Wikipedia talk:Private correspondence (2007 proposal)

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Private correspondence (2007 proposal) page.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4: 90 days

This page was nominated for deletion on 2007-12-17. The result of the discussion was closed as defective.

Demolition

This obviously isn't going anywhere and has turned into a colossal waste of time. I'd hang a MfD on the thing but don't want to do that if many others object. What say you? Raymond Arritt (talk) 15:40, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See "This is ridiculous" a few sections above. LessHeard vanU (talk) 15:51, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do it! Set it on fire, raze it to the ground, and SALT the earth. Nothing useful will come from this and there are going to be long-term reprecussions due to all the freakin' drama as it is. Jtrainor (talk) 16:01, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is no need, incidentally, to wait for protection to expire - placing an XfD notice on a page for which an XfD debate has been started is simple housekeeping, so any administrator may do so, on their own or in response to an {{editprotected}} request. —Random832 16:32, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alernative #2 split to new proposal

As no one objected to the idea, I've split alternative #2 to WP:COFF. -- Kendrick7^talk 21:35, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I never saw the idea proposed; I have an objection - it's not a good idea to have two separate contradictory pages addressing the same issue. Also, this segments the dispute and creates the risk that two different consensuses will be arrived at among two different groups of editors. I've redirected the talk page to avoid this. —Random832 21:43, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I also object on the same grounds - although it would be the lesser of two evils if the censors and "shoot-the-messengers-on-sight, concentrate-on-the-editor-not-the-edit" get their way.Alice ^✉ 21:54, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

But the proposals are completely different, so of course it makes sense to keep them separate. Are you actually suggesting we could stick a policy tag on the current proposal and be done with it? I mean, I don't really care; with no policy, alternative #2 wins by default, which is the version I support. -- Kendrick7^talk 21:50, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The point is that this is still under consideration. See WP:Confidential evidence which is also in draft, and in fact has four versions on the project page (or it did yesterday). The purpose is to generate discussion. So far, unfortunately, most of the discussion has been about edit warring. Risker (talk) 21:55, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(2xEC, @Kendrick7) No, I'm suggesting that only one or the other, not both, can become policy, and we need one place to decide which one (if any) it will be. —Random832 21:56, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously a new proposal would override the version which reached consensus first. There's no reason we need to follow the example of WP:CEV per WP:BURO if the alternative here is going to be an endless edit war. -- Kendrick7^talk 22:08, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Any more thoughts on this proposal? Everything survived the MfD, and we come off protection ~~tomorrow~~ in an hour. If the edit war resumes with endlessly deleting Alternative #2, I'm going to push for the split as the only reasonable way forward. -- Kendrick7^talk 23:08, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, pretty much what I expected. I've split this back out then. I don't have email, so I leave the advertisement up to supporters of the proposal formerly known as alternative 2. -- Kendrick7^talk 18:49, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

mfd

{{editprotected}} As you might have noticed, I've nominated these assorted proposals for MFD (to be marked historical, but there's a precedent that stuff has to go through mfd for that to happen). I could be seen involved, so if someone else could put the mfd tag on this protected page? —Random832 22:11, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Sandstein (talk) 22:46, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

MfD closed as defective. . .link here. R. Baley (talk) 17:14, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

tag as rejected?

any objections? —Random832 15:11, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not here. I really don't see anything useful coming from this proposal. Sχeptomaniac^{χαιρετε} 22:13, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like to suggest the "sister" version of this also be tagged as rejected as well. Neither version was the right one. Risker (talk) 22:21, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support as creator of this page. I already tagged this one as rejected. I'm sorry I created it, but there seems to be no consensus support for any of these versions. Lawrence Cohen 22:24, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) WP:COFF is really only a day old. I believe it represents the status quo anyway if both versions are rejected, right? -- Kendrick7^talk 22:25, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As I said before, the problemw ith calling it rejected is, posting private data will still get you in the shit. So actually we do need a guideline. Guy (Help!) 23:30, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Getting one with consensus support has turned out to be the trick. Lawrence Cohen 23:32, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Of course posting "private data" should get you in trouble per Wikipedia:Harassment which is the only (??) relevant active policy defining privacy currently in effect. -- Kendrick7^talk 23:46, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also the foundation privacy policy, copyright and GFDL. Guy (Help!) 22:25, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Those apply, respectively, to identity, publication, and ownership. None of them is directly or automatically adherent to IRC or e-mail. The Coff page is basically sound in its view, but all anyone should hope for is a guideline, not a policy, because of the danger of speaking categorically. I'm pretty sure that a categorical pronouncement of any sort will be wrong. Geogre (talk) 00:34, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For the future

I remain convinced that we shouldn't try to fix the mercury by being precise. Any universal statement is liable to be a straitjacket or a cosset. However, if we ever want to go forward, we should probably work in tiny pieces, like a Socratic dialog, and try to establish whatever things we can all agree upon. After that, we can find out where we split. If anyone falls back on a blanket statement (none/all, never/ever), then he or she is essentially blocking the project's work. We would nearly need to start on a series of "Do you like me yes/no" sorts of steps just to isolate when and where and how much we diverge from one another. Polls are evil, voting is evil, etc. etc., but we could at least start with bedrock statements and build from a foundation. As it is, I still don't think "rejected" is quite accurate, since the page hasn't ever gone up for approval, but "no consensus possible" is certainly true now. No one wants to let the BADSITES run wild, and no one wants people on IRC plotting to block people, and no one wants secret mailing lists, and no one wants trolls and stalkers empowered. If we start from there, we can take itty bitty steps. Not now, perhaps. Geogre (talk) 23:26, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]