Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Conflict of Interest ducks

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. This may have been the most difficult close I've performed. Not in terms of the actual decision—there's strong, policy-based consensus to delete—but in determining the way forward from here, and sorting out all the tangential and ad hominem-type comments found on both sides.

There's consensus that this essay recommends attitudes and actions which run directly contrary to Wikipedia policies, best practices, and tradition. I can appreciate the difficulty of dealing with editors who attempt to game the system or take advantage of our principles of civility and good faith, as should we all. But this essay's recommendations seem to jettison those principles in order to stop such editors. I recognize that to some degree, this essay has become a moving target, with substantial edits performed between the time of its nomination and now. Had it not been touched, it probably would've made a relatively simple close. I note that none of the "key quotes" included in the nomination remained in the essay, and statements like "MEDRS is a content guideline that is highly respected by the community" mitigated some of the essay's previous harshness. Depending on your stance, you may see these as either necessary improvements in response to criticism or as backpedaling or pandering. Though I'm closing this as delete, I take the former position in good faith.

This leaves the question of what to do with the draft in userspace. At this time, I will leave User:Atsme/sandboxCOIduckery alone. I would encourage the supporters of this essay to start anew, if they so desire. We can probably all appreciate that this will be easier work without the ongoing threat of deletion. Similarly, I would encourage those who wanted this essay deleted to give some latitude to the creators of a new essay, if we go down that path.

The short version: This essay was a good-faith attempt at addressing a real problem that nevertheless went too far. Take a deep breath, cool down, and either re-approach the issue having learned from this discussion or just walk away. --BDD (talk) 15:41, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]