Wikipedia talk:WADR

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


redirected to Wiktionary entry[edit]

I softly redirected this shortcut to the relevant Wiktionary entry because where it was redirecting to made this shortcut a violation of policy and guideline as stated in the related MfD for a prior destination (now deleted) and not disputed regarding violations. The recent change in destination to another essay causes the same violations of policy and guideline. That a linker was not confused is irrelevant; what matters is the effect on the reader. Where links to the now-deleted essay or the other humorous essay premised on a semantic reversal are intended to inform anyone besides the linker of nonliteral usage, those links fail unless actually followed, for which there would be little reason or likelihood, thus the linking before the soft redirect was usually violative, which is cured by the soft redirection. In the event that linguistic evidence of a semantic reversal is sourced, the reversal can be added to Wiktionary at the shortcut's new destination. Nick Levinson (talk) 17:52, 10 August 2013 (UTC) (Corrected my link error: 17:56, 10 August 2013 (UTC))

Since this seems extremely important to you, per your input here and at the related MfD, I'll just delete this shortcut too. There's a limit to what we should do do to keep links on user talkpages blue, and a pointless cross-namespace redirect transcends those limits, IMO. All right? Bishonen | talk 13:35, 12 January 2014 (UTC).
I think that will result in a bunch of redlinks and reopen the debate, unless the plan includes delinking, which would be a lot of editing as there are about 58 pages linking to this abbreviation, and merely that editing is likely to reopen the debate after users see their talk pages being edited. Otherwise, I wouldn't object at all. Once the link was created and used, after the last debate redirecting to Wiktionary at least allowed or encouraged an appropriate use, namely adding a sourced definition of the sort some editors might believe exists in sources (many idioms legitimately exist without sourcing but Wiktionary requires sourcing and this phrase idiomatically relies on a reversal of meaning that is misleading or false in the contexts in which it was being invoked). If you have a plan for that, that would be fine. Nick Levinson (talk) 22:09, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
I'm not worried about reopening the debate. If you insist on soft-redirecting a shortcut that some people formerly liked to use, then I assume you're prepared to defend that action in debate. Obviously those people used it because it linked to a joke that they liked. Redirecting it to Wikipedia:WikiSpeak#WADR, as User:Johnuniq did, preserved the joke. As I understand it, you disapprove of that because you think the joke is offensive and the way people used the shortcut was inflammatory, am I right? I can respect that. Indeed, I'm far from wedded to the silly joke. On the contrary, I was starting to dislike it, which was one reason I requested that the original target, Wikipedia:Do not say with all due respect, be deleted.[1]
But I don't agree with your wish to preserve the appearance of the links — to keep them blue — by means of a meaningless soft cross-project redirect to Wiktionary. Since nearly all of the links will be in archives by now, I doubt their going red will spark any debate to speak of, though I suppose editing the pages to de-link them might have that effect. (No, I have no plans for de-linking those links; talkpage archives are full of redlinks; no big deal.) But anyway, since obviously there is opposition to my idea of deletion (= you oppose it), I can't speedy this redirect. Instead, I'll re-point it to the previous target, Wikipedia:WikiSpeak#WADR. If you revert me, I'll take it to Redirects for discussion. It's not really a needed or useful redirect at all. It was created for the original Wikipedia:Do not say with all due respect essay, which no longer exists. Bishonen | talk 16:47, 16 January 2014 (UTC).
I believe that was already settled with the deletion of the misleading and policy-violating page. Some editors did like to use it but none of us were allowed to do so. We should not be relitigating when someone wishes to engage in that kind of conduct; once should be enough. I did defend my position already. Informing readers after they have clicked the link does not adequately serve the purpose of informing them of what is meant when the link is supplied; that's important because we usually follow only those links likely to help us and linking "with all due respect" does not appear to add anything the phrase does not already convey explicitly, which is the opposite of the semantic reversal some linking editors intend; if a criticism is meant, it is to be stated clearly to the reader with linking providing clarification (as when we say that a subject is not notable and link to a page on notability). Linking softly to Wiktionary is obviously not meaningless but Wiktionary did not support the reversal this link was meant to support and therefore viewing Wiktionary as a useless destination supports my point. Redirecting to the Wikispeak entry has the same problem as linking to the deleted essay. I'll look over the archiving angle you raise. Nick Levinson (talk) 03:29, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
What is this all about? Please start a discussion on a noticeboard where a wider section of the community can decide whether all this chat about a redirect is useful. Many of the backroom parts of Wikipedia have opinions or humor (and in some, just plain stupidity), and there is no reason to turn this shortcut into a "soft redirect" as if the technical mumbo jumbo somehow justified its existence. Johnuniq (talk) 03:58, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
Feel free to open a discussion elsewhere, if you wish, but we should generally try to work out a local consensus first by addressing a disagreement at the talk page of the page under discussion, i.e., here. No one here has a problem with humor per se. However, whether humorous or not, personal attack is not permitted even it is made in a concealed form, as with this use of the phrase, which is contrary to published dictionary meanings and therefore fails to notify readers of the writer's actual intent while pretending to do so. If anyone feels that the attack should be allowed or that this method of concealing it should make it permissible, the proper step to take is to amend the controlling policy or propose such an amendment at that policy's talk page. I don't plan to do that because the policy is a good idea as it is, but anyone who disagrees can take it there. If we agree on the policy, then what to do with this page consistently with that policy should be addressed here. I think the fundamental issue about this phrase has already been resolved with the discussion on and deletion of the essay, but consensus can change if there is a new ground not previously addressed. Nick Levinson (talk) 16:02, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
A redirect cannot be a personal attack, and saying "with all due respect" is a long way from being a personal attack. I don't see how it would be possible, but it is conceivable that an editor could post "[[WP:WADR]]" as an attack—in that case, the problem is the editor's post and possibly their attitude if they think a personal attack is a reasonable way of contributing to Wikipedia, and a discussion with the editor should occur in order to explain WP:NPA and how their post violates it. Removing the redirect so it cannot be used for a hypothetical personal attack would be like introducing an edit filter that makes it impossible for a comment to contain an expletive in order to ensure harmony and a collaborative community free from personal attacks—a pointless exercise. Johnuniq (talk) 23:26, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
Saying "with all due respect" is not normally a personal attack except in the unsourced sense in which it is used in Wikipedia (as euphemistically for 'I think you're talking bollocks'), and it appears that it was used that way, about a third of the time in the beginning, when done by linking to the essay and will probably be done that way again with the new link to Wikipedia:WikiSpeak#WADR via WP:WADR, thus making it quantitatively different from the issue with comments. To have to go after every editor who attacks this way instead of going after the tool they generally use that way when that tool has not much other use is much more burdensome than simply making the tool less convenient to use than simply saying the criticism. (I considered indicating in the Wikispeak essay that the phrase can't be used that way because of NPA and that the sense is unsourced, but as it is meant as a humorous essay I left it alone, but then the shortcut should not point there. At least the deleted essay cautioned editors about the risk of linking for the purpose of attacking, and even that turned out not to be protective enough. The Wikispeak essay doesn't seem to have such a caution anywhere.) Because most readers would only follow a link that promises something they're seeking, such as an explanation of a mystery, most readers would not realize they were attacked with that phrase but other editors who are in on the joke would know, and would also know that the attacked editor had not responded, suggesting acquiescence or agreement when no such thing occurred; thus, gaming the system would be a result. Transparency of communication is essential in a community as large as this one. The redirect would be used to facilitate the personal attack and thus has to be structured (as it was for months) for a more appropriate use, such as softly redirecting to Wiktionary or by some equivalent hard-redirecting, one that does not convey an attack mode, at least until a dictionary supports it and, as far as I know, no dictionary does so far. Nick Levinson (talk) 21:05, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
Nothing that you have written on this topic is accurate or has consensus, and it hard to see why anyone would think that battling over the remnants of a humorous essay that was deleted at the author's request would be useful. Redirecting WP:WADR to a dictionary is about as silly as patching MediaWiki so that whenever the phrase "fuck off" is used the reader sees "may a thousand flowers bloom". If I use WP:WADR in a comment, I don't want some busy-body mucking around with what I wrote—if you don't like my comment, discuss it with me or at a noticeboard, but don't change what I wrote into a misleading puzzle. I guess the next step will be to nominate all the offensive pages for deletion—what a benefit that will be. Many things can be learned at Wikipedia, but one of the most important is that the world is a big place, full of people with a different point of view—not everyone has to see everything in accordance with Nick Levinson. Johnuniq (talk) 01:20, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
  • From the FWIW department: The redirect was never intended to be a personal attack, and I'm not sure I could follow an adult hypothesis which declared that it was. The phrase "with all due respect" has been a common one within the circle of people I've communicated with for many years. User:Bishonen once wrote a humorous, (albeit accurate) explanation of the phrase, and I simply attempted to eliminate a few keystrokes to referencing that writing. Now - having said that, and with the relevant essay no longer available, I honestly don't care what happens to the shortcut. — ChedZILLA 21:50, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
No dispute exists over why the redirect was created and I gladly take your word for it, as you created it. A dispute is over the use of it, and there the intent is among many editors. The adult thing for editors to do is to communicate directly with each other instead of using the redirect or either essay for a hidden attack. The meaning may be common among quite a few people but no dictionary supports it and therefore we should not expect readers to recognize it, even if some do. Many words and phrases acquire reversed meanings but we don't usually assume they apply until they predominate, which it doesn't for this phrase, and assuming good faith means that readers should not ordinarily assume the worst in every communication and trace every link for suspicious meaning. Nick Levinson (talk) 22:08, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
  • @Nick Levinson: What? "Relitigating"? Have you forgotten that nobody agreed with you in the MfD? (Here's the link to it again.) The reason the target page was deleted wasn't that anybody other than you thought it was "misleading and policy-violating", but purely that I, as the page's creator, requested it. There was no litigation from any other quarter than, again, you. Is it seriously your opinion that indirection of criticism is not "allowed" ("none of us were allowed to do so"), and furthermore that this whole trifle is of huge importance? If you hadn't objected to my proposal to speedy the redirect, it would be gone by now, and people would stop using it. (I expect they already have, but whatever. They certainly would if it was a redlink.) And that would do what harm? It's a useless redirect. (Sorry, Ched, but it's useless now.) Do you really not see my point here, Nick? My first preference by a long shot is that the redirect be deleted, my second that it be directed to Wikispeak. I don't understand your objection to the first, because all you do is address the second. Good luck with getting a consensus here. I'm done. You don't seem to think there's any limit to how many words this issue deserves, but I do. Bishonen | talk 23:28, 18 January 2014 (UTC).

Redirecting a shortcut to the opposite of what it meant when editors typed it changes the meaning of what they said and is therefore rudely refactoring their comments. It makes as much such as redirecting WP:TLDR from too long, didn't read to Wikipedia:Requests for expansion. NE Ent 03:55, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

What "none of us were allowed to do so" refers to is "use" of "the misleading and policy-violating page" (the deleted essay). I did not say that criticism is not allowed. Criticism is welcome. Personal attack is not allowed. The difference is large and has been made plain many times by many editors relative to many topics and regarding many editors. WP:NPA specifically says that "linking to external attacks, harassment, or other material, for the purpose of attacking another editor", and "accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence" are "never acceptable" as "a personal attack as opposed to constructive discussion". Describing someone as "talking bollocks" or "nonsense or information deliberately intended to mislead" without evidence was a purpose of linking to that essay. While the two essays (yours (Bishonen's) and Wikispeak) were/are not external, I don't think their being internal makes a difference to whether linking to either one was/is a forbidden personal attack. None of us are allowed to mount a personal attack on an editor, including by redirection. When your essay was nominated for deletion, I favored userfication to the original author's userspace, yours, as a courtesy and I don't see why I should be criticized for extending that courtesy to you; you favored deletion and that was not a problem for me or you. When the consensus was found to be to delete it, it was not only because of objections by other editors and not because of my objections; all of our views were part of that consensus and the whole was subsumed within the deletion decision, the explanation with which did not differentiate between most views. The deletion decision was not "purely" based on your request as the editor closing the discussion considered userfication apart from your view, implying the closer's agreement that the essay did not belong in the Wikipedia namespace, a point of agreement on which two of us were not alone (editors Obi-Wan Kenobi and DGG also agreed). And there was some important agreement with my view from a perhaps unexpected quarter: Editor Montanabw said, "I link to it constantly. If it is deleted, I'm going to get blocked for saying what I really think!" to which you replied supportively ("LOL, that'll never do."). Montanabw continued, "when I link to the article, I really DO mean to tell someone to go f--k themselves! No misunderstandings." Montanabw subsequently attacked me by using that link and essentially did not answer a request to be specific in how I was deserving of that personal attack other than being "humor-impaired", showing that serious attacks are supposed to be taken as humorous when by Montanabw's own declaration they are not always. Montanabw doubtless was not intending to agree with me, but functionally Montanabw's views support my objections. On another standpoint, Obi-Wan Kenobi "[didn't] agree with the content - it doesn't always mean that". The statement by editor Johnuniq that "nothing that you [Nick Levinson] have written on this topic is accurate" is wrong, awaits reporting of any specific error on my part, and, absent that report, encompassing everything I've written on the topic is the sort of exaggeration apparently designed to prevent collaboration and consensus, which is not limited to editors on one side of an issue. Johnuniq disagreeing is not the same as everything I've written being wrong. This issue may be a "trifle" to you (Bishonen), but personal attacks tend to drive contributors away (as Montanabw intended when writing of "actually implying that I really do wish you would go away") and that is not trifling, as it harms Wikipedia's development and the violating of policy also tends to harm Wikipedia's consistency of quality. When you wrote "I don't understand your objection to the first, because all you do is address the second", I did address the first in my first reply and you acknowledged my view in your first reply to that. The issue by editor NE Ent that redireting is a rude refactoring is a good point; but we can't support continued personal attacks and admins often delete explicit attacks from pages and edit summaries because they violate policy, rude as that is to their authors. Blaming me for not suporting a speedy deetion misses the likelihood that, in my opinion, the redirect would have been restored or recreated or a functional equivalent created, as the MfD consensus seems to imply (cf. editor Newyorkbrad's view that if the essay is deleted "someone else might sooner or later write a similar one"), and if deletion of the redirect was a good idea then redirecting it to Wiktionary is just as good a solution, because if anyone ever sources the negative meaning of with all due respect and adds it to Wiktionary the redirect will effectively include that negative meaning along with the usual meanings for the benefit of linkers. Nick Levinson (talk) 19:17, 19 January 2014 (UTC) (Corrected a link by closing it & moved a name to earlier: 19:25, 19 January 2014 (UTC))
No problem; thank you. Nick Levinson (talk) 20:54, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
Sheesh, where on earth did our paths cross to piss you off that bad? I can guarantee you that I would not have said this if you hadn't been acting like a troll. So do not attribute motive to me; I prefer editors to reform their ways, if you felt I was trying to drive you off, Nick, you are incorrect; I cannot even remember where I was even interacting with you, but I can guarantee you that my motive was that I was exasperated with you for some reason (which is the only time I used WADR) and I probably hoped a bit of mild shock value would encourage you to rectify what was probably some form of rectal-cranial inversion. Apparently that didn't work. But I can't remember what it was, so never mind, carry on. But leave me out of it, whatever it is. Montanabw(talk) 21:22, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

solution[edit]

Just make the page:

Truthful. Simple. End of drama. NE Ent 20:47, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

The recent edit of the redirect to use the Historical template looked like it might be a good solution, and one I was not aware of, but it has been reverted. I would like to have tested it. Nick Levinson (talk) 20:58, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
Oh. The above wasn't here when I last passed by. Compromise in a collaborative community is good, but there would first need to be a suggestion that some significant portion of the community agreed with the idea that WP:WADR has to be eliminated. Experience shows that letting an enthusiastic editor dominate consensus does not give good results in the long term. If anyone is unhappy about WP:WADR, they should start a community discussion, perhaps WP:MfD because the fundamental aim is to remove a redirect. Johnuniq (talk) 21:07, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
Oh good grief. I'm thinking just delete the damn thing - so many words wasted over such a trivial redirect. — ChedZILLA 02:33, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

RfC: May this redirect be edited to discourage policy violations by linking?[edit]

Consensus does not currently favor any change to the redirect. (non-admin closure) Jackmcbarn (talk) 01:20, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

May a redirect that was previously used to create personal attacks hidden from the persons attacked be edited to discourage the NPA policy violations?

Survey[edit]

Add threaded discussion to the next subsection. Add support, opposition, and other views here, preferably reasoned.

  • Support. Previous methods for preventing personal attacks failed, and solutions are available, namely adding the {{Historical}} template or redirecting to a reliable neutral page. I'm the requester for comments and my reasons are in the threaded discussion, below. Nick Levinson (talk) 02:43, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
  • With all due respect, I think you're talking bollocks. I have no comment on the merits of marking the page historical, but "redirecting to a reliable neutral page" (assuming you're referring to the Wiktionary entry; if not, please clarify) would be a violation of WP:TPG; if someone has linked to WADR, you would be making their comment mean the exact opposite of what they meant it to say. If you insist so strongly that linking to a page clearly marked as humourous is an attack, you should pursue the procedure outlined at WP:NPA, which does not include any provision to make it technically more difficult to link. (By the way, linking does not qualify as "concealment"; if I say "you're such a nice guy", clicking on the link will quickly reveal the attack. On the contrary, not linking would qualify as concealment, as this meaning of the phrase is understood by many here. Please stop enabling personal attacks.) Nikkimaria (talk) 05:18, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
The issue is not whether either essay is humorous, because what is humorous can also be an attack and when it is then the humor becomes irrelevant. Linking is ordinarily not concealment but that's because the linked text and the link destination are ordinarily not in conflict; since most people have no reason (or time) to follow most links but only those likely to be productive, most editors will not know they have been attacked if the link and the destination are in conflict, as in this case, but others will know and see that it was not responded to. I'm mystified by what you mean by "please stop enabling personal attacks", unless you are distinguishing between open and concealed forms and implying that the latter, by being concealed, cannot be an attack regardless of what it says, but it is an attack whether open or not and I don't call for open personal attacks but support openly stating criticisms. The NPA procedures are primarily for processing each overt attack of each editor separately, whereas this is about covert attacks of editors not told of them and, because the NPA procedures for individuals are time-consuming (to be multiplied by the number of editors who misuse), curing one instance has no effect on repetition against other editors by the same covert means. More useful are the NPA External Links subsection and the Wikipedia:Linking to external harassment guideline even though this isn't about an external link but an internal one; being internal is different mainly in that we have more control over it, such as by removing it. I was referring to either the Wiktionary entry or any other page that is also neutral and reliable, although no one has suggested another and I don't have another in mind. The {{Historical}} template is probably fine and if we don't disagree on that then let's use it. Nick Levinson (talk) 03:10, 24 January 2014 (UTC) (Corrected syntax: 03:21, 24 January 2014 (UTC))
  • WP:WADR is a shortcut to WP:WikiSpeak#WADR which is marked "This page contains material that is kept because it is considered humorous. Please do not take it seriously." The entry reads:

        respect n.

        Often used as in with respect, or with all due respect, euphemisms for I think you're talking bollocks. Most frequently seen in the postings of editors with aspirations to become an administrator, or those who do not have the courage to say I think you're talking bollocks. See also regards.

    Anything can be abused (see water intoxication), but the WADR entry looks pretty accurate and innocent to me. If an editor uses that text as a personal attack, the correct procedure would be to discuss the matter with the editor and explain that the community is built on collaboration and linking to attacks should not occur. If no satisfactory response occurs, the matter should be escalated as with any other personal attack. However, if I use WP:WADR, I expect it to link to the humorous essay, and another editor should not interfere by hijacking the redirect because that changes what I intended, and would be confusing to the reader. No technical solution can stop personal attacks—if MediaWiki were changed to replace bad words with pictures of flowers, those wanting to be obnoxious would find other ways to make their point. If an editor repeatedly uses WP:WADR in an offensive manner, that problem needs to be addressed, and papering-over the issue by adjusting the redirect is not the answer. Johnuniq (talk) 06:06, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

As you've quoted it, the Wikispeak entry and context are fine, because that is explicitly not to be taken "seriously." A concern about hijacking can be redressed with the {{Historical}} template. While anything can be misused, we have procedures for stepping in instead of doing nothing about misuse. Compared to going after every editor separately, a single-step solution would be a better use of most editors' time. Nick Levinson (talk) 03:10, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
You mention above "removing" internal attack pages, but that's not what you propose doing - you're simply making it more difficult to get to the WikiSpeak entry. If the Wikispeak entry is "fine", you've really no grounds to be pursuing this. Nikkimaria (talk) 06:36, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
The Wikispeak entry is fine but to use a disguising link to point to it is not and that's largely what this is about. Nick Levinson (talk) 20:19, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose per the fact it was a humorous page and a way to vent a little harmless steam - with all due respect. @Bishonen: created the page in good faith and fun. NM is correct that a changed redirect messes up the history of the thing. It was satire. IF we are going to be eliminating satire from wikipedia, then what's next? WP:DICK and WP:TROUT? Montanabw(talk) 00:04, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
There's no proposal to eliminate satire or any other humor quite apart from the attack usage. There's no criticism of the now-deleted essay itself or of Wikispeak itself but of the use to which they were/are put. There’s no criticism of Bishonen's intent in creating the essay. On the central point, we already eliminate attacks from Wikipedia. Nick Levinson (talk) 03:10, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
No Redirecting a shortcut to the opposite of what it meant when editors typed it changes the meaning of what they said and is therefore rudely refactoring their comments. It makes as much such as redirecting WP:TLDR from too long, didn't read to Wikipedia:Requests for expansion NE Ent 23:39, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
Admins already delete or refactor attacks out of Wikipedia despite what the authors think of that action. The closer analogy is to linking as [[TLDR|"that's libelous"]]. The refactoring issue can likely be solved by applying the {{Historical}} template. Nick Levinson (talk) 20:19, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Threaded discussion[edit]

A redirect has been used as a means of personal attack, violating the NPA policy. Often, the attack was essentially concealed from the editor attacked but was presumably known to people who were aware of the technique, preventing response and resolution. Originally, there was a humorous essay offering a reverse meaning for the phrase with all due respect. That meaning was unsupported by dictionaries and no other reliable source has been cited (it doesn't have to be for an essay but it should for the phrase when intended or used for an attack). The essay wisely included a caution against using it for a personal attack, but it was misused anyway by being linked to. The link was often unclear that an attack was being delivered, because the main way to find out was to click the link for that phrase, which would hardly seem useful, since it appeared to be a well-known polite innocent positive expression of respect, albeit perhaps minimal respect. The author of the essay asked for the essay to be deleted and it was, the consensus being supported by multiple reasons. Another editor said it might be recreated. This shortcut remains and is misused in much the same way. Already, so many editors misused the essay or the shortcut in violation of policy that educating or reverting each editor is too time-consuming. A proposal to just delete the redirect, since it has already been used, would result in redlinks inviting recreating of the personal attack, so deletion of the redirect would not be helpful. Better solutions are available. For five months, the redirect softly redirected] to the Wiktionary entry so there was no attack, but now it is redirecting to another essay (Wikispeak) with a similar attack and, worse, lacking a caution against misuse. Recently, the redirect was given] a {{Historical}} template, which also would prevent misuse, but that was reverted] in eleven minutes. Either the {{Historical}} template or softly redirecting to Wiktionary would resolve all appropriate concerns. Nick Levinson (talk) 02:43, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

  • "no other reliable source has been cited...but it should for the phrase when intended or used for an attack"{{citation needed}}. "[I]t was misused anyway" - if someone is misusing it, in your opinion, you should take it up with them; that has not historically been accepted as a rationale for such changes in projectspace. "[S]oftly redirecting to Wiktionary would resolve all appropriate concerns" - no, while it might resolve your concerns, you are in the minority on that point. Nikkimaria (talk) 05:18, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
Some editors here think the negative meaning is well known enough but no dictionary or other reliable source supports it, so we should not expect other editors who are not in on the joke to understand the inverse semantic. I don't see why a citation is needed for that unless we want to posit that meanings shared only among a minority of editors are therefore common knowledge that dictionary editors should be faulted for not recognizing. Reversal of meaning is common for a great many words and phrases and is evident when contexts are studied but it is not to be presumed that everyone should read common texts as meaning the opposite of what they ordinarily mean particularly when concealed, and that's the case with this phrase. If the {{Historical}} template is sufficient, I'm happy with that. Nick Levinson (talk) 03:10, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
Really? Here are some of many such sources: [2][3][4][5][6]. But essays, and redirects to essays, don't need sources. Nikkimaria (talk) 06:36, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
Essays and redirects don't need sources but an argument that sources support the reverse meaning and therefore that we can say with all due respect and expect readers to know that it means the opposite does need sources. You probably found some now (I don't have the whole books to judge for most of them, the linked-to page of one was unavailable to me from Google, and the New Zealand one appears to be a blog although by someone qualified in languages; at any rate, probably there'll turn out to be sufficient sources in what you found and/or kindred items). However, so far, to my knowledge no dictionary lists the meaning, and I said so in the MfD and no one cited a dictionary that did. Thank you for what you found; no one else had. If what you have found is what a dictionary editor should consider, please consider submitting it to Wiktionary so it can appear in at least one and we can then assume that readers would know of it. If we assumed that nearly every reliable verifiable source is familiar to most of our readers, Wikipedia would hardly have a reason for existing. Dictionaries are important for this. Nick Levinson (talk) 20:19, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
  • By the way, WP:RFC questions should be presented neutrally. Yours is most decidedly not. Nikkimaria (talk) 05:27, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
How would you have phrased it? That it's about policy violation is central to the RfC. Nick Levinson (talk) 03:10, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
No, that you think it's a policy reason is presumably central to why you brought this up. Of the 24 words in your proposal, only 5 are not dedicated to your POV and your apparently unique assumptions and interpretations of policy. Those 5 are: "May this redirect be edited"? A good RfC would pose that question, possibly including the potential edits, but not rationales or justifications, particularly not ones as confused, contradictory, and poorly grounded in site policies and standards as those with which this RfC was begun. Nikkimaria (talk) 06:36, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
Yes, it's about policy. I wrote the RfC based on the policy and other editors wrote the WP:NPA policy. My interpretation of the policy is mainstream: personal attacks are not allowed whether they're explicit, direct, and open or they're made through an external link. Of course, I have a POV on point; we should, and it's English Wikipedia's POV, too, insofar as a policy is a POV. I think it's hard to argue that a personal attack via an external link is a violation but that a personal attack via a concealed link is not a violation. A personal attack in the form of calling someone a "dimwit" is obviously barred, but so is linking to the same destination but with the link text as "[[dimwit|nice guy]]", and concealment makes it worse by not alerting the user that you mean "nice guy" in some kind of inverted sense, such as 'dimwit', without their clicking on it to discover what you really meant. There's no reason for most people to click on a link that says "nice guy"; it's obvious what that means, except for the concealment. I kept the RfC question focused on the core issue so we could all be on the same page and stated my reasoning in the Threaded Discussion subsection, where it belongs. While I respect that you disagree on the rationales, many of the claims, including some that were confusing and contradictory, were not mine, and I responded to them. Your proposed alternative wording of the RfC (including the edits as you suggested) was probably doable although it would probably have been lengthier, but, since the dispute at the time appeared to be whether it was even permissible to edit the redirect at all for this issue, that's what the RfC is phrased to raise. Nick Levinson (talk) 20:19, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Has the editor who made the personal attacks mentioned in the RfC been blocked? Johnuniq (talk) 06:09, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
    • Or warned, or reproached? (By anybody other than Nick.) I believe Nick's view that the use of the redirect is a personal attack according to Wikipedia's quite stringent definition of those, is unique. Btw, Nick, the caution in the essay against using it for personal attacks that you praise above as "wise", and as putting the essay a cut above the "respect" item in WikiSpeak, was a joke. I'm sorry if it wasn't funny, but it was definitely intended as a joke. As for the Survey, if anybody wants to see what I think, they can perhaps look at my comments higher up on the page. I don't want pump more air into this page. Bishonen | talk 01:15, 24 January 2014 (UTC).
      • Various editors used the shortcut or the now-deleted essay and I have no idea if any have been blocked, warned, or reproached by anyone. I hadn't seen a problem like the redirect before and don't know if it was a concern in the past for other redirects, except possibly for one that was deleted maybe a couple of years ago and not recreated. The caution can itself have been meant as humor and still have been a useful caution and as such it was still wise to include it. Nick Levinson (talk) 03:10, 24 January 2014 (UTC) (Corrected indent: 03:21, 24 January 2014 (UTC))
        • It is quite courageous for an editor to declare so confidently that WADR is an attack page (per WP:NPA) while being unaware of any independent corroboration of their opinion. Johnuniq (talk) 03:26, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
          • Any editor who recognizes a personal attack may so state without awaiting corroboration or no one could ever be the first, with the effect that no personal attack would ever be identified. I did not declare that WP:WADR is itself an attack page; instead, it's a redirect; and one could legitimately use it for an openly appropriate statement, as, for example, by writing "one should not say 'with all due respect' if one does not mean it". But it's been used for concealed personal attacks and the {{Historical}} template would solve that by dead-ending it. Nick Levinson (talk) 20:19, 26 January 2014 (UTC) (Moved to originally intended position: 20:29, 26 January 2014 (UTC))
  • Per my thoughts about WP:DICK above, WADR served a similar role; if you were getting slapped with it, it was a gentle warning to look in the mirror and shape up. Montanabw(talk) 00:04, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
I take it the shaping up is that I should accept the personal attacks despite the policy. That would not be my obligation and should not be anyone's. Nick Levinson (talk) 03:10, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
Being called out for poor behavior is not a personal attack, it's being called out for poor behavior. Mature people take such comments to heart and examine their own actions to see if they might change some of their behaviors so as to avoid similar things happening in the future. Montanabw(talk) 04:39, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
Evidently, when looking at what your sig is attached to, what you consider to be my "poor behavior" is that I don't accept that a personal attack wrapped in humor when your intention is to drive someone away is not a personal attack and that I don't accept that you (or another editor) should have the right to mount a personal attack. That is not poor behavior on my part; on the contrary, it is respecting the Wikipedia project and its standards. If you meant something else by "poor behavior", please state what it is, as you haven't yet and shouldn't criticize me for it until you do. Having long ago and often done what you suggested regarding understanding others' comments including yours, I meet your standard of maturity. I have made clear that criticism is not objected to. Nick Levinson (talk) 20:19, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
Whatev. James makes a good point below. Montanabw(talk) 02:14, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Really?[edit]

With all due respect to everyone involved, I find it truly amazing that so many people care enough about such trivia to have such a prolonged heated discussion about it. JamesBWatson (talk) 22:16, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

You must be new here. {{humor}} NE Ent 23:40, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
Someone even wrote a counter-essay for this: WP:DSWADR—soon to be deleted though. Someone not using his real name (talk) 03:07, 30 January 2014 (UTC)