Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Competence is not required (2nd nomination)

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: Speedy delete by RickinBaltimore (talk · contribs), non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 18:53, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Competence is not required (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

• Wikipedia:Argument from authority is also germane to this discussion. Chris Troutman (talk) 15:07, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

These aren't essays and neither deserve to like in the Wikipedia namespace. This isn't an essay and doesn't deserve to live in the Wikipedia namespace. Chris Troutman (talk) 15:01, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete or userfy. Utterly uninsightful, devoid of context, just a one-off reaction of one user venting (in a very oblique way) his frustration with a discussion that didn't go his way. No prospects of either of these becoming a useful point of reference for multiple editors, as project-space essays ought to be. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:41, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  I take it you don't think it's funny either... Siuenti Sienti (씨유엔티) 16:34, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete both. They are at best quips (or rather failed attempts), not essays. The first half of the first one seemingly disagrees with WP:COMPETENCE, but in fact basically says the same thing that WP:COMPETENCE does (that you should understand you are not infallible), the rest is either silly or just a quote that does not justify a separate essay.—J. M. (talk) 18:06, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  Currently what is supposed to happen when you come up against an argument based on a particular editor's authority? Siuenti Sienti (씨유엔티) 19:52, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete both An essay in project space should reflect community procedures or plausibly explain (with a view supported by a significant minority) why some exceptions from standard procedures should be made. However, these pages have no useful advice or humor. Johnuniq (talk) 03:55, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  What is the community procedure when a discussion comes to a halt because of an argument from authority? Siuenti (씨유엔티) 08:16, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  @Johnuiq: so currently, I believe when editors reach an impasse regarding statements of fact based on their own authority, the procedure is go somewhere else and canvas solicit third party opinions. I think it would be a better idea to look for evidence for or against that statement before you have to go ask Jimbo or someone. Siuenti (씨유엔티) 12:09, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment my suggested procedure when a discussion breaks down due to an argument from authority on the part of someone who, falsely, believes he is competent on the issue, another editor would say to him "argument from authority doesn't count, what we do around here is look at evidence." and they might gently trout the editor with my "competence is not required" thing. Siuenti (씨유엔티) 15:17, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that makes any sense at all.—J. M. (talk) 16:48, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

For example, someone says " X is impossible" and I say "are you sure, would mind double checking" and they say "no I'm not going to double check, I'm positive". I would like to be able to require evidence instead of going canvassing. Siuenti (씨유엔티) 16:56, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Still does not make any sense. Wikipedia simply requires verifiability. But please let's not discuss these things here. Both "essays" are uninsightful and obviously based on a lack of understanding. I would suggest trying to learn and understand the principles of Wikipedia instead of writing useless essays. If you are unsure about certain things, there are places where you can ask questions (like the teahouse or the help desk). But not here please.—J. M. (talk) 18:33, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There is definitely a lack of understanding here. I suggest that a statement isn't verifiable. They don't bother to verify it because they are sure they are right. What do I do next? Siuenti (씨유엔티) 19:00, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I did understand what you were saying (but please read my previous reply, the answer is there). Please let's stop the discussion, it doesn't belong here.—J. M. (talk) 19:16, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

So the answer to "what do I do next if someone refuses to verify something" is what? go to the tea desk? help desk? Siuenti (씨유엔티) 19:20, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder how sure J. M. is that I should go away... Siuenti (씨유엔티) 22:32, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• If I look at WP:Essay it seems that essays might be deleted if they are found to be problematic. That would seem to imply that it is problematic and possibly even disruptive to remind people they are not infallible and that arguments from authority don't count for much around here, so maybe we could get some evidence or policies instead. Siuenti (씨유엔티) 14:33, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep both - People, it's a humor essay... RileyBugz^{Yell at me} | _Edits 16:37, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  The problem is that they are not essays at all. What does Wikipedia:Argument from authority say? There is no thought in it (and no humor either), it simply does not say anything. It's practically empty, devoid of content (and judging from the author's comments here, I think it is safe to say that they will never contain anything meaningful).—J. M. (talk) 17:32, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  Ok, I will redo my keep to just keep the Competence is not required essay. RileyBugz^{Yell at me} | _Edits 17:47, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  Doesn't it say to you "In wikipedia we don't rely on arguments from authority"? and isn't it kind of funny that an argument from authority is being used to refute arguments from authority? Siuenti (씨유엔티) 21:51, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  Yeah, but it needs to have the humor tag. I would support the keep of both if both had the humor tag. RileyBugz^{Yell at me} | _Edits 22:03, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  I tagged for humor and put a note to explain why I think it's funny, opinions clearly differ. Siuenti (씨유엔티) 22:18, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - as per RileyBugz .....covered by WP:ESSAYPAGES.--Moxy (talk) 16:43, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Anyone can write an essay, but it can and should be deleted if it has no humor and no useful advice, but instead suggests that a very widely supported principle (WP:CIR) should be undermined. See WT:Verifiability#Just in mainspace? for some background on the second proposed essay. That discussion shows that the aim is to prevent people posting comments unless accompanied with reliable sources that verify the content of the comment. Johnuniq (talk) 07:31, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Um no, the aim is to prevent decisions being made based on assertions from authority when the asserter's belief in their own infallibility is so great that they believe no supporting evidence and/or policy need be provided when challenged. Siuenti (씨유엔티) 07:40, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • To double check, I asked @Johnuniq: whether he still believed the statement above but his response was kinda ambiguous. Siuenti (씨유엔티) 03:47, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete both Not essays. Not humorous. Just begging to be repurposed as bogus policies with the false cover of being in Wikipedia namespace. Cabayi (talk) 17:41, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  What kind of 'bogus policies' do you think they might be repurposed as? One intention is to promote the use of actual policies in cases where they are not felt to be relevant. Siuenti (씨유엔티) 00:50, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep NCIR, no vote on Argument from Authority. If someone wants to recommend making WP:CIR a guideline, they're free to go for it, but right now it's just an essay (... and I doubt a page that cautions against its own invocation would pass muster). This idea that Wikipedia:Competence is not required is committing some kind of dangerous blasphemy is pretty funny. No one "follows" CIR. There's no block template that says "You were blocked for a lack of competence." It's sure as heck not a pillar. At best it's a cut and paste of some other policies (hey WP:DISRUPT, WP:NPOV and WP:NOTBATTLEGROUND how y'all doing?) with a little trivial commentary. As to the actual essay, yes it could certainly use some expansion, but as Moxy cited, WP:ESSAYPAGES.--216.12.10.118 (talk) 01:30, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep or userfy. Brevity is the soul of wit. N I H I L I S T I C (talk) 02:45, 10 April 2017 (UTC) Blocked sock. J. M. (talk) 03:10, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• On the other hand, brevity does not equal wit. Keeping an essay (or more exactly a page, as it's not an essay) just because it's brief is a rather weak argument. I can't se anything witty in either of the "essays".—J. M. (talk) 03:17, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• I can certainly see the strength of "delete per WP:I dont think it's funny" Siuenti (씨유엔티) 03:35, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Neutral on Wikipedia:Competence is not required per Moxy. Delete Wikipedia:Argument from authority. — Godsy ^(TALK_CONT) 09:08, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• I went from keep and neutral to neutral and delete respectively above. I find Wikipedia:Competence is not required funny, but it isn't a parallel to Wikipedia:Competence is required. I also didn't realize that these were created quite so recently. — Godsy ^(TALK_CONT) 19:17, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete both The Wikipedia is not knowyourmeme.com, and is not for stuff-I-made-up-in-a-moment one liners. Insightful and well thought-out wiki-essays that address project themes and topics are always welcome; these are not. ValarianB (talk) 16:28, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  I think advising people to avoid certain logical fallacies is a relevant theme and/or topic. Also I think these are useful essays with which to counter said fallacies. Siuenti (씨유엔티) 16:42, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  And I don't see why I need to demonstrate "insight" to say that arguments from personal authority aren't worth much on Wikipedia, when I can just quote a fracken authority on the matter. Siuenti (씨유엔티) 16:47, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  From WP:ESSAY: "The purpose of an essay is to aid or comment on the encyclopedia but not on any unrelated causes". You're not really aiding or even commenting on anything. ValarianB (talk) 17:10, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  Not commenting on arguments from authority? Siuenti (씨유엔티) 17:20, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Does it help if I spell it out? (the implication being: an argument based on a Wikipedian's personal authority has very little value, while a verifiable third-party authority's opinion would count for a lot more) Siuenti (씨유엔티) 17:30, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Neither of these essays offer cogent, intelligent, or insightful commentary. Does it help if I spell that out? ValarianB (talk) 17:38, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• I'll take that as a "no". Siuenti (씨유엔티) 17:43, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete or userfy - Per nom. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:10, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• OK I found Wikipedia:Editors will sometimes be wrong so these things are more-or-less redundant even if slightly more amusing IMO. I'll keep them in my user space if you wouldn't mind. I suggest it might be good to link to Wikipedia:Editors will sometimes be wrong from WP:Competence is required. Siuenti (씨유엔티) 20:21, 10 April 2017 (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.