Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Arknascar44/Love Cabal


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellany 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. — xaosflux  Talk  15:35, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

User:Arknascar44/Love Cabal
Yet another of these well meaning things that people just go around spamming on other users pages. This seems to be encouraged by the creator of this page. These types of edits can annoy other editors and cause unnecessary tensions. Nick 22:50, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete - as Nick said, a well meaning cabal, but unfortunately it has distracted too many users away from the encyclopedia and they spend too much time spamming talk pages for it - in fact, for some users that's all they do.  Ry an P os tl et hw ai te  22:57, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Editing is not a zero-sum game. Pages like this don't "distract too many users away from the encyclopedia]]; there's absolutely no reason to assume that deleting "fun" pages will somehow force people to spend more time editing the encyclopedia. Indeed, it's more likely to drive them away. WaltonOne 19:38, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, users that often edit these sorts of pages do nothing to help the encyclopedia, they use it as a networking site, if we remove these sorts of pages, it may encourage them to edit something useful.  Ry an P os tl et hw ai te  19:44, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
 * There's no basis for asserting that. If their favourite "fun" page is deleted, they're more likely to simply leave than to start editing something useful. The way to "encourage" them to edit the encyclopedia is to be nice to them, and gently guide them towards editing. This is a voluntary project; coercive methods are not going to help. WaltonOne 19:47, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
 * In response to Ryan, are you suggesting that the EFD regulars (OK, it's similar) "do nothing to help the encyclopedia" - May I stress that Deskana is a regular there. Nope, 'crats aint helpful to the project =/ Dihydrogen Monoxide (H2O) 23:34, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep, but change format - Nothing wrong with loving yourself (ie. the Penguin Cabal - that's OK, right?), just remove the option to spam other people's pages. No need to delete. Dihydrogen Monoxide (H2O) 22:59, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment Hello, Nick. I can see your point about how some users can take offense to having their own userpages edited, but I would like to put this into perspective :)
 * The page does not encourage spamming of others' userpages, just adding a small, barely noticeable heart icon to spread WikiLove, which can be easily reverted with one click
 * In the templated message that is suggested to be put on another user's talk page, it explicitly explains that the Love Cabal is dedicated to love, and the addition of the heart icon is in no way vandalism.
 * The page asks the icon be placed on one of your friends' userpages, and it is assumed that a user will use their discretion when adding the icon to their page in that they know it will not cause any hostility (even though this is still unlikely when it is considered that you are, after all, friends)
 * (Sorry WP:ATA...) Please keep in mind that the Australian Cabal, Penguin Cabal, Invisible Cabal, and probably others (though I haven't had time to track them all down) all do pretty much the same thing in that they encourage the editing of others' userpages, and, in addition, the Love Cabal does not only this, but also spreads WikiLove
 * The Australian Cabal was deleted - I was conveniently on forced wikibreak when it was tagged (I hear it was CSD tagged, but an admin can check that up, since I can't see it now). The Penguin Cabal doesn't encourage you to add the tag to any pages except your own. Dihydrogen Monoxide (H2O) 05:11, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Every user whom I have placed the icon on their userpage has thanked me for it, including, who gave me a beautiful thank you message.
 * No users, as far as I can tell, that have had the icon placed on their pages has been known only to engage in non-encyclopedic editing
 * If necessary, I will remove the suggestion to edit other's pages per the above suggestion from.

Cheers,  A r k y  ¡Hablar!  01:10, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I am not thrilled to have people place hearts and things on my userpage, but hey, it's a wiki. If I don't like it, I can just roll back the edit. --dab (𒁳) 08:53, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
 * keep, we traditionally go easy on userpages, unless they are attack-pages or something. This is about as far from an attack-page as you can get. If you don't like it, just ignore it. This is a rehash of Esperanza one year ago. That was in Wikipedia namespace, this is in User namespace where it belongs. dab (𒁳) 08:47, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete, basically a rehash of Esperanza that doesn't help anyone. We don't go easy on user pages solely because they are in the user namespace. --Core desat 09:29, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
 * but we do. See WP:USER (I see you like userboxes? Personally, I would have them all wiped (except for a few with direct relevance to editing), but we happen to go easy on userpages). At the most, we might ask Arknascar44 to place userpage on his "Love Cabal" page as a gesture of good faith, and in order to make clear that this is in no way "official". --dab (𒁳) 09:38, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Also, Coredesat, please read my essay Editors matter. There is little conceivable benefit from deleting this page (deletions don't even free up webspace), and great potential harm (because deletions such as this tend to drive users away). Wikipedia is a community, and we need to give active contributors some latitude in userspace. And calling something a "re-hash of Esperanza" is not a prima facie argument for deletion (contrary to what many users seem to think). WaltonOne 19:41, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment I would also like to emphasize that this is in no way a relash of Esperanza. It has no heirarchy of any kind, is in no way "official", is not a WikiProject, and is an informal and completely casual way to spread WikiLove that can be reverted with a simple click. Also, I can easily add userpage to the page. Cheers,  A r k y  ¡Hablar!  20:29, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete, TINC.  &gt; R a d i a n t &lt;  11:04, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Which is not a helpful argument for deletion. WaltonOne 19:38, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment The only reason the word "cabal" is used in the title of the page is not to emphasize that it is a highly exclusive group that denies its existence, but that it is a term used colloquially and jokingly on Wikipedia to denote an informal group. The Love Cabal, therefore, amounts to no more than this. Happy editing,  A r k y  ¡Hablar!  20:32, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep per my reasoning in the essay Editors matter. This is a prime example of a page that helps to strengthen the community and retain contributors by making them happy. Contributors are Wikipedia's most valuable resource; deleting pages like this risks doing irreparable harm to the encyclopedia, by causing people to leave. WaltonOne 19:38, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment I've no opinion one way or the other if the page ceases to be one of these things people leave on other users pages, that is, some form of voluntary opt-in page, rather than any sort of involuntary enlistment as at present. Nick 23:29, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Neither does it's creator - - So we can settle it that way, right? Dihydrogen Monoxide (H2O) 23:34, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment I've made the wording of the template to put on a user's talk page sound much more voluntary. Cheers,  A r k y  ¡Hablar!  02:17, 18 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep I agree with Dihydrogen Monoxide. That they are spamming people's pages is not a reason to delete it at all. This would be quite an extreme, rude, unproductive measure. A.Z. 04:23, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I believe they were at one stage "spamming" pages, which isn't good. But that's stopped. Dihydrogen Monoxide (H2O) 07:21, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Do you mean that you thought I meant that they were not spamming pages? I meant to say that they were spamming pages (and I do find this annoying), but I think that deleting their page is a ridiculous way to react to that. Whatever happened to talking? Aren't we a community, working collaboratively? Someone bothered could say "hey, do you really think it's a good idea to spam people's pages?" This would be more mature and constructive than nominating the page for deletion. A.Z. 03:01, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep I see nothing wrong with the organization itself, but I dislike the spamming. If it has stopped, then no reason to delete. Captain   panda  21:25, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Nuke userspace cruft from high orbit. Serves no collaborative purpose for building the encyclopedia.  ^ demon [omg plz]  14:24, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep I'm with the other keepers above- if spamming again occurs, then get rid of this. But if people want a heart on their userpage (or want to propose a friend keeps a heart on their userpage), then there's really nothing wrong with it. I can't imagine this is really "distracting" any editors for any significant length of time; additionally, I'd like to think that happy editors are better editors, so if this brings a small bit of joy to people's lives, and so long as hearts aren't forced upon users, then what's the harm? -- Mike (Kicking222) 19:45, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. There's not much wrong with the organization, but the spamming sort of gets to me. If an editor wants a heart, they can add the heart themselves.  bibliomaniac 1  5  01:13, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep - no reasonable rationale for deletion has been given. If you don't want people spamming talk pages, ask them to stop.  If you can't come to some agreement, dispute resolution is down the hall. Friday (talk) 03:34, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep Just have them do something else instead of tagging userpages. Why y'all be hatin' on us lovers? Cheers,JetLover (Report a mistake) 00:58, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete - Spamgroups, however well intentioned, are not appropriate for teh wikipedia. /Blaxthos 14:45, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
 * 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.