Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Editors willing to make difficult edits

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 Keep. While one could imagine ways in which this page might become problematic, no one has presented evidence that this has happened, and consensus clearly favors retention. Xoloz 14:04, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Editors willing_to_make_difficult_edits[edit]

I'm not sure this is that we need. Mercury 12:38, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Request to nominator to clarify his position on the page. I'm not sure it's something we need either, but MfD being a discussion and not a vote, it would be good to see exactly why you think this. Respectfully, ~ Riana ⁂ 12:43, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm so sorry, it would appear that I have given a really vague reason and left. I probably should have waited until I had more time to place a rationale.

I don't see how this page improves or seeks to improve the encyclopedia. To me "...willing to make difficult edits" reads wrong. I mean, what exactly makes a difficult edit. I do understand an edit may get someone in trouble, however, its not that difficult (pardon pun) to find someone to make it. I don't believe we need a centralized list. I also want to dispel the aura that folks should be cautious to make edits, one can create a sock to do so and be within the limits of sock. I don't agree the page is best. Mercury 00:46, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Close - Invalid nomination.--WaltCip 16:07, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't make invalid nominations. Regards, Mercury 00:46, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Close - no reason for deletion given. John Carter 16:53, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I fixed it. Sorry about that.Mercury 00:53, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, good idea, SqueakBox 17:43, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How so? Mercury 00:46, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It's a very good idea. Some people are more anonymous than others on Wikipedia; while I don't give out my real name, for instance, I'm aware that I've probably given out enough info that someone really determined could track me down, and the same is probably true of the majority of admins. While I've never been the target of any off-wiki harassment (partly because I don't work in very controversial areas, and partly I'm just not that active on Wikipedia any more), I'm aware that it has happened to some people in the past. We need some Wikipedians who are sufficiently secure to be able to deal with contentious or difficult situations and/or unstable people; otherwise the trolls will end up winning by scaring everyone into submission. Walton^One 20:25, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a battle ground. Lets not build defensive structures such as this page. Mercury 01:22, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment (tending to delete if concerns not reassured or fixable, they look moderately serious from here) As the editor who raised this page at WP:AN, I just asked for communal feedback at that point. Repaste of these follows: FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 00:49, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I notice earlier this month this page was created, mirroring Wikipedia:Admins willing to make difficult blocks. However I have serious misgivings. I've fixed most of the text but even so would like to check, does this page further the project?

[discusses problematic edits which now appear to not be part of the original creator's work but due to later edits -- snipped for brevity and relevance]

I've removed the worst of it, and in general we do strongly encourage productive editors to edit collaboratively and help one other. But two concerns remain: 1/ this page might be seen as an invitation to meatpuppetry, COI proxying, and warring via well meaning uninvolved proxy parties ("I can't do X because people revert me, can you do it for me?"), and 2/ if there really is a genuine editorial problem at this level, surely we want to encourage editors to seek experienced help or dispute resolution, rather than just proxy editors? I've also left a note for the page's creator. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} ANI - 05:50, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Make a new page that combines Wikipedia:Admins willing to make difficult blocks and this page. PxMa 14:30, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Shut down and tag historical. WP:SOCK states that people are allowed to use sockpuppets for preserving anonymity, and exactly this sort of situations. However, if other people are doing edits on someone else's behalf, we run into GFDL issues: Last I checked, author attribution was required (and enforced by MediaWiki software as well), but does GFDL permit editing-by-proxy and to what extent? Would GFDL require at least that the editors in question state that they are not the actual authors of the new version(s) of articles in question? Does the project address such problems with GFDL and attribution? I don't see what this project accomplishes that legitimately used socks don't... --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 15:26, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Already made at a discussion that was started prior to the deletion review http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard#Wikipedia:Editors_willing_to_make_difficult_edits. It would be better to have entire discussion in one place, but as some of the discussion on ANI has already been copied here, I'll copy my contribution. Uncle uncle uncle 18:56, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello - I believe that the original text for the page [1] explains my intent for the page. It has since been edited with material added and subtracted, with the resulting page not clearly conveying my original vision. I don't want to restate everything which is already present on the page as it was originally created, and I certainly cannot reasonably argue that there is no chance that bad things might occur if an editor can request that another editor edit something for them. The heart of the 'Editors willing to make difficult edits' page is:

Evidence has been provided that Wikipedia editors are subject to: cyberstalking, offline stalking, being outed without their consent, sexual humiliation, threats of physical violence, being contacted at home, threats to family, being contacted at work, dismissal from work, and other negative consequences.

Any editor faced with editing with a disruptive or abusive editor, or who is being threatened because of having previously edited with such a person, can contact one of the editors on this list and request that they take over the case.

There are dispute resolution policies and procedures, the purpose of which is to facilitate the creation of an encyclopedia. The "Editors willing to make difficult edits" page doesn't disagree with these policies or encourage disruption of any sort. It states that if you feel unsafe and have a fear of real-life harassment due to editing Wikipedia, that you have an option to disengage and have another editor take over that situation. The other editor can of course take advantage of the Wikipedia dispute resolution procedures if they are needed.

Wikipedia doesn't exist to make people sad - there is no reason an editor should be required to interact on Wikipedia in any way that makes them feel unsafe. If an editor volunteers to help someone feel safer and to help them improve the encyclopedia, that action is certainly within the spirit of fostering the online community of people interested in building a high-quality encyclopedia in a spirit of mutual respect. Uncle uncle uncle 20:07, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Keep per Uncle uncle uncle's rationale. Cla68 06:37, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep we need people do add stuff in sometimes for the good of wikipedia even when fanboys of something won't let it. William Ortiz 07:57, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Nothing wrong with it. Note that we also have a list of administrators willing to make difficult blocks. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 14:20, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep United we stand... --arkalochori ^|talk| 01:07, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's fine. Leave it. -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 09:03, 2 November 2007 (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.