Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject Israel Palestine Collaboration/I-P editing battleground statistics

 __NOINDEX__
 * 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 per WP:NOTBATTLE. King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 09:11, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

WikiProject Israel Palestine Collaboration/I-P editing battleground statistics
I came across this page quite by accident and think that it is not in keeping with the spirit of Wikipedia. It looks mostly like a long laundry list of people who were sanctioned for various things... many of them don't even edit anymore. And it's called "battleground" statistics, but I thought "Wikipedia is not a Battleground"? WP:NOTBATTLE? Nobody has edited this page since over a year ago and pageview shows barely anyone even views it. It is not only useless but potentially damaging and toxic. LARPing aint easy (talk) 00:46, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep This page has been accepted and contributed to by members on both sides of the editing battleground. My understanding is that it was also used to generate statistics for Arbcom on the degree of battleground mentality persisting in the project area. I think it is up to project members and for Arbcom to decide whether the maintenance of these statistics is still a useful exercise. Discuassion should take place on project pages on whether this exercise is still of value rather than through Wikpedians simply !voting on whether to delete a Wikiproject subpage.--Peter cohen (talk) 01:27, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment I listed it at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Israel Palestine Collaboration. Will look at tomorrow and see if I have an opinion on any of this. CarolMooreDC (talk) 04:17, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
 * People seem fine with just archiving it, which I did yesterday cause I thought it had been deleted. Will update archive when find out final decision. CarolMooreDC (talk) 17:26, 20 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete I tend to agree with the nominator. This kind of subpage IS toxic (battleground statistics??? Come on). The I-P area is enough of a nightmare without keeping a running scorecard of who was blocked and sanctioned and what arguments were had over a year ago. If any of the accounts listed are banned, they can be listed at the banned users list, which is a direct offshoot of the WP:BAN policy. Wikiprojects don't supercede policy and they certainly aren't autonomous to the degree that their subpages can't be discussed objectively at MfD and potentially deleted by consensus. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 13:34, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
 * My main comment is that the official lists of notifications, blocks and bans is at the bottom of Requests_for_arbitration/Palestine-Israel_articles, so out of date redundancy may be the biggest problem. CarolMooreDC (talk)


 * Keep . Does look like a laundry list, but on examination, it looks unfortunately useful in moderating this problematic area of the project.  Overlap with subpages of Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration, such as Requests_for_arbitration/Palestine-Israel_articles, should be eliminated.  Remove any identification of editors with past, but not on-going, behavioural issues on included pages.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:19, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
 * It can't be that useful, it only gets about 20-25 views a month total and nobody has updated it since 2009. At the absolute least, it ought to be renamed to something less inflammatory and updated per Carol and Joe. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 15:01, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I hadn't noticed that the page and its talk page are inactive for over one year. If not deleted, the page should be archived.  I suggest archiving by converting it to a redirect to WikiProject Israel Palestine Collaboration.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:32, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Archive or delete . --SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:33, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment: Archiving definitely may be best possibility and I'll pass it by the project. CarolMooreDC (talk) 23:50, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Archiving would be fine by me and I think the project is likely to go along with that. I think that some of the rationales for deletion miss the fact that this page was a good faith exercise to monitor the degree of battleground mentality that existed and so measure the success of the project. The number of times that an article is raised at AN/I or 3RR or any other drama board is a good proxy measure for how much battleground mentality exists around the article. Statistics were mostly added by non-partisan editors and those attempting to be less partisan. So at least one editor added her own suspensions to the table. Further, there was a section for tracking who had not been recently suspended i.e. looking for apparent movements away from battleground mentality. The project has moved away from using this page and it makes sense to archive it so that people do not take it as representing current conduct. But this should be a project decision unless the project has obviously gone out of control. Any decision to archive should be regarded as contingent with the project being free to resume using the page should its membership reach a consensus to do so.
 * I do feel that outsiders who wander into projects such as IPCOLL that have evolved to combat some of the most troublesome behaviour in the Wiki and start proposing project pages for deletion without contacting the projects first may be acting in a manner allowed by Wikipedia but are not showing the degree of sensitivity that may be appropriate in areas where there are a lot of touchy editors. These projects are often established with the encouragement of Arbcom with the involvement of neutral admins. Assuming good faith and trusting the project to come to the right decision on what to do about a page is a less risky course than dragging the matter to what can sometimes become a drama board.--Peter cohen(talk) 01:09, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Just getting ready to archive but saw your message. Maybe you should put proposal at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Israel_Palestine_Collaboration. I personally don't have an opinion on it, but others might. Thanks. CarolMooreDC (talk) 01:17, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I posted something there while you were posting here.--Peter cohen (talk) 01:43, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep and allow the WikiProject to archive per the sentiments of Peter cohen. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:30, 13 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep and mark "historical" as there have been no solid grounds given for deletion. Collect (talk) 14:50, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep - it preserves an important record of one of the most contentious, if not the most contentious, topic areas in the Wikipedia universe. It does not appear to have been kept current, since there are many editors over the past two or so years who have been blocked or sanctioned for one thing or another related to this group of articles who are not listed here.  And many articles continue to be challenged and debated concerning their deletion as being unworthy of Wikipedia standards for NPOV, or that they even exist solely to disparage their subject (e.g., the "Israel and the Apartheid Analogy," a regularly renewed candidate for deletion).  Rather than deleting, this page should be updated.  The reason for the relatively low readership rates is that it is not mentioned elsewhere, even on the General Sanctions page.  I came across it by accident, just as another editor above did.  If it were cited or listed on other sanctions pages, it would certainly have more reader usage, since the general topic area is one of widespread and passionate involvement and debate.Tempered (talk) 02:21, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Consensus seems clear that this page should be not deleted, but either updated or archived. If someone wants to close this and do that then I don't think anyone will complain. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 18:33, 18 January 2011 (UTC) Maybe not... - Burpelson AFB ✈ 17:23, 20 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete - Extremely out-dated page hasn't been touched for over a year before it was nominated for deletion (last edit was December 2009). It appears to be a page devoted to dwelling on past conflicts in an environment which is very prone to conflict.  This is counterproductive and does not serve a purpose which improves the encyclopedia.  If, for some reason, it is decided that the wikiproject needs to keep it for some reason, it should absolutely be renamed and have the text modified to remove all references to "battlegrounds".  Snotty Wong   converse 23:47, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Deletion would be preferable to me, but at the very least it needs to be renamed, archived, and the battleground stuff needs to go. Something else I noticed is that many of the blocked accounts listed as "casualties" (which is totally out of date) weren't ever listed as members of this Wikiproject, so it's apparently been wrong from the get go. If nothing else comes of this, I'm going to start removing names of people who weren't members of this Wikiproject and in any case, delete the entries of inactive accounts. Several people seem determined to keep this page but they're not making any effort to actually update the thing. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 17:27, 20 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete - egads, who's (or is is whose?) godawful idea was this? It is like a virtual war memorial standing in the middle of one of the worst battlegrounds of the project.  And just because both sides of the conflict use it to scribble the names of their wounded, missing and KIAs doesn't magically make it acceptable. Tarc (talk) 19:03, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete If this were in the userspace, we'd delete it faster than you could say WP:UP. That this is in the Wikipedia: namespace makes it no less problematic.  Enemies lists in any form are disgusting and need to go post-haste.  If blocked or banned editors need to be logged, that can be done at the appropriate discretionary sanction page or arbcom decision page.  This is most inappropriate here.  -- Jayron  32  19:24, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete as basic violation of WP:NOTBATTLE (It even uses the word "battleground"!) and WP:CIVIL. Keeping a running scorecard that dwells on settled matters is very much uncivil. There's no potentially benign use of this list. Anyone blocked or banned in anyform is already logged elsewhere. Delete it immediately.oknazevad (talk) 19:30, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete Yes, this information was probably utilized for Arbcom cases, but those cases that this page was applied to seem to be long-over. Thus, it is no longer necessary to keep the page and it remaining around seems only to be to keep high tensions, which is highly inappropriate. Wikipedia is not a battleground, as others have stated above, and if this information is not being actively utilized for a purpose, keeping it around seems to only serve this battleground mentality. Silver  seren C 19:48, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete, arbitration rulings that result in discretionary sanctions already have an area for them to be logged. Having them logged at the arbitration page is quite enough, we don't need an additional list of "casualties". Seraphimblade Talk to me 20:36, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:NOTBATTLE. Seeing "Israel Palestine Collaboration" in the title of a page listing the casualties of that "collaboration" does not exactly inspire confidence in the collaboration.... First Light (talk) 06:18, 21 January 2011 (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.