Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Wikipedians who are not a Wikipedian

 __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:SNOW, before this wastes anyone else's time. ‑Scottywong | confess _ 17:58, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedians who are not a Wikipedian


Backdoor recreation of a deleted category; see its CfD. We might as well rename it WikiProject:anti-Jclemens or WikiProject:Fans of Malleus. While partisan essays on a variety of topics of community interest are allowed, this one has very little to say besides dwelling on an incident and including a list of users in the deleted category. I don't see how it's any more suitable for project space. (Or perhaps it should be merged with Harmonious editing club, a sort of wikiproject to which the creator of this page [also] belongs to. Half kidding on that.) Tijfo098 (talk) 22:57, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete ASAP as per Attack page - clearly pointing  out the actions of one user  -  not an overall problem.Moxy (talk) 23:02, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Nominator is right, this is about nursing grudges and perpetuating divisions. Wikipedians who have concerns engage in constructive discussion in order to resolve disputes, correct misbehaviour, and help improve the project, they don't engage in stunts and strops.  However, deleting this would probably have silly cries that we're "stifling free speech", and despite the fact such cries are bogus, it is better not provoke them. For that reason, I suggest userfying this, and then simply ignoring it.--Scott Mac 23:02, 14 November 2012 (UTC) No strong objections to deleting either, if that's consensus.--Scott Mac 09:25, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep. First, Tijfo098's allegation that this recreates a deleted category is false. The essay was created (by another editor) to explain the category, and it was written before the category was deleted. Second, there was a community discussion---at the intellectual level of these two "delete" nominations and continuing tediously for a week---which discussed the "attack page" charge, which was rebutted by many; certainly there was no consensus that the category was an attack page. The administrator who deleted the category nonetheless added the red-linked category to this essay, in the spirit of community consensus imho. (Like many essays, this one could be expanded.) Scott MacDonald initially disrupted the community discussion by quick deleting the category on grounds that had already been rebutted by serious administrators; his action was overturned by the community. Kiefer  .Wolfowitz  23:10, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
 * And the community deleted the category on the reopened/2nd CfD. In case you forgot how that turned out, despite your extensive participation in it. Tijfo098 (talk) 23:40, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep it up and I'll call your mother in for a talk about your behavior. Kiefer  .Wolfowitz  23:46, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete. Yes, we get it.  You think JClemens said something stupid. That does not justify what amounts to a campaign of harrassment about it across multiple namespaces.  This was inappropriate as a category, and pretending that category is now an essay does not make it any less inappropriate. Resolute 23:12, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment: I'm not going to !vote keep or delete on the page for multiple obvious reasons, but I note that it is often useful to discuss whether a disputed page remains necessary with the user(s) who created and edited it, before bringing it to a weeklong, contentious XfD discussion. Has that been done in this case? Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:16, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Do you volunteer for the rounds? There are 30 people or so on the list. Obviously a centralized discussion is preferable. And with outside input. Kiefer.Wolfowitz, for example, is among its editors. So my crystal ball says that trying to convince him would be a waste of my time. Tijfo098 (talk) 23:29, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Blatant canvassing by nominator here: Beeblebrox (talk) 23:28, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
 * It's not canvassing. Tijfo098 (talk) 23:29, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, it is rather inappropriate. You expressed an opinion about partisanship and appear to be pre-empting what you consider may happen in this discussion. Let it happen, and if it gets disruptive or whatever then, sure, call in the cavalry or whatever. - Sitush (talk) 23:32, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I've not prejudged the outcome. Are you really saying that the editor(s) who created & edited this page aren't likely to be partisan in this matter? I hope I'm wrong on that, but from the !votes cast insofar that doesn't seem to be the case. Tijfo098 (talk) 23:37, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
 * You can think what you wish but you should phrase any appeal at AN in a neutral manner. And jumping to another conclusion, as you have done here by attempting to summarise a situation when it has only just developed, is also inappropriate. In any event, enjoy the coming week ;) - Sitush (talk) 23:45, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Since it's likely to watched by a partisan crowd, I think that a notification here is adequate. -- Not only is it clearcut canvassing, Tijfo098, your comment proves that you are aware of that, aggravating circumstances and all. --87.79.108.207 (talk) 10:56, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Meh I'm a member of the category, but I didn't care enough about it participate in any of the discussions (CFD 1, DRV, CFD 2) and in fact speedily deleted the category when somebody apparently accidently recreated it after the 2nd CFD. I really don't care what happens to it. Perhaps it should be rewritten in a positive way, without any names, and with less of the history / the history less prominent, as We are all Wikipedians. Just a thought. But feel free to spend the next seven days having fun discussing exactly what to do with this essay in a productive friendly and non-time-wasting manner, y'all – as I see is already happening... BencherliteTalk 23:43, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
 * On my own little soapbox, I had suggested a different title (and scope). Tijfo098 (talk) 00:26, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I could honestly care less at this point It's creation was disruptive, but honestly it's not hurting me, so I plan on ignoring it.  Go   Phightins  !  23:48, 14 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete. One of the regrettable consequences of this regrettable incident is the way that it has divided people into warring factions. Time to forget it and move on. JohnCD (talk) 23:49, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Were the factions not there beforehand? Sure, a few more may have been drawn in but the origins of this go back a long way, and they are not going to disappear just because an essay is removed. It often astounds me just how long a memory people have here, especially since I'm one of those who now frequently reaches the top of the stairs and by that time has forgotten why it was I climbed them ;)P - Sitush (talk) 00:17, 15 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete this is an attack page directed at a specific editor and doesn't serve any useful purpose. Wikipedia is not a battleground. We do have a few petitions advocating a certain position, but they are discouraged and none is remotely comparable to this one. Hut 8.5 00:10, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete as it is an attack page. Would have voted keep if it weren't aimed as an attack. TBrandley 00:34, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete. Yes, there was drama over something Jclemens said. No, that doesn't mean we need an "essay" about this one particular case, at a title that doesn't describe what it actually says, and the sole content of which is complimenting one particular editor and criticizing another. There could probably be a decent essay at this title dealing with how we as a community tend to lump or split other editors, but this essay isn't that, it's just a pointy, pointy point. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 00:57, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I wish Tijfo could find something more useful to do. Maybe someone can get this in the Signpost? In the dog bites man section? Drmies (talk) 01:47, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Wishing won't help you - woof woof - You  really  can  08:50, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Signpost preview Jester of the court (NE sock)  03:41, 15 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete Clear attack page. -DJSasso (talk) 01:56, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete as a re-creation of deleted content that was made when consensus was near-formed at the CFD. The page claims it's an essay but it does not provide essay-related content, just a copy and paste (and expansion) of what the category description was and the contents (list of users) that were in it. Regards, — Moe   Epsilon  03:18, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep. It's a simple and neutral record of significance to the development of norms of membership of the community and interplay with the most senior members, such as a sitting arb. While not, as yet, defining of anything, I predict a lasting effect. As such, it is our history, and we should not attempt to delete our history. There is no attack contained in the page. The CfD was strongly influenced by perceived inappropriateness of the use of user categories. If judged inappriopriate for Projectspace, please Userfy for me, for my continuing study of the politics of ArbCom. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:40, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm pretty sure that the assumed target of attack doesn't consider the page to be an attack, and so those claiming "attack" would seem to be being over-sensitive by proxy. However, if the perception is there, then I suggest a rename to WP:A usercategory flurry in October 2012, whether kept or userfied. This was supposed to be a record, not a memorialisation. The notion of backdoor evasion of the CfD result is inaccurate. Much of the CfD discussion was clearly specific to categoryspace concerns, not the very brief content discussed here. However, it may be reasonable to replace the category listification with a count of users involved (but note that category listification has never before been seen as a CfD sidestep at CfD). Any real concern about evading the CfD result would be focused on the continuation of the redlink category. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 17:51, 15 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete. Has anything on Wikipedia ever been so badly blown out of proportion before? Automatic  Strikeout  04:32, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete as attack page. I certainly understand the need for protest, but when the protest takes the form of attacking/criticizing one user, or something that one user said, it's just too divisive.  Λυδ α  cιτγ  04:48, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete - Speedy - and WP:SALT - disruptive recreation after deletion by community consensus - User:Kiefer.Wolfowitz's comment, "Keep it up and I'll call your mother in for a talk about your behavior. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 23:46, 14 November 2012 - is a personal attack, WP:NPA - You really can  07:59, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
 * How do you explain the short-attention span of this fellow's "if you remember that it was deleted" after I had just noted that an administrator had deleted the category? Or your lie "disruptive recreation after deletion by community consensus", after I reminded any good-faith reader about the chronology?  Kiefer  .Wolfowitz  09:44, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Incorrect statements aren't always lies; I'd assume that YouReallyCan was going off of the nomination...  Λυδ α  cιτγ  17:08, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete. Arbitrators are above the law, everybody knows that. --87.79.108.207 (talk) 10:52, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Arbitrators are not above the law. Some have been judiciously kicked from the committee/privilages when it was discovered that they had been compromised.  If an arbitrator took such leave of their senses that warnings had not worked, I would step up and block them to prevent further disruption to the project. Hasteur (talk) 15:58, 15 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete - attack page, does not serve the community at all - in fact harms it by causing further division, conflict and friction. GiantSnowman 12:44, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. This is an attack page and an end-run around the deleted category. I'm actually kind of sad that this just keeps going on and on. Niteshift36 (talk) 12:49, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete - The essay begins, "Wikipedians who are not a Wikipedian was coined in protest." That falls under WP:NOT. Get the Signpost to write something about it if there is a need. Also, "was coined in protest" - that falls under WP:NOTBATTLEGROUND/WP:NOTFACTIONS. Arbitrator Jclemens posted an opinion in an official capacity as an Arbitration Committee("all we do here is acknowledge that Malleus has never been a Wikipedian") and others decided to illustrate a point and publicize that point by setting in motion things to disrupt Wikipedia through categories, the category deletion process, the deletion review process, project space, and now MfD. It also appears in other places. Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point is very clear. This Wikipedia:Wikipedians who are not a Wikipedian essay merely memorializes and furthers those disruptive efforts. Instead of misusing processes, editors should pursue any of the many discussion outlets for this: Jclemens' talk page, request for comment, etc. In addition to deleting pages, MfD is the place to terminate WikiProjects and other efforts within Wikipedia. It's time to stop the use of processes to further these disruptive efforts. The closing admin should not only delete this page but close this discussion in a way that ends the use of processes to further these disruptive efforts. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 12:53, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Userfying it would seem to be the least divisive thing to do here. It's clearly too divisive for projectspace (although I remain unpersuaded that it's an "attack page") but I don't see any reason why we should prohibit any mention of why the category was created anywhere on Wikipedia. Keeping it as a userspace essay seems like a reasonable compromise. 28bytes (talk) 15:58, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete The content was ruled out of order. Plain and simple.  Want to create an essay expressing the dissatisfaction with the ArbCom request? Make a proper essay explaining why the statement was ill considered.  Want to create a fan club (Anti-Jclemmons, FoM (Friends of Malleus)), get a wikiproject or make a userspace page for the club. Hasteur (talk) 16:05, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete Pointless attack page.  Rcsprinter  (yak)  @ 16:17, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Userfy, whatever that means. sigh... I am against deletion. In full disclosure, I joined the category after the essay was created but before the category was deleted. I just want to go back to quietly volunteering here in the futile battle against vandalism, embarrasing articles, spam...this extra step to bonfire any evidence of this seems mean-spirited. Why pour salt in our wounds? Why does this matter, really? Could someone at least create a userbox? Even battles lost in war end up with memorials   Fylbecatulous   talk   16:34, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep pointing out incredibly stupid things said on Wikipedia should be encouraged, especially when the one saying the stupid thing is an arb up for reelection. -Nathan Johnson (talk) 16:41, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Absolutely no one is arguing that people shouldn't point out "stupid things" said, or even that people shouldn't consider that when voting. However that isn't an argument for memorializing an incident. We point problems out in order to resolve them, we criticise people's speech in order that they learn and harmony is restored. This serves no such purpose.--Scott Mac 16:48, 15 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom and Moe Epsilon as a backdoor recreation of a deleted category, which in itself was justifiably deleted as not contributing to the project. (I just read through all of the original CFD, DRV and second CFD for the first time, what a waste of editor effort all that was.) &mdash; Hex    (❝  ?!  ❞)   16:50, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete as an attack page. --Saddhiyama (talk) 16:53, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep this page is allowed based upon established precedent and policy. 134.241.58.251 (talk) 17:12, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
 * DGAF Who really cares? I don't see how this could be considered an attack page on Jclemens per the definition on WP:Attack page: criticizing a person's comments is not "disparag[ing] or threaten[ing]" them. So it doesn't require immediate action. For the rest: someone flips a coin. Heads it's deleted, tails it's kept, if it lands on its edge it's userfied, and everyone agrees to abide by the results and go find something more productive to do. Sound good? It's only divisive if we keep dividing ourselves over it (usually through pointless drama). Writ Keeper &#9863;&#9812; 17:48, 15 November 2012 (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.