User:Harej/Wikipedians born in 1993

This was a page with an attempt of privatized dispute resolution involving the infamous Category:Wikipedians born in 1993, which has been subject to deletion debates and then wheel warring. This is an attempt to smooth things out.

Discussion halted on February 22, 2007.

Involved
For convenience, anyone who comments on this page should be added to this list. It's not a running hit-list; I just want an organized list of people commenting on this page.


 * Trying to resolve the bickering:
 * User:Messedrocker
 * Invited to comment
 * User:1ne
 * User:Doc glasgow
 * User:JzG
 * User:Kingboyk
 * User:Majorly
 * Insiders yet not invited to comment (don't take it personally; that means I forgot you. Sorry!)
 * Outsiders commenting
 * User:RockMFR
 * User:RockMFR

Discussion
So what is the big deal behind the debates? &mdash;Signed, your friendly neighborhood MessedRocker. 03:21, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I think my only involvement here was restoring the categories after deletion. 1ne PM'd me about it, and I agreed with him; 1993 and older are technically "teenage" not children, so really aren't covered by policy. I notice many of the deletion reasons are not given in the log, simply the "content was...". I hope that helps. -- Majorly  (o rly?) 03:43, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I read in a CFD that the matter was no longer related to WP:CHILD or any variant thereof, but it was nonetheless a form of "omg think of the children!" (specifically PR-related). &mdash;Signed, your friendly neighborhood MessedRocker. 04:21, 18 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Wheel warring? Not really.  The categories for under-age Wikipedians were deleted through process, and the deletions endorsed.  The reasons seemed persuasive to me, but that's not really relevant, what's relevant is that we deleted them and reviewed and endorsed the deletion.  My involvement extends to (a) endorsing deletion, which seemed to be a correct interpretation of the debate, and (b) to G4 one of them.  So they stay deleted until we have a review which overturns that deletion.  Or it goes to ArbCom (and they reject it as a content dispute).  Categories for underage Wikipedians - risks outweigh benefits (which benefits are mostly in terms of social networking, which Wikipedia is not).  Move on.  It's not clear to me why this page even exists.  Guy (Help!) 10:02, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I am trying to be as unoffensive as possible, but it appears that 1ne has been fighting these deletions. If there were another name for this page, it'd be "1ne vs. Everybody Else." In any case, I would really like if he got involved in this page, otherwise it's a really one-sided conversation. &mdash;Signed, your friendly neighborhood MessedRocker. 10:12, 18 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I deleted these per the precedent of the 'Child wikipedians category', which was speedy deleted and the deletion endorsed both by the community in DRV and by Jimbo. I followed that precedent, it went to DRV once again, and it was endorsed once again. That's a double mandate to delete categories for minors, I see no need to have the debate again as we now have a clear position. I've nothing more to say.--Docg 13:35, 18 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Wait, you deleted them per WP:CHILD's precedent? That's just wrong. 1ne 23:12, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
 * No, my deletion had nothing to do with WP:CHILD. It had do do with the category for Children that was previously deleted and endorsed. Please read what I said.--Docg 00:10, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
 * What I believe 1ne means is that WP:CHILD does not apply to this category because at this point, everyone born in 1993 is 13. &mdash;Signed, your friendly neighborhood MessedRocker. 00:13, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I never mentioned WP:CHILD at all, which incidentally I'm not that keen on, since I don't believe it is practical to  enforce rules on userpages, categories are another matter.--Docg 00:21, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Doc, say that seven years from now, Wikipedia is still around. Will you still want Wikipedians born in 1993 deleted, even though everyone in the category will be twenty or nineteen? 1ne 03:18, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
 * No, I wont care. But it will still be useless piece of social networking, hopefull we'll have moved on.--Docg 08:30, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Would you consider, say, 'Wikipedians born in 1975' to be a 'useless piece of social networking'? 1ne 19:35, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, but it is also harmless. This isn't necessarily so. Anyway, I've had this argument, and my deletion decision has been endorsed. I see no reason to repeat myself.--Docg 19:45, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
 * No, it isn't really harmless. 1ne 23:20, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

As I posted on WP:AN,
 * I don't see any way of ending this dispute until we reach a real, not-developed-at-DRV consensus regarding which of these categories should be deleted and which should be kept. Trying to brute force a decision at DRV or other smoke-filled rooms will not work. I can't imagine a better case where a community-wide vote is warranted. No need to mess with CFD &mdash; this is purely a ILIKEIT/DONTLIKEIT matter. --- RockMFR 03:06, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I see no reason to keep this subpage debate resolution thingy open - JzG has chosen to escalate this matter to AN. 1ne 05:32, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
 * "Anyways... so 1ne has been wheel warring over a category. Newyorkbrad says he may have emotional connection towards that category. That makes sense to me. The wheel warring has come to an end. That is good. The wheel warring towards the 1989 category is no more. That is good. Did 1ne delete the category to begin with to disrupt Wikipedia for the sake of a point or because he's genuinely concerned about the fact that some people in that category are under 18? That is irrelevant; if we keep spending all this time on it, then it will have been disruptive. The problem seems to have died down. Let's get back to work. I myself have more homework than I thought; I should get started."

&mdash;Signed, your friendly neighborhood MessedRocker. 00:53, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Over two years after the fact, I apologize for this incident. One (talk) 16:23, 5 May 2009 (UTC)