment on how wikipedia is run rather than on a particular editor. Yes one editor is the focus but even then the focus is on how they are dealt with rather than their actions directly. Discussion of such an issue without mention of the editor involved would be difficult and probably pointless as it wouldn't be too hard to find out who it was about. Discussion of how wikipedia is run is no bad thing, and in my opinion is already far too stifled, and although I can see the potential issues with this essay I think the fact that it highlights the concerns many editors have with our current processes means I think it is a nett positive. That said I don't think this essay is mainstream enough to be in wikipedia space especially given the veneer of endorsement this suggests. Dpmuk (talk) 00:19, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per WP:POLICY. It describes a state of fact. 5.12.84.224 (talk) 00:40, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete — We already have an essay about vested contributors. It's one thing to categorize Malleus as one, I understand where that sentiment comes from, but to call him or anyone else out by name in a full-blown essay is very poor form. This whole page is a textbook example of why we have WP:POINT. Kurtis ^(talk) 02:17, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Rome burning? Play fiddle. Deck chairs awry? Rearrange. Write your encyclopedia, übermenschen. Per Stanistani. — alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 02:56, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to User:Beeblebrox/The unblockables per WP:BLP. AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 04:04, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep if marked humorous because we don't need someone treating it as serious policy, but it would help to describe the de-facto situation we have in a light-hearted manner.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 06:39, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is exactly on the mark. The fact that the creator nominated it for deletion here is indicative that even he wasn't seriously intending to alter policy, but was rather making a statement. When people write books about Wikipedia, and they will, the "Malleus Affair" will be one of the key issues considered for the current period. This essay should absolutely be retained as a historical trinket that more or less encapsulates (or mocks) mainline thinking, albeit mainline thinking "against policy"... Carrite (talk) 07:06, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep but mark as "some editors find this humorous... I've talked myself into this. This is high-level political satire. It is political commentary about Wikipedia and has multiple meanings, it is not a serious attempt to create binding policy. Carrite (talk) 07:18, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Achowat NE Ent
• There are only two things wrong with that essay: that it doesn't have a ((humor)) tag, and that, well, it doesn't have a ((humor)) tag. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 14:07, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • And yet, it's not humor. B^e——C_ritical 20:39, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • That was what the second clause was intended to intimate. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 22:28, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is funny because it is ridiculous and true. It is not "((humor))" because it should be taken seriously, although not at face value. "Funny" is not a defining feature of satire. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:47, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ah right... maybe a bit beyond my abilities, that humor :P B^e——C_ritical 00:24, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep It's not setting policy, but it's certaintly describing practice. Whether it's humorous or not is probably best left to the reader to judge. TheOverflow (talk) 22:20, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Kill it. Kill it with fire. If you can't figure out how to write a general essay without naming individuals, you should get out of the essay-writing business. --Guy Macon (talk) 02:53, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Lots of reasons, but per Achowat, Dougweller and LadyofShalott--SPhilbrick(Talk) 18:26, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• This MFD should have never existed per WP:REICHSTAG. I know it pertains to content disputes, but the reek is the same. bibliomaniac15 00:09, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Stupid. --DHeyward (talk) 16:06, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep our very own Captain Haddock. Count Iblis (talk) 22:39, 6 January 2013 (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.