Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:AEE


 * 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 No consensus This MfD isn't really the place to have the discussion that has taken place here. At the moment, there is no prohibition of self-selecting groups, and there is an RfC open on if that should be the the case. The community may change WP:AEE, remove WP:AEE, or tag it as historical. But why delete it? Discussion of the appropriateness of the group belongs on its talk page, and the RfC (for more general comments on self selecting groups. Prodego  talk  22:52, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

AEE
Previous MfD: Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/User:Peter_Damian/Established_Editors → ROUX   ₪  21:42, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Delete - A posh name for a cabal to give undue weight to certain users. This is of no benefit to the project. Jeni ( talk )(Jenuk1985) 21:12, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Del - per nom. I thought this had been already MfD'd as a subpage of Peter Damian's userspace? → ROUX   ₪  21:17, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
 * In which case, should it be G4'ed? Jeni  ( talk )(Jenuk1985) 21:20, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Nope, the result of the MfD was snow no consensus. Nev1 (talk) 22:05, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep for now. Given it's being organised, it's a reach to claim it's of no benefit - that's not been proven either way. If only negative results occur, then that statement holds, delete.  Does it give "undue weight" moreso than wikiprojects when it comes to say content dispute? Minkythecat (talk) 21:22, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
 * The appropriate histories can be found at User:Peter Damian/Established Editors and User Talk:Peter Damian/Established Editors. Looks like it isn't a new thing, and throw in a dodgy copy and paste move. Jeni  ( talk )(Jenuk1985) 21:26, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Cut and paste fixed, histories of main/talk pages reunited at WP:AEE. BencherliteTalk 22:43, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete or Move to Userspace - The self-electing groups RfC suggested this group is a terrible idea. --Cybercobra (talk) 21:36, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete: This was a bad idea a month ago, and it's a bad idea now. --Carnildo (talk) 21:49, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete: Disgusting. Seriously. How about "Association of people who should be banned for being anti-Wikipedia". ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 22:07, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Do you have a reason to delete AEE apart from an apparent dislike of people such as User:Ssilvers, User:BigDunc, User:TonyTheTiger, and User:Alansohn? Nev1 (talk) 22:16, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
 * How about reading WP:CIVIL, WP:NPA and WP:IDONTLIKEIT? TallNapoleon (talk) 22:26, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Please, no personal attack in here. Express your opinion only about the nominated page. --98.154.26.247 (talk) 07:48, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Ok, so we have three seperate comments to mine, none of which seem to make any sense at this spot. Not only do I not have any opinion on the users listed, I certainly didn't make a personal attack at any of them or anyone with my comment. I attacked the page, which as someone below notes it contains such phrases as "Representing group members? "Championing their interests?" "Support in content issues"???  "Negotiation of blocks or bans"??!!!" -- certainly very anti-Wikipedia thought, IMO. So I can't figure out where these comments are coming from. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 14:11, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I you think that's anti-Wikipedia then I shudder to think just what exactly you think Wikipedia is. Clearly n not a real encyclopedia of any sort. DreamGuy (talk) 15:07, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Perhaps I misinterpreted the comment "How about "Association of people who should be banned for being anti-Wikipedia"". It certainly did not seem helpful and rather heavily implies that anyone who supports the group should be banned. Nev1 (talk) 18:18, 16 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep: Good Lord, this is still under construction. People haven't even figured out what it will be like, what its role will be, how it will work, and so forth. Peter did not want to manage it himself so he moved it out of his userspace so that other interested parties could. Why don't we all wait and see how and what it develops into before we panic and attempt to delete it? Furthermore, the RFC has not closed with consensus. Finally, I will also repeat what I stated in the original MFD: if you disagree with this, the correct response is not to attempt to silence it, but to argue against it. The panic around this topic is frankly absurd. Here's my proposal. Give this group time to develop, and to figure out just what it wants to be and how it is going to work. If, after this has all stabilized and we've figured out what we want it to be, the community still thinks it's a terrible idea, then delete it, and leave a suitable explanation in its place. TallNapoleon (talk) 22:26, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
 * So you are suggesting a group of editors, which it appears that you can only join by invitation or election, is a good thing for Wikipedia? Jeni  ( talk )(Jenuk1985) 22:36, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm puzzled by that comment. Have you been living in a cave for the last week or so? --Malleus Fatuorum 22:41, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I am equally puzzled by your cave comment! Jeni  ( talk )(Jenuk1985) 22:48, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete enough with the associations, clubs, gangs and whatnot.  Majorly  talk  22:28, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep I will not comment on whether I think this group is appropriate, but I do not think AEE should be deleted while the RfC on self-electing groups has not been closed. Nev1 (talk) 22:39, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. While informal groups will inevitably form from time to time, it is unhealthy to have one formed with an air of exclusivity. ClickRick (talk) 22:39, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Whether or not this will have an "air of exclusivity" is something that has yet to be decided. Personally I would just like to see it become an "Association of Content Editors" (which regardless has a catchier acronym), which might perhaps have some form of distinguishment for members with more experience but would otherwise be open to anyone interested in creating quality content. Why not give it a little time? TallNapoleon (talk) 22:42, 15 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment. Huh? The Wiki Projects are more exclusive than this idea. those imply that people should have a specific knowledge base. this is just for people who like Wikipedia. By its very nature, it is extremely unexclusive. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 16:35, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
 * WikiProjects are not exclusive, anyone can join them. This cabal is open by invite only, how is that less exclusive than a WikiProject. Calling this cabal a WikiProject is an insult to real constructive WikiProjects! Jeni  ( talk )(Jenuk1985) 16:49, 16 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep. Despite having at least as many doubts about this group as any of those looking to suppress it, I have absolutely no doubt whatsoever that attempting to suppress it before it has even formed is fundamentally and morally wrong. --Malleus Fatuorum 22:45, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Very interesting that a certain type want any mention of this idea to diappear.--Wetman (talk) 22:48, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
 * User:Wetman has "Twaddle is fatuous nonsense delivered with an authoritative and informed air implying unnamed but impeccable sources." and there's a perfect example. SamuelTheGhost (talk) 23:25, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete The decision to move this to the Wikipedia space was totally out of line with the current consensus at the RfC.  Them From  Space  23:05, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete I see no public consensus to take it out into the main space and I see no public discussion over if the group was/will be formed. If such was reached, then it was totally in private, is against Wikipedia's policy and standards, and should be deleted.  Where is the transparency here?  Brothejr (talk) 23:15, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
 * On Peter's talk page, in this case. He moved it to the mainspace so that others could look after it, as he was no longer interested in doing so. If having it in the mainspace is so objectionable, would folks prefer if I hosted it in my user space until the people interested in this get a better idea of what we want to do with it? TallNapoleon (talk) 23:20, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Where is the discussion to take it to the mainspace? Brothejr (talk) 23:23, 15 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete - Dangerous organization, its sole objective is POWER. Power to challenge Administrators' authority, power to change policy, power to influence Administrators' decisions and power to defend its members' interests and not Wikipedia's. This power will originate from the huge number of members. EconomistBR  23:24, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Calm down, establishing an association is not going to ruin Wikipedia, and I doubt an organization can be that powerful. Furthermore, discuss this in RfC discussion on self-electing groups. --98.154.26.247 (talk) 06:36, 16 July 2009 (UTC)


 * And heaven forbid that anyone would dare to challenge the authority of our benevolent administrative overlords. TallNapoleon (talk) 07:13, 16 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Do not delete even bad ideas. Keep as is for now and implement the conclusion of Requests for comment/Self electing groups when it is closed.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:29, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. I thought Peter blanked his userpage? There was certainly no consensus for moving this into the WP space. Delete per all the objections raised in the RfC.Headbomb {{{sup|ταλκ}}κοντριβς – WP Physics} 00:03, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Both the divisiveness created by the "Established editor" criterion and the group's intention to amplify disputes will create problems on Wikipedia. We have enough of those as it is. Captain   panda  02:55, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Add Template:Historical and keep. No one touched the page for a month after it was blanked, and there's no evidence I'm aware of that the situation has changed substantially since that time. No reason to delete the evidence that the proposal ever existed (and it would break most of the links in the RFC). Dekimasu よ! 04:35, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep per Dekimasu.John Z (talk) 05:07, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. There is no cabal, and no good reason that I can see for this group.  Representing group members?  "Championing their interests?" "Support in content issues"???  "Negotiation of blocks or bans"??!!!  No, no, no, and hell no.  The last thing Wikipedia needs is a group that is actually all the things some people like to claim admins are: exclusive, mob-like bullies who vote in blocks, throw their weight around and run roughshod over objectors and dissenters.  Aside from the fact that I take umbrage at the implication that only those who exclusively create content are deserving of some sort of recognition, it strikes me as incredibly ironic that a group of people who claim to want to focus on content-writing would--with straight faces--spend their time on this instead.  If you want to create and improve content, there's one very simple, foolproof method: spend your time on Wikipedia writing and editing articles instead of buggering about with things like this.  Even as a benign group without all the wikilawyeresque stuff they claim as aims, I fail to see how this "association" will help anyone do anything except cause problems.  Exploding Boy (talk) 06:32, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep, please. I originally blanked this from my user space after the volume of personal attacks against me and against 'self electing groups'.  But now that the principle of such groups has been established from on high, I see no reason why this group should not exist.  I have moved it here simply because of the personal attacks - it is up to the 'community' what they want to do with it now..  Peter Damian (talk) 06:55, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
 * The "principle" has not been established. In fact, the group in question is so controversial that there's now an RfC on it. --Cybercobra (talk) 07:28, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
 * AEE is quite a different animal to ACPD. AEE was self-electing, and apparently self-serving, whereas membership of ACPD is by invitation of arbcom, and is apparently only there to serve the community. And as we see, even the legitimacy of doing that is under question. MickMacNee (talk) 12:39, 18 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Strong keep or move to Meta or user page. I don't want to express my opinions on whether this association is appropriate or not, but I think moving to meta (there are lots of user groups at m:Category:User associations) or just move it back to Peter Damian's user space for temporary storage would be much better than wipe it off completely. I would also support mark as historical for the page if there's a consensus. The RfC discussion about user groups isn't closed yet, I suggest at least keep it until a consensus or solution has been made for this page. --98.154.26.247 (talk) 07:05, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm pretty sure you already did express your opinions on whether the association is appropriate or not, though. Dekimasu よ! 10:16, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
 * IP WP:Sock puppet. Please disconsider his comment completely. How could this IP be so knowledgeable of Wikipedia's innerworkings, be so involved and concerned with Wikipedia and yet not have an account? This IP is someone's WP:Sock puppet. What's Meta anyways? EconomistBR  16:49, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Try assuming good faith. Take a look at the IP's talk page. He's edited here under his IP for some time, and simply prefers not to get an account. IPs are allowed to contribute their opinions and be part of the community if they so wish. TallNapoleon (talk) 17:02, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
 * This "IP" has been editing for just one and half month but already he knows the meaning of RfC discussion, m:Category:User associations and Meta. It doesn't add up. This IP is a WP:sock-puppet.  EconomistBR  17:18, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
 * How can you accuse me of sock-puppetry without any evidences? This is ridiculous. First of all, I've been on Wikipedia since April 2009, that's more than two months (I've been reading Wikipedia since 2005). And if you think I'm a sockpuppet, then file a checkuser. I guarantee you won't find any connections of sockpuppets with me. You are definitely falsely accusing me of sock-puppetry, I demand a cross-out over your attacks and false accusations toward me. I am more and more disappointed of the Wikipedia community. Is this what Wikipedia called "the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit"? If you see my talk page, you can know my reason for staying unlogged and edit as an IP editor. I can registered now and become one of in you words "professional" registered users and join the discussion, but I'm only expressing my comments as a string of simple number and I get personally attack for it? These attitudes over unregistered users will let Wikipedia lose the contributions from constructive IPs, those who work quietly to improve Wikipedia, but doesn't get much recognition in return. In addition, you should not blame me for you not knowing Meta. If you want to learn about it, then see it for yourself instead of accusing other's knowledge on Wikipedia. --98.154.26.247 (talk) 04:44, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
 * What does it matter if 98... is a sockpuppet or an anonymous user? His arguments seem valid, and this is coming from someone who agrees with the deletion of this group. J Milburn (talk) 11:25, 17 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Moved to User space. Something in the Wikipedia namespace implies that it is officially accepted by the community as existing. People still hold their reservations, so it should remain in User space until these problems are overcome. Greg Tyler (t &bull; c) 10:24, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
 * This is not true. Many WP pages document phenomena that don't exist anymore, or never came about (e.g., Community Panel, Association of Member Investigations, Trust network, Committee of Wikipedians).  If they lose acceptance or cogency, then the usual thing is to tag them historical, not userfy or delete them. &mdash; Charles Stewart (talk) 00:56, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Move to user space - This group seems to still not have a complete sense of what it is or what concrete goals it will pursue. Some of the ideas behind this group make sense and might improve the encyclopedia, while others have the potential to harm it - such benefits/concerns have already been discussed by other users on several discussion pages. The community as a whole should hold off on judging this group, such as through an AFD, until the group has a clearer definition and understanding of itself. Such understanding should be figured out in Peter's userspace, per Greg Tyler above. It was inappropriate for other users to start an AFD over a page in Peter's userspace. Instead, let this page stay there, and let the users nominated have their discussions and finish forming their group. Only then should the Wikipedia community as a whole decide if it is appropriate for Wikipedia. If the answer is "yes", move it back here. If "no", which I imagine is likely unless certain aspects of this group are altered, it should at that time be kept as historical. Otebig (talk) 10:48, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment - As long as it's not my user space, for reasons (personal attack) already mentioned. If someone takes the responsbility for having it in their space, that is fine.  Peter Damian (talk) 11:26, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
 * If the creator doesn't want to take charge of it, who should? Greg Tyler (t &bull; c</b>) 13:34, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
 * It was created in effect by the people who agreed to be nominated. Peter Damian (talk) 15:28, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I'll take it in my user space, if no one else will. TallNapoleon (talk) 16:47, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Agree. I already saved the entire source code for WP:AEE, and even if I cannot post it on Wikipedia I still got it in my computer. I've been discussing with Peter Damian about continuing this as a different organization, with major changes to its qualification guidelines and other details. --98.154.26.247 (talk) 22:00, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep so as not to shut down an idea with good intentions based upon mere fear mongering. Userfy if need be. I'm sure any of the people who voted keep here or expressed intentions to join wouldn't mind having it their own userspace if need be. But we have all sorts of Wikiprojects everywhere in Wikipedia space, and is essentially just a Wikiproject like all others, so no sane reason to target this one. DreamGuy (talk) 15:06, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
 * The AEE is absolutely not just like any other Wikiproject. Its unique features is exactly why it was 'targetted'. MickMacNee (talk) 12:49, 18 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete: We don't need this cabalexclusiveclubimhurt group. We have editors and we have admins who are editors with additional tools to help run the place. If you think you can contribute better with admin tools, follow the process to get them. If you want to change policies etc, follow the process to do so. We don't need a group in the middle flashing their "AEE" membership badges or userboxes in apparent superiority over other editors. Would be huge detriment to the project.  – ukexpat (talk) 15:21, 16 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Huh? What? what do you mean?


 * How is this any different than numerous informal user groups who get together to take an interest in various specifc issues? This would just allow a bunch of common content editors to get together and to discuss things. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 16:41, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
 * This isn't about discussion, this is about advocacy, the members of the exclusive group supporting each other in RfAs, RfCs, ArbCom discussions, etc. That's cliquery and not in the spirit of WP:CONSENSUS.  Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 17:45, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
 * The aims of the group are not set in stone and will be set by the members. Looking at the membership list, I can't image those editors "toeing the party line" or block voting to influence RfA, RfC, etc, can you? Nev1 (talk) 17:48, 16 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm not totally sure; comment. Keep. I see no problem with this. Wikipedia is composed of whatever makes the community members feel would be a constructive thing to add. this seems ok. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 16:33, 16 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete See the older userspace discussion, but the arguments are still valid. "The establishment of cliques, special groups, fraternities, etc. is contrary to WP policy. History has shown them to be foci of wikidrama at best, CANVASS tents and worse possibly. From the page at issue: "This may include the negotiation of blocks or bans, representation at arbitration, and support in content issues where the core neutrality policies of Wikipedia are at stake." has but a short step to !voting en masse on RfAs etc. And "Support from other editors in content disputes, where consistent with the principles of the Association. " strikes me as being directly contrary to the principles of consensus. If other members "support" a member in a content dispute, how are they then distinguishable from inproper solicitation of "friends" (which definitely does occur)? Delete now, avoid the almost assured problems." Collect (talk) 16:43, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
 * well maybe you're right. i don't know any of the people involved. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 16:47, 16 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I assume you'll thus be complaining about wikiprojects, since they are cliquey, special groups... Minkythecat (talk) 17:51, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
 * A Wikiproject is, in a nutshell "Hey, if you are interested in aritcles about X, here is a central place to discuss them and create guidelines about them". Everyone is welcome, everything is completely transparent. Even those who hate the subject in question are welcome to join. Quite different from a group which only allows "established editors" whatever that means. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 18:13, 16 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete, it's telling that the people who have signed up to be members of this cabal are already voting keep en bloc. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 17:52, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
 * That's a rather fanciful interpretation of "en bloc". Please assume good faith rather than raising hysteria. The only AEE members who have voted keep here are Malleus Fatuorum and Peter Damian, TallNapolean, and DreamGuy. Nev1 (talk) 17:57, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Fancy that, we don't want a group we are members of and believe would be valuable for the community deleted. Clearly, it's a conspiracy. TallNapoleon (talk) 18:06, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Please note for transparency that the following people arguing to keep this article/group are also either member of the group or was/is being considered for membership in the group: User:TallNapoleon, User:Nev1, User:Malleus Fatuorum, User:Wetman, User:Peter Damian, User:DreamGuy, and User:BigDunc. - Brothejr (talk) 18:27, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
 * In the interest of context as well as transparency, I declined my nomination because I thought it would be divisive. That said, I still believe that deleting AEE would be stifling discussion which is never a good thing. Nev1 (talk) 18:34, 16 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep Fear mongering and trying to supress something before it begins is not good. BigDunc  18:11, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep This is not hurting Wikipedia, and it has just started, so I see no reason to delete it. Hi!  How are you?  18:23, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment - If the AEE had any self-respect or sense of justice it would abstain completely from this proceedings, instead the AEE is doing the opposite. In less than 24 hours 8 editors with ties to the AEE have showed up. EconomistBR  18:51, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
 * You find it surprising that people with the page on the watchlist wish to comment on the possibilities of the group? They're not saying it's perfect, they're not mindlessly voting, and they have not been coordinated. They have provided reasonable rationales. Of course the members are interested, but I don' believe it's a conflict of interest. They're saying it's developing and are advocating discussion rather than reactionary measures. Nev1 (talk) 19:22, 16 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Close as no consensus - This is a premature MFD that has invariably devolved into a polarization between two argumentative factions. Thus, it simply cannot reach a consensus. Suggest that a nomination for MFD occur at a later time when more facts are available and the ultimate purpose of this project can be determined.--WaltCip (talk) 18:58, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
 * How is this a premature MFD? The project has been around long enough, it should have been deleted sooner. Jeni  ( talk )(Jenuk1985) 19:32, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
 * It's arguably premature because the RfC on self-elected groups has not yet closed. Nev1 (talk) 19:38, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
 * This was started with no knowledge of the RfC, and regardless of the RfC this is a page that goes against what Wikipedia stands for. Jeni  ( talk )(Jenuk1985) 19:59, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Just because you didn't know about the doesn't stop this from being premature. Moreover, the group is not fully formed and what it stands for can change, so it should be judged on its final incarnation. And as the RfC was prompted by this group, the two are closely linked, so if the RfC were to decide that such groups are acceptable that would render your argument here invalid. Admittedly a big if, but still a possibility. Nev1 (talk) 20:09, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete - I can't think of a policy to cite for this, but it's pretty much saying that editors who have been here deserve their own club. GrooveDog (talk) (Review) 19:18, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Strong delete - self-electing groups run in stark contrast to the core spirit of Wikipedia. While there is no preventing a group of like-minded editors from banding together to form a "club", these sorts of things should in no way be granted legitimacy by existing on-wiki. <b style="color:#0000FF;">Sher</b><b style="color:#6060BF;">eth</b> 20:12, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Strong delete. This is just a stupendously bad idea; "established" editors already have representation above others because of their direct investment in the project. Implying that they are a separate class from the unwashed masses will bring no benefit to the project. — Gavia immer (talk) 21:05, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep per Nev1 - "I will not comment on whether I think this group is appropriate, but I do not think AEE should be deleted while the RfC on self-electing groups has not been closed.". I am surprised that others have not supported this. Let us get the RfC finished first. -- Bduke    (Discussion)  22:02, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete—On the one hand, I don't have a particular problem per se with the mission, which "may include the negotiation of blocks or bans, representation at arbitration, and support in content issues where the core neutrality policies of Wikipedia are at stake" but, on the other, I do think that groups of this nature are generally problematic. Need I point out the Association of Members' Advocates or Esperanza? Both of those failed, and I see no indication that there is anything fundamentally different about this organization. {&#123; Nihiltres &#124;talk&#124;edits}&#125; 22:49, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete, serves no clear purpose other than to give some users a badge that implies they have some kind of authority. Does not serve to improve the encyclopedia, and is not even a "fun" cabal, by the look of things. Of course though, I'm not an established editor, so don't take my thoughts seriously. J Milburn (talk) 00:10, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Note that I have nothing against the members of the group, many of whom I have worked with and found to be incredibly friendly, constructive and committed contributors. J Milburn (talk) 00:15, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. Agree that the RfC may provide better clarification on how to handle instances like this in the future.  My general rule of thumb is to go with whichever option presents the least amount of wikidrama, which, in this case, appears to be keep for now.  user: J  aka justen (talk) 05:26, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Move back to userspace. Anyone can still edit the page, there's no need for it to be on WP so that "others could look after it". -- Jokes Free4Me (talk) 06:26, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
 * But the page is useless. Why move it?  Kayau |Jane Eyre|  PRIDE AND PREJUDICE |  les miserables  09:45, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Because being "useless" isn't a reason you'll find in the deletion policy. Nev1 (talk) 12:09, 18 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete. Horrible, horrible idea. Ironholds (talk) 11:27, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Tentative Keep - given the occasional legal situations that contributors have been put in for putting properly sourced encyclopedic articles together, I would find such an organization that defends contributors not at all contrary to the project's goals, but instead a valuable asset to instill further cooperation and participation. matt91486 (talk) 16:53, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
 * This is a bad idea, I think. But I'm not sure. The only way to find out is to try it, it's too early to delete. Keep. ++Lar: t/c 21:15, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - This is so absurd...I was gonna quit the group but seeing this attempt to squash it, censor it, suppress it, make it dance a jig...makes me almost want to change my mind...Modernist (talk) 21:52, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Completely agree with you, I can't believe that Wikipedia has become a authoritatian community, the RfC discussion isn't even closed yet and people are starting to censor it and erase it. --98.154.26.247 (talk) 22:18, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Isn't it premature to move this into Wikipedia space until the RfC was complete? Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 23:20, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Agreed, why was this moved into the Wikipedia space without any public discussion on this exact group or at the conclusion of the RFC? Shouldn't there have been community approval for this group to move to Wikipedia Space?  Brothejr (talk) 23:34, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Honestly I agree on your replies, in my opinion I also state that I support to move it somewhere else. But most of the people here is supporting to erase/delete this completely instead of moving it into user space. --98.154.26.247 (talk) 02:30, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete and salt the memory circuits on which it lies. What part of "There is no cabal" are we missing here? Established editors are no more valuable than new editors. And people accuse administrators of being elitist... <em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:blue">Hers <em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:gold">fold  (t/a/c) 03:51, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Not to be rude, but I think you add the last sentence because you're an admin yourself. --98.154.26.247 (talk) 05:01, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
 * "Established editors are no more valuable than new editors". Thanks for that, Hersfold.  That's pretty upsetting to anyone who has contributed to Wikipedia for more than six years.  If you deliberately planned to widen the divide between the established editors (workers) and the administrators (mandarins) you couldn't have done it better than this.  Every time someone says something like this, something in me dies. Peter Damian (talk) 08:55, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
 * And it is also pretty disturbing that you feel that because you've been contributing for more then six years that you are more important then the other editors. That sentiment goes by another name: Elitism.  Brothejr (talk) 09:18, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
 * What is disturbing is the belief in egalitarianism, an absurdity that is apparently quite popular here on Wikipedia. Let me be blunt. Some people are smarter than others. Some people are more experienced than others. Some people are better educated than others. Some people have more expertise than others. Some people are better writers than others. Some people are better mediators than others. It may be elitist to say that these people have more to contribute (and that they are therefore more valuable) but it is also true. I don't see what the problem with acknowledging this fact is. Oh, that policy aside, Wikipedia already has cabals--namely, admins and Arbcomm. Let's stop pretending that we don't, and start trying to introduce some checks and balances and better representation. TallNapoleon (talk) 09:51, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
 * One might add: Some people have been blocked more often than others. Some people have had more socks than others. If they were removed from the proposed initial membership, the whole enterprise might have some glimmer of credibility. SamuelTheGhost (talk) 10:24, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
 * That was one of my initial thoughts too. Jeni  ( talk )(Jenuk1985) 10:43, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Egalitanarianism is actualy a conerstone of Wikipedia. What you are good at it is not important, its only important if you use that to improve the pedia. Giving it the big 'I am', or 'I deserve', or 'you should xyz because I be this', is not helping the project in any way. MickMacNee (talk) 12:46, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Why not help experts improve the encyclopedia then? The project is currently suffering because experts tend to get rapidly driven away by overzealous social levellers.  Wikipedia is not about some grand social project, it is about providing the sum of human knowledge to everyone on the planet?  Why are you so against that? Peter Damian (talk) 14:01, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
 * One of the issues is of the "experts." Experts are expected to follow the rules like everyone and document what they write, no exceptions.  The other issue is that there are other editors in this pedia who know something about the topic and has the right to edit the articles just like the "experts". Simply put, the "experts" need to come off their high perches and come back down to the ground.  Instead of proclaiming "I'm an expert," maybe say here is the reliable sources to back up what you are saying and work on improving the article.  Being nice to people and lowering your nose does help to make things smoother.  Brothejr (talk) 00:09, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia isn't a career. Essentially it's something we spend our time on without reward or recognition because we like writing and we have certain interests.  All this sour graping about "established editors (workers) and the administrators (mandarins)" is meaningless, not to mention counterfactual and provocative.  Anyone can edit articles on Wikipedia; length of use means nothing: a brand-new anon ip could easily be a multiple PhD-holder while an editor with a registered username and a 6-year editing history could just as easily be a high-school dropout.  Assuming neither editor is a casual vandal, there is no difference in the value of their contributions, and the sheer number of possible editors means that problems will work themselves out and factual errors will be corrected; that's the entire philosophy of "anyone can edit."  Those who want recognition for being "established editors" can always run for adminship, a "no big deal" process whereby editors who are known by the community to edit usefully and cooperatively and follow the rules are given the ability to do extra work.  But this entire thing appears to be a misguided attempt to solve some alleged and poorly defined problem with admins as a group.  I don't see how it solves any problem; indeed, it appears to be ripe with potential for creating them instead.  Exploding Boy (talk) 15:44, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I think you misunderstand the point of adminship. It is there for those gnome tasks that require sensitive editing privileges.  Grasp of WP process and social awareness are far more important qualities for admins to have than good content-creation abilities.  Likewise, first-rate content editors might be cantankerous souls entirely unsuited to wield admin powers.  While I'm at it, I find it extraordinary that anyone can think than all non-vandal-class editors provide content of equal value to WP. &mdash; Charles Stewart (talk) 18:49, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I never said they weren't. I said that admins are "established editors": tength of time as a contributor is only a factor in certain limited circumstances on Wikipedia, RFA being one of them.  I think you misunderstand the entire point of Wikipedia.  It's a cooperative, and in cooperatives all work is (usually) considered of equal value.  That User A has been here for 5 years and User B for only 2 is not a measure of the value of their edits.  Exploding Boy (talk) 00:53, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Userfy. There was no popular call for this to be moved out of userspace that I can see, the cut and paste 'resurrection' in Wikispace after a month is bizarre in the extreme. If Napolean or whoever wants to take it on, and actually develop it into a concrete proposal for later examination against any new consensus, as well as the already established opinions of the Rfc, then go ahead, but the page as it stands right now is in the same state as it was abandoned a month ago, an illogical mess shut down by its creator in a fit of pique. It has no business being in Wikipedia space unless marked as historical and inactive. It cannot even seriously be called a proposal in its current state. MickMacNee (talk) 12:23, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I blanked it from my user space because of the vilification and personal attacks - it is not fun being called 'elitist' and a 'cabalist' simply for a good faith attempt to help the project. Peter Damian (talk) 14:03, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. Wikipedia's biggest unsolved problem is that it is unfriendly to experts, continues to drive them away, and shows no sign of changing.  Baldly claiming that "established editors are no more valuable than new editors" is so utterly outrageous that it demands a keep vote from anyone who actually cares about experts and about trying a way, some way, any way, to keep them.  While I'm not sure about the value of this particular project, we cannot know until we try.  Wikipedia's hardline "egalitarianism" is very much like the Island of Children in Milan Kundera's Book of Laughter and Forgetting -- originally written as a parable of revolution and communism, it applies to us too; and to anyone who has read the book, remember that they drown the only person who has a memory, and the only adult, i.e. the long-term contributor.  The thought that a new editor with a handful of edits, no experience, no dedication, no expertise, is "as valuable" as a six-year contributor with experience and hundreds of de novo articles, is and ought to be highly offensive to anyone who cares about creating an encyclopedia.  Wikipedia also often reminds me of another island of children in a well known book, but a thousand apologies for not naming it. Antandrus  (talk) 14:37, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
 * At the risk of repeating an argument in here, this is the "encyclopedia that anyone can edit", not the "encyclopedia that anyone can edit but with special privileges grafted to those who have been here longer". We have administrators and bureaucrats as necessary evils already; we don't need to faction Wikipedia into more and more groups.--WaltCip (talk) 15:33, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
 * A one-party state is bad, ergo a two- or more party state would be worse. Is that really your argument?  Peter Damian (talk) 16:03, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I love the thinking of some of the editors here: "I'm an expert and deserve to be treated better then others." Also the other perennial favorite: "Only experts deserve to edit articles." It's hypocrisy and elitism at its best/worst.  Brothejr (talk) 00:13, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep: I agree that the kind of group being proposed is dangerous, particularly since it doesn't hide its intention to participate en masse in consensus-seeking discussions. However, the group aims to fill a gaping hole in WP, namely the lack of weight that topic familiarity carries in the WP decision-making process.  It is important to the future of WP not only to hear out this kind discussion, but to support the kind of inquest this page represents.  Furthermore, even if the self-electing groups RfC reached a consesnsus that the kind of group this page is proposing is unacceptable, the discussion this page constitutes is still valuable.  Hypothetically, in that situation the right thing would be to mark the page as {{historical}} when discussion was finalised, not delete it. &mdash; Charles Stewart (talk) 15:32, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. The page and the group seem to be still under construction. Let's not engange in needless alarmism. We should remove the page only if the group's actions really start to disrupt Wikipedia. Until that, we should let them develop. Others have presented good arguments why this group might be a good idea. Let's wait and see. Offliner (talk) 11:51, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Last time I checked, arbitrators are to help resolve decisions, administrators are janitors, everyone else is merely an editor. There is no intermediate grade of "established editor", "registered editor", etc.  A browse through WP:VRPP will reveal that it is clearly established that anonymous editors are not only welcome but encouraged.  It's an established principle, even policy, that someone's contributions are judged by their merit, not by the reputation of the person making them.  This "project" seems to want to create self-accredited credentials.  To quote from WP:EA:


 * The current state of affairs with this project is that it will in fact not be "open to all editors". In fact, "open and transparent to all editors at all times" and the association's stated goals are mutually exclusive.  The group cannot claim authority unless its members are vetted, and cannot therefore be open to all.  This seems to set down an additional, self-certifying level between editors and administrators, so show me the policy that endorses it or delete.  81.110.104.91 (talk) 14:11, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
 * There is no current policy that forbids what is proposed to be AEE, as you seem to be suggesting, although many WPians are rightly suspicious of self-electing clubs. &mdash; Charles Stewart (talk) 18:57, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
 * WP:NOT pretty much covers it. And I really am not sure where people are getting this idea that this page is currently in development/actively being discussed (bar this Mfd or the Rfc). It is in the same state as when Damian blanked it a month ago, and arguably should have been marked historical already. MickMacNee (talk) 19:56, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Oddly enough, MfDs and RfCs can have a chilling effect on the development of proposals. &mdash; Charles Stewart (talk) 08:53, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
 * As much as Wikipedia might want to separate itself from its founder, this is unquestionably de facto policy, and this group falls foul of #2. 81.111.114.131 (talk) 22:30, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Do the admins, bureaucrats, and ArbCom constitute "hierarchy or structure which gets in the way of this openness to newcomers"? If not, for what reason can we be sure that the AEE would be?  Especially given that its processes have not been finalised yet, and we have not much idea as to how it would work in practice.  To reiterate my keep !vote, I don't thing that self-chosen groups are good for WP, but I think it is actually good for WP for this discussion about the aims and methods of the AEE to take place.  The time to close it down is once we can see that it is doing WP no good. &mdash; Charles Stewart (talk) 08:53, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Those groups are functionally necessary. Screw the waiting around, we can see from the very page that its propsed aims include vesting contributors, supporting each other in !votes, editing in concert and campaigning against blocks it believes to be inappropriate.  It openly states a commitment to NPOV, and requires its members to have the same, yet I can see how it would be trivial for this group to be subverted by subtle POV pushers.  We don't need to wait and see whether the group will do us no good, because we already have the empirical evidence to support it.  All relevant things being equal, the result is the same.  81.110.104.91 (talk) 17:56, 22 July 2009 (UTC)


 * We haven't even figured out what the group will be. Discussion was aborted when Peter blanked the page, and this MFD has had a tremendous chilling effect on any further development. Why can't people let us figure out what we want the group to be before they start panicking and trying to get it deleted? TallNapoleon (talk) 17:59, 22 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete This is not a legitimate use of an on-wiki group.  Triplestop  x3  20:59, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Wants to establish some kind of Mafia here on Wikipedia to protect interests of some chosen users. Page description suggests bad faith and hidden agenda. OutOfTimer (talk) 11:39, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
 * As a relatively new user, you may wish to acquaint yourself with the contents of WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF. The kind of insinuations you make in your reasoning do not assist this group in its already challenged attempt at decision making. &mdash; Charles Stewart (talk) 15:05, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Certainly no issues with his comments there. Perhaps you are the one that should be acquainted with the guidelines? Jeni  ( talk )(Jenuk1985) 15:07, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
 * WP:CIVIL: Try to treat your fellow editors as respected colleagues with whom you are working on an important project. The purported aim of WP:AEE is to improve the content quality of WP.  It should be the means that AEE proposes, self-selecting groups, that are at dispute here in this XfD.  There has been far too much disrespect here, and of a sort that undermines WP. &mdash; Charles Stewart (talk) 17:37, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
 * WADR, a lot of the disrespect has come from the project's founder causing grief and writing un-CIVIL comments. Whilst this user isn't involved, and thus can't use this as defence, the generalised comment isn't exactly fair. I'm not willing to let them laud over us with a "holier than thou" attitude and certainly don't think it's just to be called disrespectful for trying to stand up for myself. As regards to the quote you give, is it civil to shun these "respected colleagues" and elect your own elitist group? <b style="color:#00A">Greg Tyler</b> <sup style="color:#A00;font-weight:bold;font-size:10px;">(<b style="color:#A00">t</b> &bull; <b style="color:#A00">c</b>) 22:43, 22 July 2009 (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.