Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2012 October 24

24 October 2012

Category:Wikipedians who are not a Wikipedian

Category:Wikipedians who are not a Wikipedian (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

The discussion was overwhelmingly tending to keep -- and in jumps an admin who thinks his views count for more than those of the rest of the community. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 09:41, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

I corrected his error. He probably didn't look at the page history, and didn't know that it was the topic of a community discussion. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 09:46, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

You didn't quite - it needs an admin to extract and restore the category description. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:50, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

For ease, here was my deletion rationale:

speedily deleted under WP:CSD G10 "attack/disparage" (with a bit of WP:NOTBATTLEGROUND thrown in) I've no involvement in the current Malleus Fatuorum/Arbcom dispute. I can see many good people were outraged by stupid JClemens "not a Wikipedian" remark. But creating categories to attack an editor for a remark he made isn't how we do things. We AREWikipedians that means we discuss things together, and we use proper mature methods to do this. We don't tar and feather people (and I think that exactly the reason people rightly objected to JClemens' remark). We don't engage in puerile [[WP:BATTLEGROUND|battle ground tactics]] - we don't monumentalise the folly of others. Where would it end? Do we end up with "Category:Wikipedians who are fuckers" in protest at things Malleus has said? Please, step back and cool down everyone. When we have a dispute, and real Wikipedians try to use discussion and dispute resolution methods to, well, like "resolve" the dispute, not stunts and protests to ramp it up. Take this to deletion review if you must, but ask yourself how you are helping Wikipedia. Your valid point/protest has now been made."

The tagline to the category at the time of deletion was "In protest, referencing a comment by an ArbCom member"

The "discussion" was simply part of the same battleground, and not based on policy. Anyway, if DRV thinks I've done the wrong thing, then I give up.--Scott Mac 09:47, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

• Overturn. The Speedy Deletion was out-of-process for two reasons:
  1. The category had already been nominated for CSD:G10 and declined by User:LadyofShalott before it was taken to CfD.
  2. Speedy deletion is only for obviously uncontroversial cases, and this is clearly not one of them.

The deleting admin's reasoning was honorable, but his action was technically incorrect. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:48, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Do we now do "technically incorrect" > honorable and useful? Anyway, I don't think it was technically incorrect. But if you think undeletion helps here, whatever. --Scott Mac 09:52, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Boing, are you honestly arguing this _isn't_ an attack? Your argument here is about process (something I'm a huge fan of in fact), but not about the meat of the matter. Could you explain the purpose of the category if it's not just an attack page? Hobit (talk) 12:40, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

If I was arguing that it isn't an attack, I would have argued that it isn't an attack - but as I didn't, you should be able to work out for yourself that I'm not. My argument is that this was a "supervote" abuse of admin power against a clear majority of the !votes so far, in the midst of a furore over perceived abuse of power - and that was pretty much guaranteed to cause a shitstorm. The point is that it is not blatantly and uncontroversially an attack and therefore is not subject to CSD:G10, and the community should not have its power to decide for itself taken away. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:08, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Again, it singled out one person's (widely disparaged - and rightly retracted) remarks, and served to invite people to participate in memorialising them. If that's not an attack, and attempt to disparage or a battleground tactic, can you explain what purpose it served? I keep pressing this, but get only evasion. I'm not trying to "badger" you, but the answer to this is at the root of it. If there's were a valid policy-based alternative purpose for this being articulated, then speedy deletion would indeed be inappropriate. But is there? What is yours? The reason you gave at the CFD "*Keep. If the definition is good enough for a serving member of ArbCom, then it's fucking good enough for me" seemed to be further disparagement and not at all policy based. --Scott Mac 13:22, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

As I have pointed out several times, whether it is an attack is not the issue here - as it was clearly not uncontroversial, that is something that should be discussed and decided by the community on the CfD page, and by you personally with your speedy deletion. Your continuing to argue your personal opinion about the category is just reinforcing the point that you did not act as a disinterested admin, and I'm sorry that you don't seem to understand the limits of your powers as an admin. If you do not understand that point, I'm sorry, but I'm not going to try to explain it again. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:36, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

If you aren't willing to argue it's not an attack, you really shouldn't be using process to try to keep it around seems unwise (changed wording as it was much more confrontational than I'd meant). Much like a BLP violation, purely process-based arguments should be used very carefully with respect to things that are attacks. Thus my endorse. I don't mean to pick on you, I just know you are a really reasonable person so you're the best person to discuss this with IMO... I'll duck out of this discussion at this point and let you have the last word here if you want it. If you'd like to discuss further, feel free to do so on my talk page. Hobit (talk) 13:47, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Hobit, I would be happy to discuss the category in the deletion discussion, but I was denied that opportunity by an incorrect admin action. That action should be reversed, and the discussion that was closed should be allowed to resume - and the consensus should be judged by an admin who is capable of doing so neutrally. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:33, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

"Honorable and useful" is not a valid Speedy Deletion reason. Further, your responses indicate you are not acting as a disinterested admin here, and are effectively supervoting. As I said, I believe your actions were honorable, just incorrect, and I really think you should stop badgering now and just leave DRV to do its job. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:58, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

• Overturn - per Boing!'s points - Sitush (talk) 09:51, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
• Overturn - per the technically correct points made by Boing! (Also, in comment, I note that the cat was deleted on the grounds that it represented the actions of Wikipedians who are not "real Wikipedians", thus proving the usefulness and validity of the category in the first place.) Keristrasza (talk) 10:02, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
• Ignore all rules, keep it deleted and just stop. Go back to working on the encyclopedia, instead of worrying about this category created so Wikipedia has another martyr that divides the community on a hot button issue. What is the point in it being re-created? Potential collaboration of spiteful editors? You also do realize categories still work whether they are blue or red, right? So, instead of being adults and moving past what Jclemens said (despite how wrong you may think it was), we are going to resort to petty name-calling, creating categories for the sole purpose of harping on his comments, have Wikipedia disrupted first through categories for deletion, and now deletion review, only to be brought back to CFD later? Just stop, let it die, for the sake of the time users are going to be wasting on this stupidity. Regards, — Moe Epsilon 10:39, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

  Red and blue categories don't work the same - you can't have a category description if the category itself doesn't exist. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:07, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

  Because no one knows what this mysterious category is about, right? Regards, — Moe Epsilon 12:29, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

  Why is it that everybody I try to talk to these days seems to argue against what I haven't said? Oh, wait a minute - could it be because my statement was irrefutably correct? -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:33, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

  You implied that the category needed a description, which is the only difference between it being red and it being blue. My point is that everyone who has been sent the link to the category and everyone else who added themselves knows precisely what the category is about. Not only that, but the original "description" was that it was created "in protest." Does this need more explaining? Regards, — Moe Epsilon 12:38, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

  Bit of a snarky response there from me - I apologise. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:00, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

  The description could have been amended without deletion of the category. The CSD was overkill and an abuse of G10: it isn't as if the subject of the category was/is not being discussed elsewhere. I understand the rationale for using G10 but, well, it was just asking for trouble, wasn't it? Comment at CfD, by all means, but don't be heavy-handed when you are aware that there is a huge furore regarding the underlying issue. - Sitush (talk) 14:23, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

  That's alright, Boing!. Like Sitush is saying, I think, if the description is amended so that it is not an attack on Jclemens on the category page, I have no problem with it personally. However the "in protest" language makes it very much an attack page on him, and it probably should be avoided at all costs, otherwise the precedent could be made to start other categories for whatever one Wikipedian says, which very much should be discouraged. Regards, — Moe Epsilon 00:09, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

• Overturn Close by administrative fiat against overwhelming consensus to keep. Joefromrandb (talk) 10:44, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
• Overturn - per Boing!'s points. Send it back to CfD if then so inclined and let the discussion run to its end. --Beetstra (public) (Dirk Beetstra^{T C} on public computers) 10:46, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
• Overturn - Mostly per Boing, with a note that the "attack"-iness of the category has been disputed by numerous editors at the CFD. As Boing said, clearly not uncontroversial. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:04, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
• Overturn - Per Boing and overwhelming consensus to keep. --Epipelagic (talk) 11:19, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
• Overturn - Incredible assumption of bad faith when ignoring the consensus. No where is Jclemens listed, nor in any way does this category require someone have an opinion of him in order to join, so the deletion rationale is inherently flawed. There is no "attack" in someone feeling disenfranchised even while they continue to participate, and this category doesn't differentiate the reason for the disenfranchisement. Too much assumption. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 12:02, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
  • As a matter of correcting fact, the category description at the time of deletion was "In protest, referencing a comment by an ArbCom member". Assume what you will from that.--Scott Mac 12:14, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
    • Scott, I've already said that I don't mind the description being tweaked, and if that diff is left out, that's fine too: it will be a mysterious category only for the in-crowd. Drmies (talk) 18:15, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
• Endorse It's a clear attack IMO, no if ands or buts. A very justified attack, but Scott is right here. I'm a huge fan of process, but let the ArbCom election be the process to address this, not sniping like this. Please folks, put down the stick. Hobit (talk) 12:36, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
• Endorse. Not often do I find myself in agreement with Scott MacDonald, but Hobit is exactly correct. With all due respect, Dennis Brown's ABF claim has zero basis in reality. As Scott pointed out, the description at the time of the deletion leaves no doubt that the (quite unwise) comment by Jclemens was the focus of this category. T. Canens (talk) 13:26, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
• Comment: What I'm looking at here is the definition of G10 from WP:CSD#G10: "Pages that disparage, threaten, intimidate or harass their subject or some other entity, and serve no other purpose." I don't think this was justified under that criterion. It's the "and serve no other purpose" bit that bothers me: the first thing I thought of was that this category was pro-Malleus, not contra-Jclemens. This does have another purpose: to show solidarity with another editor. I'm not !voting myself, because there's been entirely too much drama over this already; I didn't feel strongly enough about it to put myself in the cat to begin with, and I don't feel strongly enough about it now to vote overturn. But it does appear to me that the G10 is out-of-process (not so important), and given that the discussion was tending towards keep before, the sudden shift in burden of proof from deleters to keepers unfairly changed the dynamic of the discussion (more important). Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 13:39, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
• Endorse After all, a lot of the people calling for an overturn have made it clear that they aren't Wikipedians (you determine if I was being serious or not). Why should their opinion mean anything, especially while they are all acting like children? For those of you who have threatened to leave, do you actually have the guts to follow through and do it or are going to stay here and continue with your battleground-mentality disruptiveness? AutomaticStrikeout 13:41, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
• Overturn Being an admin doesn't gives you the right to do whatever you want. This decision was completely different from the consensus. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ ^{Talk Email} 13:51, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes, it does. Otherwise, how do you explain Floq blocking an arbitrator for a personal opinion or Drmies giving Malleus a barnstar for making personal attacks? AutomaticStrikeout 13:53, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

I deleted this as an attack. I'm not arguing that was a consensus position, however, the "debate" on the CFD did not contain one policy-based reason not to view it as an attack. Typical of it was Boing!'s ""*Keep. If the definition is good enough for a serving member of ArbCom, then it's fucking good enough for me". That's not a valid argument on Wikipedia - and we don't count votes as consensus. Anyway, I wasn't summing up consensus on that "debate", I was speedy deleting an attack/disparage, because we always delete attack/disparage items. Had there been a serious, non-battleground, argument for keeping it going on, then I would not have speedy deleted it. Can someone give me a use for this that doesn't relate to attack, disparage or battleground? I've been asking that without reply. Oh, btw, I'd have deleted an anti-Malleus cat just as quickly.--Scott Mac 14:00, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Of course there were policy-based reasons at the CfD when you deleted. Most obviously, this was that contributors self-categorise on numerous bases and thus there is precedent. You should have raised your points at that CfD, not used a hammer in an out-of-process manner, imo. - Sitush (talk) 14:29, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Speedy deleting attack pages is not out of process. The question is, is it an attack or attempt to disparage - or does it serve some other purpose? No one, as yet, has suggested any other purpose.--Scott Mac 14:38, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

By the way, in case anyone hasn't understood why I used the word "fucking" in my comment, it was to ensure that I qualified for the category. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:39, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Solidarity and support of an editor, and sympathy for the perceived abuses inflicted on him, perhaps? This ain't a zero-sum game; supporting the one does not mean attacking the other. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 14:42, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes, indeed, This was mentioned at CfD prior to the CSD. - Sitush (talk) 14:44, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes, except it wasn't Category:Users who want to cuddle Malleus - it was users who want to keep banging on about a remark JClemen's made (and retracted). The rationale, was indeed, quite explicit.--Scott Mac 14:50, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

I for one have never wanted to cuddle Malleus. But I remain disgusted at both the direction that "request for clarification" took, so speedily, AND JClemens obscene remark. Yes it was retracted, partially and grudgingly, and far too late. pablo 14:56, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Scott, I provided policy based rationales for every action. I'm not a member of the category, I haven't gone on strike, I'm not "one of them", I'm just another administrator here who has been trying to bridge the two sides rather than point fingers. You might not agree with my rationale, but they are policy based, that editors are allowed to categorize themselves by religion, political philosophy, etc. My observations are not so easily dismissed. If it was affecting their article contributions (the reason we ARE here) then it would be arguable as a disruptive influence, but short of that, it is a form of censorship. This is a volunteer project, not their day jobs, and the intolerance for free expression by people who deeply care about the project is disturbing. The only disruption that has come out of the category was the deletion discussion and your hasty decision to speedy delete it. Had people left it alone, no drama would have come of it. The core of the current drama is an intolerance of a few in allowing editors to peacefully categorize themselves. I don't have to agree with their philosophy to respect their right to do this. Again, no disruption has come from this except by its detractors. This is no different than a category "People who think Wikipedia needs administrative change", except it isn't sugar coated. It also isn't an attack on any individual, no matter how poorly worded the original summary was, and no matter who was the "straw that broke the camel's back". The one comment isn't the only common concern expressed by the members of the cat. This smacks of censorship, and I find that offensive, much more so than a peaceful grouping of individuals that share a common concern over the direction Wikipedia is headed. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 14:55, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't think we're on the same planet. Peaceful?? There ought to be calm discussion about MF, and JClemens and arbcom - absolutely. No view gets censored. I don't even know what mine are. But what this was was a battleground tactic from people determined to ramp up the debate and the attendant vitriol, rather than to seek resolution of the disputes. The same was evidenced at the CFD. It may be, with hindsight, I should have ignored it (that's a valid point) but to say I caused drama when people were peacefully over there doing something undramatic and peaceful.....? Hey, ho. Oh, byw, how will restoring it serve to keep the peace either?--Scott Mac 15:05, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Scott Mac, I didn't think a category would solve any dispute--I'm not that dumb (yet). But I certainly didn't seek all this, battleground and vitriol and all. Those who disagree with its very existence can always turne over the leef, and chese another tale. In much the same way that I'll simply disregard your use of the word "puerile". Drmies (talk) 18:58, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Not sure how the "planet" rhetoric is beneficial to the conversation, but the act of creating or joining a category is a peaceful act. Even this discussion has been relatively peaceful, in spite of how disruptive it is. Talking about a problem that many people agree or disagree about isn't "unpeaceful". Insisting that people who agree on an opinion can't identify with each other in a formal way, ie a :cat, isn't peaceful, it is force. Again, I don't belong to the group, but it seems everyone is so blinded by their opinion of Malleus, that they can't see the forest through the trees here. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 16:15, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

• Comment Well, congratulations to Rob & Scott - what was a fairly peaceful protest is now a fully-fledged draaahhhhma publicised at even more venues. pablo 13:54, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
• Overturn and relist - I was the admin who initially declined the G10 nomination because I don't believe it is an attack. I think BoingSaidZebedee nailed it on the head that this was closed with an out-of-process supervote. The discussion should be allowed to continue. LadyofShalott 14:06, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
• Overturn and relist SM's out-of-process closure disrupted the community's discussion, which should continue. I created a similar category, for Category:Wikipedians who are a net negative as an influence on Wikipedia. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 15:12, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
  • That's useful, mature, conciliatory, and assists in building consensus and defusing heated community debates. Thanks.--Scott Mac 15:27, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
    • Scott, Sarcasm and name-calling don't advance conversations. Why do you keep saying that the JClemens-inspired category (or the new AGK-inspiration) increases heat or is a battlefield tactic? A show of solidarity (which strikes many as humorous) causes no threat to anything. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 15:50, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
      • Another administrator has deleted the page, again speedily, as an "attack page", despite that description being contested here. Again, another administrator out-voting the community, and misusing speedy deletion. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 17:09, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
        • • But another Paladin, Buck, has nominated it for discussion. I've suggested that the community apply its decision in this category to that category. Buck disagrees, in triplicate. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 23:37, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
• Comment. I'm not really concerned whether this category gets deleted, renamed, or not. Would like to point out, however, that this category meets a long-held sentiment of mine, à la Groucho's quip of not wishing to belong to a club that would have him as a member (proof of me having held this sentiment almost 4 years ago). Sure, I added myself to the category out of solidarity with Malleus Fatuorum, but that's not the only reason, and I might have added myself without knowing about the Arb-kerfluffle too. ---Sluzzelin talk 15:53, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
• Overturn and relist Speedy deletions of material up for discussion at XfD is sometimes justified - usually as an instance of IAR. However, as explained above, those are the exception and not the rule. This closure has already produced more heat than light - and therefore shown that IAR was not appropriate here. Since the category was ineligible for speedy deletion apart from IAR, the decision becomes "overturn and relist." --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 17:14, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
• If there was ever a discussion that reminded me why I'm glad I handed in my bit, this is it. Revolting. Spartaz ^Humbug! 17:40, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
• Suggestion: Perhaps instead of a category, a userbox could be used to identify editors who share a specific view about the Wikipedia community? I believe whimsically-named userboxes have a long tradition, and that there is generally a relaxed attitude towards their naming. isaacl (talk) 17:52, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
• Wikipedians are encouraged to be bold, but not with their administrative tools. This is why. I know Malleus is making a lot of Wikipedians tired at the moment (and, no doubt, vice versa); I know that boundaries are being tested, and so are the limits of the community's patience. But unilateral administrative actions don't reduce the drama level. Ever. This is a rule, henceforth to be known as Marshall's Law.—S Marshall T/C 18:35, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
• Endorse Its an attack category - being used to continue to bring attention to, and so deride and demean the original commenter to a poorly made and considered my many/almost all to be attacking comment made by a living person and then retracted. IAR is a fine close for such a creation. I support Malleus and his content work here and I have commented negatively about Clemens in regards to his comment but the election is the place to deal with these things - Clemens is finish in authority here and will not stand as he knows he has no support anymore - so forget him - Malleus is under no threat of much at all in the Arbitration motion - creating this cat is too reactive, its basically over already. Youreallycan 18:38, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Rob - your ill-thought-out deletion rationale and attendant badgering have done more to increase the drama levels here than any other user's action. Pipe down. pablo 21:57, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

No, we won't "forget him", lest the arb who takes his seat act in a similar manner. Joefromrandb (talk) 19:35, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

• Overturn per all above. The revolution MUST be televised!. We are the Loyal opposition. Montanabw^(talk) 18:42, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
• Overturn. I appreciate the kumbaya implied in Scott Mac's rationale, and I mean that sincerely. But I do not believe this deletion was done properly, for reasons outlined above, by Boing for starters and then by others. I see now that the description I added to the category, at least its phrasing, wasn't very helpful--but that entire Clarification Request wasn't very helpful, unless its purpose was to cause more division. If anything should be speedily dealt with, it's that. But the description can be edited; maybe it is already. Jclemens's comment was an immediate cause, of course, but the more important thing (for me, anyway) is that baiters can easily turn anything done by one editor into an ArbCom matter--and let other things slide. Jclemens wasn't the only one who said some pretty horrible things, and it's the general attitude, where an editor gets singled out and pounced upon, that creates the camps where in the end one camp can claim proper Wikipedianess and deny it to the other camp. And there really weren't camps to begin with. The category name is of course based on that now-retracted claim, so maybe the one shouldn't exist while the other is detracted--one could argue that, in a deletion discussion. (I don't agree, but that's something that someone could argue). This, this discussion and the conflicts that gave rise to it, will continue of course until the underlying matter is dealt with, and I for one still feel uneasy about even showing up here and doing various other household duties. Drmies (talk) 18:43, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Yeah, but if (in reference to Malleus Fatorum's jibe) I created Category:Wikipedians who are fucking cunts and then argued it was really about supporting people who felt demeaned and insulted by vested contributors who (they felt) were allowed to ignore civility with impunity because of their prolific contributions, shouldn't it be speedily deleted as trolling (at least)? Or would that be acceptable? (PS not going to do it, before someone shouts POINT)--Scott Mac 21:02, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

γνῶθι σαυτόν.

• • Nobody has raised any objection to your starting a category for yourself and for anybody who wants to identify as a fucking cunt, the way that some of us have identified with Malleus as net minuses or not a Wikipedian. The community should tolerate self-identification. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 21:27, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
    • Interesting scenario. I'm not sure which CSD category would be appropriate, but it could well be considered eligible for G3, vandalism. However, should it have been nominated and the speedy deletion declined by an admin, and had it then been taken to CfD and a clear majority in favour of keeping it was developing, then no, it would not be acceptable for another admin to exercise a supervote and speedy delete it regardless. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 21:39, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
      • The fact you think that's a question at all is the problem. I was offering Reductio ad absurdum, and you've failed to notice the absurdity. Had a created such a category it should be killed with a stick, and I should probably be blocked for trolling and disruption. Justifying breaches of a clear Wikipedian civility ethos by extraneous wikilawyring is precisely what Wikipedia is not about.--Scott Mac 21:45, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

        Obviously, I did not think that your starting a category "fucking cunts" was a question. Rather I thought your action entirely appropriate, for reasons that cannot be said on Wikipedia. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 15:18, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

        • Well, if it was the obvious uncontroversial speedy that you suggest, then it would have been speedy deleted without being declined by an admin, wouldn't it? And it wouldn't have gone to CfD and wouldn't have generated a majority in favour of keeping it, would it? That's why your "fucking cunt" example is not a valid analogy for your own deletion of the "not a Wikipedian" category. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 21:52, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
        • Just an additional point - if what you see as a Reductio ad absurdum is challenged, it's not necessarily because your opponent did not understand the absurdity - it may just be because he thinks the reductio is false. (Honestly not trying to "pull rank" or anything, but I do have an MA in Philosophy) -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 22:00, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
• Having thought about this, and I do understand Scott's reasoning, I am going to go for overturn. I think that the "attack" rationale is wrong. This was always far more a "I am Spartacus!" reaction to Arbcom's direction on this "request for clarification" (and by the way, is any clarification emerging? Didn't see any the last time I looked) than "Arbitrator X is a <insert descriptor of choice; adjectives optional>. pablo 19:48, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
• Overturn to keep- the consensus was clearly that the category should be kept, and that it was not disruptive. This close was just plain wrong. FYI- I have no real involvement in the Malleus situation. Reyk _YO! 21:13, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
• This is what you are supporting as well - divisive and disruptive just the same - Category:Users that support civil discussion and the banning of (add username here) for his/her repeated violations of the Wikipedia:Civility policy and for repeated personal attacks on other users in violation of Wikipedia:No personal attacks policy - Youreallycan 21:49, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

  Sigh...

  1. You support X
  2. I think X is equivalent to Y
  3. Therefore you support Y

  That's a false syllogism. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 22:11, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

  • Perhaps support was the wrong word - but it is my opinion that by supporting this cat - (created as the user who created it said in solidarity with Malleus - then you allow for the other side - you are encouraging and allowing/accepting the opposite to be created - Youreallycan 22:29, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
    • OK. In fact, I do support the right of people to create user categories expressing solidarity with, say, Jclemens - subject to proper policy-based discussion and not deleted by individual admin supervote. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 22:40, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
      • Solidarity is what it was. If a whole bunch of editors get called "fucking cunts" (or "dishonest twats"), and one of them, disappointed that there's no block on such utterances, wants to create a user category with that term (to get back to your point, Scott), I couldn't care less. Seriously, they have my blessing, and I'll grant them the right to explain on the category page as well. Many user categorizations are POV: "Christian" doesn't mean the same thing for all Christians; "PhD" implies, to some, an educational arrogance; "Wikipedian sexworkers" apparently is a hot-button issue. The BLP argument brought up here by our resident BLP warrior, who has quite a history in divisiveness, does not apply: we're not dealing with living people, we're dealing with "editors"--and on the internet, nobody knows you're a dog anyway. Scott, I don't think you and I ever got into it over something, and I don't intend to change that. I'm sorry if you felt you had to take the course of action that led to all this; if all this blows over, and your deletion is endorsed (it doesn't look like it right now) I'll still buy you a beer. If your deletion gets overturned, well, I'll also still buy you a beer. But it might be a PBR. Drmies (talk) 22:57, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
• Comment I very much respect Scott's effort here in a IAR sort of way, but I think it's also a very incorrect reading of consensus. I'd also mention that many people are upset by the situation; and sometimes these little things can have a cathartic effect in letting people voice their feelings. — ChedZILLA 22:42, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

  I similarly respect Scott's effort - his intentions are undoubtedly entirely honorable. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 22:47, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

  I never doubted that for a second Boing - and I very much agree with everything you've said here. (I was going to mention "super-vote", but saw that you had already done so.) — ChedZILLA 22:54, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

  Sure, I commented more to let Scott know than anything -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 23:05, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

• Endorse per WP:POINT.--Peter cohen (talk) 23:58, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
• Endorse I said it before, and I'll say it again. WP:DWIP--Go Phightins! 23:59, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
• Endorse - WP:POINT. Let's not make attack categories on a level with the inappropriate comments. Reaper Eternal (talk) 00:59, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
• Endorse per WP:POINT. I was going to wait for this to be relisted and then !vote to delete, but that seems like a waste of time. Ryan Vesey 01:06, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

• Relist Per Kiefer Wolfowitz. While I feel that this category should be deleted as a nonconstructive category violating WP:BATTLEGROUND, it does not meet the requirements for speedy deletion. Wikipedia:Ignore all rules states "If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it." I don't feel that rules preventing speedy deletion of this category prevent Wikipedia from being improved or maintained, so this does not fall under IAR. In addition, the large number of editors who wish for the category to be kept shows that invoking IAR would be far too contentious here. A full discussion should occur on this topic. Ryan Vesey

• Overturn and relist While I appreciate Scott Mac's reasoning, I have always been an advocate that G10 is to be narrowly construed to include only things that no good-faith editor would believe are not an attack. Furthermore, I would be quite hypocritical if I supported a deletion of anything as a personal attack that was in response to (well, "throwing back in my face" might be a better description) something I said which wasn't intended as a personal attack in the first place. Jclemens (talk) 01:27, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Jclemens, by now I am less concerned with the particular remark as I am with the more general divisiveness; I can't really look at the actual discussion and its various motions. I (still) have very mixed feelings about the whole thing but I certainly don't want to single you out, although I realize very well that my 'definition' of the category suggests that. On the one hand, I'm sad at you (syntax coined by my daughter) for having said it, but on the other hand I don't want to denounce you as a person or an editor. As I suggested (on this page? on the original MfD?), the category description can be altered and it need not include the remark you retracted (would that we could unsay things). The solidarity I meant to express was with one particular editor, not against one other particular editor, though I understand that others read that differently. Drmies (talk) 14:52, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
• Overturn - Speedy deletion had already been declined by another admin and only applies to "the most obvious cases"; I think the CfD discussion shows that this was already not an obvious speedy deletion candidate. Whether or not it should be deleted was being discussed at the appropriate venue, and consensus should determine the result, not an admin's opinion. - SudoGhost 02:21, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
• Comment - This entire episode is ludicrous. Lame. Doc talk 09:22, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
• I much preferred when people were protesting this crime against humanity (nay, the Earth itself, if not the Milky Way in its entirety) by not editing at all. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 10:24, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
• Endorse for increase of wikidrama. Mangoe (talk) 12:23, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
• Endorse the category clearly had no purpose other than to attack an editor. That by attacking that editor it also expressed support for another editor makes no difference - if I wrote a disparaging article about a company it wouldn't be disqualified from G10 by the fact that it was expressing support for the company's competitors. Nor does the category serve any useful purpose. User categories exist "to aid in facilitating coordination and collaboration between users for the improvement and development of the encyclopedia", not to further political wikidrama. Hut 8.5 12:35, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
• Endorse and overturn per chris cunningham and writ keeper. --regentspark (comment) 13:55, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion - the category is a joke and an attack. The "discussion" was a joke and a series of attacks. The administrator was right to delete it. Buck Winston (talk) 15:47, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. This type of category is clearly prohibited at Wikipedia:User categories#Inappropriate types of user categories. Specifically, "Categories that are divisive, provocative, or otherwise disruptive. ... This also includes categories created in protest or to make a point (e.g. Wikipedians whose religion has been deleted by Wikipedia)." --MelanieN (talk) 16:37, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
  • I once encountered a fascinating thought at a previous deletion review: "Deletion review is not AfD2". The points many of you are making would be perfectly reasonable -- if only we were having an AfD discussion. We're not -- because it was closed via an improper CSD by an admin who took it upon himself to ignore the discussion at the AfD that was underway. We are here to review that decision in light of the policy that governs the deletion process. Opinions about the desirability of the category are then quite beside the point. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 16:59, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
• Endorse - Wiki-retardation at its finest here. Using categorization to disparage others should not be encouraged. As for the vote tally, who gives a fuck? That such a thing wound up with more keeps than deletes is only indicative that sometimes mob rule needs to be overruled by saner voices. Tarc (talk) 17:32, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Tarc, why would you want to phrase it that way? I'm not sane? I'm part of a lynch mob? Drmies (talk) 17:38, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
  • And why the Ann Coulter-style "retard" insult/prejudice? Go watch The Kingdom, and remember that "the evil eye sees everything". Kiefer.Wolfowitz 18:01, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
    • Your opinion on this is without value. If you have a beef with someone, you don't get to make a wiki-category to trumpet that beef to the world. We're here to simply review the close though, and if a closer took action to get rid of the miserable piece of shit of a category, then he should be barnstar'ed. Tarc (talk) 20:02, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
      • Tarc, My opinion is worth more than yours, because of my superior intellect, education, character, experience, and contributions. Notice that nobody has endorsed anything you've written. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 21:32, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
        • Don't you think that's just a wee bit egotistical? Reaper Eternal (talk) 00:28, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
• Endorse per Scott's closing comments, WP:POINT and WP:BATTLE. Not to mention that the argument that the CFD was trending to keep is based exclusively on the vote count, which is not how we weigh these things. Virtually none of the keep votes actually presented a policy-based rationale. Given that, and given this category is very obviously intended to flame another editor for a comment - poor as it was - means this should leave little choice other than delete for anyone considering this in a rational, dispassionate matter. This category does not aid the building of this project. Resolute 20:07, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

• in the current climate I am definitely not a Wikipedian. A Wikipedian apparently is someone focused on his or her particular ideas of what is civil, pretty much to the exclusion of anything else. I'm all for basic courtesy, but these self-styled "Wikipedians" often push obnoxious civility POVs, and are themselves amongst the most discourteous members of the user community. I wish to distance myself from this group so I can be justified in returning to content building (which I have stopped). A category like this enables me to do that. As such, it is most certainly an aid to building the encyclopaedia and should not be deleted. The pointy behaviour and battle mentality evident here is coming from people who want this category suppressed. --Epipelagic (talk) 21:02, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

• One does not need to be a member of a juvenile catetory designed to enshrine a dumb comment by another editor to distance themselves from that dumb comment. As such, I reject your notion that this category aids building the encyclopedia in this manner. However, I do respect that you at least tried to craft a rationale, which is more than can be said for most of the keep !votes in that CFD. Resolute 21:52, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

• Reading through this back and forth, it sounds like a CfD disucssion, not a rationale to endorse a deletion through an admin's supervoting. If you think it should be deleted, there's an appropriate venue for that. You should also read WP:NOTPOINTY, you're rationale doesn't seem to apply here, and is a deletion argument, not an endorsement argument. - SudoGhost 22:01, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

• Precisely. People seem to be forgetting that "making a point" is not the same thing as "disrupting Wikipedia to make a point". There has to be actual disruption, which there isn't in this case. Reyk _YO! 22:25, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

• I think it strains credulity to suggest that creating a category that flames another editor for a controversial statement could not be expected to add more drama to an already intense dramafest. And while I do add some CFDesque commentary, the bulk of my comment is to endorse the closing admin's G10 deletion while also highlighting that the "there were more keep !votes" argument carries little weight given how few of them were based in policy. Resolute 01:34, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

• ...and that G10 deletion was already shown to be invalid. WP:CSD ":Administrators should take care not to speedy delete pages or media except in the most obvious cases." Not only did the CfD discussion highlight that this was not the case, a speedy deletion was already declined by another administrator. "As such, I reject your notion" that G10 was a valid action, because it most certainly was not. It would carry more weight for you to point out "how few of them were based in policy" if only your own rationale was supported by the things you linked. That however is not the case. - SudoGhost 01:51, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

• Endorse as correct application of WP:IAR & WP:ROUGE. If you dislike Jclemens vote him out of office (assuming he even runs again.) This immortalization of a gaffe is just battleground. Tijfo098 (talk) 20:16, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
• Overturn and keep: Seems to be a harmless enough category in which many people wish to be included. If it's a cause of embarrassment to certain arbs and admins, then it can serve them as a useful reminder that Wikipedia is inclusive not exclusive. Arbs and admins are subject to the will of the editors rather than here for the megalomaniacal ego trip on which so many seem to be on; of which speedy deleting this was a prime example. However, I shall not be joining because I am a Wikipedian and no incompetent, self righteous, small minded Arb will ever be permitted to take that away from me. Giano (talk) 21:35, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

• Then Giano I suggest you do join. This is about Wikipedians, the real Wikipedians who are not "Wikipedians" --Epipelagic (talk) 21:50, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

• Endorse per POINT. This is why we say !vote — there were lots of keeps, but few were based on policy. I thought the original comment repellent and look forward to not voting for JClemens (and maybe voting for some of those who are exercised on this issue). But this is pure battlefield. Kanguole 23:25, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Actually, it was the proposed deletion that had no basis whatsoever in policy. Joefromrandb (talk) 23:48, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

• • From Wikipedia:User categories#Inappropriate types of user categories "any grouping of users on the basis of a characteristic that, unintentionally or by design, triggers a negative emotional reaction in others, is detrimental to an environment of constructive collaboration ... This includes categories for enmity toward a particular group of people, ..., or support for or opposition to a controversial person, group, project, idea, policy, or activity. This also includes categories created in protest or to make a point (e.g. Wikipedians whose religion has been deleted by Wikipedia)".--Scott Mac 00:34, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

That is clearly too sweeping and needs rewriting. As it stands, it is as bad as the notorious section 5 in British legislation. --Epipelagic (talk) 02:20, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

• • • That's a good point. It's almost as if that would be the subject for a CfD to determine, instead of a single admin's supervote. - SudoGhost 01:24, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
• Overturn. Bad G10 call. Had previously been declined. Speedy deletion should never be used to short circuit a discussion. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:04, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
• Overturn for three reasons. First, it was technically an abuse of policy, as several have pointed out above. Secondly, the discussion seemed to be trending to keep; IAR does not trump CONSENSUS, except in cases like clearcut BLP, which this was not; leading into thirdly, legitimate criticism of the horrible and abusive actions of people in power should not be stifled. This gives the appearance of censorship, which is unfortunate (though I am sure it was well-intentioned). --John (talk) 17:54, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
  • You did raise a point I was wondering about. I'd claim that purely attack pages and BLPs are on a similar level and IAR to keep BLP violations are clear personal attacks out is within bounds (and on that basis I endorsed the deletion). A number of level-headed (and uninvolved from what I know) folks seem to think otherwise. My basis for putting them on the same plane is that both address personal attacks against a living person. Clearly you disagree and I'd like to hear why. Or put differently, if you felt that there was a clear BLP violation, I assume you'd remove that violation until the issue was resolved (at the least). How is this different? Are personal attacks (in category space of all places) not as important as a BLP violation to deal with rapidly? Or do you just not feel this one is clear-cut enough? Thanks! Hobit (talk) 18:24, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
    • My explanation is that the personal attack "not a Wikipedian" (like "a net negative") was so stupid that nobody joining the category takes it seriously.Imagine a category like "Wikipedians whose mothers wore Army boots" or "Wikipedians who are boogers". People join for solidarity, and it releases some steam, in a harmless way, well away from the article space. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 19:46, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
    • In my opinion (and I think that of the majority of reasoned arguments here), the need for legitimate dissent against abuses of power outweighs any modest BLP concerns. User:Jclemens made an extremely egregious personal attack, from a privileged and protected position, on one of our community, which he has not fully withdrawn or apologised for. He remains in his position, from where he can continue to damage and undermine the community. Those of us who are withdrawing our participation in the project should have the right to show our protest in this way. How does it benefit the encyclopaedia? I would have thought it obvious that allowing proportionate dissent is a necessity for any community. --John (talk) 22:42, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
      • Well said. I also think there's a difference between criticizing someone's words and actions, and personally attacking them. Many people seem to miss that difference. Reyk _YO! 22:47, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
        • Oh, "well said" my ass. I've had my share of beefs with Clemens over the years over his rabid ARS inclusionism. But this is just pathetic, you all come across as a bunch of wannabe Che Guevaras, complete with tacky little berets and the self-delusion that you can march into a jungle and hold a revolution. Build a bridge and get over it. Seriously. Tarc (talk) 23:34, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
          • • • • "He was the first man I ever met who I thought not just handsome but beautiful. With his curly reddish beard, he looked like a cross between a faun and a Sunday-school print of Jesus"? Kiefer.Wolfowitz 08:06, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Those whom the gods wish to destroy, they probably begin by calling “charismatic.”

• • • • • • • Perhaps that's what this is, a bridge of sorts. Think about it. Of course the category is ridiculously silly. What the heck is it supposed to mean anyway and it'll be an amusing memory in a few days. About the only thing sillier than this category is this discussion about deleting/endorsing/overturning. We all, pro-categorians as well as anti-categorians (if I may be permitted to coin those terms) need to learn to leave well alone. --regentspark (comment) 23:45, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
• Delete wikipedia is not a democracy. No matter how many people clamor for keeping a category that clearly violates policy, we should still delete it.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:56, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Well said John - Scott's post just above makes it very very clear that in policy delete in the only policy outcome for this category. - diff so the deletion was absolutely correct no many how many users support creating it , its against guidelines/policy - its divisive and disruptive as is this review - Youreallycan 20:04, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
    • I suggest that you go to WT:DEL and propose that WP:DEL be rewritten to include something like "Any admin may at any point do what they like and tell the community to piss off." Once it says that, actions of the sort under discussion here will be perfectly kosher. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 20:21, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
    • I'm amazed at the lack of logical sense in YRC's comment. Scott, who deletes, gives a reason for deletion, and therefore the deletion was correct. Bravo. Drmies (talk) 22:46, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
• Overturn Per most of the reasons above. Intothatdarkness 22:13, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
• Support deletion i think this a mild abuse of the categorization system, regardless of any good intent or positive solidarity message (which i do get). I would strongly support someone creating a UserBox with this message however, so people can stand with fellow editors in a way that doesnt interfere with categorizing. however, i will point out that if this category is chosen entirely in a humorous manner, and where all sides find it funny, then im ok with it staying. if anyone finds it offensive or passive aggressive, or pointy, it probably should go away. OK, now im starting to sound like im Splunging here...Mercurywoodrose (talk) 06:48, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
• Keep deleted regardless This cat is a useless drama magnet, not an aid for navigation of the project. Perhaps the deletion was done slightly out of process, I for one don't care. This category serves no legitimate purpose and may run afoul of WP:POINT. If it were up to me I would WP:SALT it as well. Look at all the energy wasted discussing a category that does nothing whatsoever to improve the project, quite the opposite. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:42, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
  • The wasted energy is yours, in trying to delete it to suppress dissent. My energy is just fine. --John (talk) 23:15, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
    • There are some arguments with merit both ways, but the "OMG censorship" "I need to express dissent" is just silly. No one is stopping you expressing dissent. There's lots of places to do that, and even an election in which you can give dissent expression and power. However, the validity of the dissent does not give validity to all possible means of expressing it. I can say I don't approve of David Cameron, I can express that disapproval in many ways, not least at the ballot box - that's democracy. But when authorities prevent me spray-painting political attacks on Cameron in inappropriate places, it is no defense to say "I demand the right to express dissent" - nothing but bad behaviour is being suppressed. There's lots of people who share your dissent, but support the deletion of this nonsense.--Scott Mac 23:31, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
      • To follow your analogy, your misguided attempt to delete this out of process was the equivalent of the government banning spraypaint. Anti-wikipedian, counter-productive, and drama-enhancing. Just let people register their protest peacefully. Or look silly. The choice is yours, and you've already made it. Undoubtedly well-intentioned but then so was Nicolae Ceaușescu. Where is he now? --John (talk) 23:58, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
  • If it "may run afoul of WP:POINT" then there should be some place to determine that. We could call it "Categoriess for Deletion", and use consensus, as defined by Wikipedia policy, to determine the appropriateness of the category. I think that would be much better than speedy deleting the category in a way that runs afoul of WP:CSD. - SudoGhost 23:33, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
    • If there was a reasonable case to be made for the usefulness of this category, then a debate would be appropriate. Lacking any, even conceivable, utility then it is simple wikilawyering. But a debate is not a bunch of people using it as a pretext for a point making protest against one user's retracted remarks.--Scott Mac 23:52, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
      • Never mistake arguments you are unable to understand for wikilawyering. Aren't you at all concerned about WP:INVOLVED in your adventures trying to get this deleted? --John (talk) 23:58, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
        • Nope, I was not involved in any way. And I didn't have adventures in trying to delete this - I just deleted it.--Scott Mac 02:18, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
          • I must actually support Scott on this specific point - up until he actually deleted the category and closed the CfD, he had not taken part in the discussion, and he was therefore not WP:INVOLVED. However, as his subsequent strong expressions of opinion regarding the category have shown, he was not neutral and was therefore not able to close it in a disinterested way as required. As his closure was based on his personal opinion of the category, it was an out-of-process supervote (and he admits below that he does not "share the addiction to process"). -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 07:13, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
            • Fair enough, I accept that Scott was not strongly emotionally invested until after the out-of-process deletion. --John (talk) 08:51, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
      • I am very glad you are not the decider of such things, if "I don't see a reason so nobody gets to discuss it" is how you think Wikipedia should operate. However, this DRV is to determine if the close was appropriate. Per the wording of WP:CSD, it was not an appropriate close. - SudoGhost 00:05, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
        • Actually, no one has given any reason why this is useful at all. Anyway, I disagree with your analysis that that his how Wikipedia should or does operate here (it's not a bureaucracy). This isn't all about Wikilawyering about CSD. Anyway, since neither you nor I are the decider of that, let's leave it be.--Scott Mac 00:14, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
          • This is about CSD, that's what this DRV is discussing, whether it was appropriate or not. You cannot circumvent discussion by speedy delete something in an inappropriate way, and then claim that it's "wikilawyering" to say that maybe we should operate by consensus instead of a single admin's decision to circumvent both policy and the consensus building discussion that was already taking place. - SudoGhost 01:25, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
            • I accept that's your opinion about what's most important here, and what happened here, however I (and evidently many others) see it otherwise.--Scott Mac 01:32, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
              • (edit conflict)If it's as blantently destructive and useless as you're suggesting, then that will become obvious in a CfD, but don't prematurely shut down a discussion and then claim that "no one has given any reason why this is useful at all", that's what that discussion was for, and you disrupted that process. It's fine that you see it otherwise, but you and others are arguing for the deletion of the category, not endorsing the way it was deleted, and that's not the purpose of WP:DRV: "Remember that Deletion Review is not an opportunity to (re-)express your opinion on the content in question. It is an opportunity to correct errors in process (in the absence of significant new information), and thus the action specified should be the editor's feeling of the correct interpretation of the debate." - SudoGhost 01:37, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
                • We're going around in circles. I don't share the addiction to process. We speedy attacks and pointless disruption, and in this.... No, forget it. We see things differently here. Let's just leave it at that - I'm not going to restate what I've said above several times. If there was something important to review here it might be worth arguing with you, but not for this useless shit. I'm unwatching.--Scott Mac 02:16, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
                  • "I don't share the addiction to process." That's a chilling statement to read from an admin. Such a comment does not inspire confidence. - Canadian Bobby (talk) 15:40, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
                    • Indeed. "I prefer being able to use admin tools in whatever way I please." Nomoskedasticity (talk) 17:00, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
                      • Administrators are expected to follow Wikipedia policies and to perform their duties to the best of their abilities. --John (talk) 21:42, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
                        • I believe I did just that. Show me the policy that says process is vital and must always be followed slavishly even against commonsense?--Scott Mac 22:02, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
                          • Administrators should take care not to speedy delete pages or media except in the most obvious cases (specific policy against this type of deletion) and Decision-making involves an effort to incorporate all editors' legitimate concerns, while respecting Wikipedia's norms (policy which explicitly points out how decisions are made in general here). Your action (and again I give you credit for acting with good intentions) breached those two policies. We do also have Wikipedia:Ignore all rules, but we also have a well-regarded essay that states that "Ignore all rules" is not an exemption from accountability. You're still responsible for reasonably foreseeable effects of your actions on the encyclopedia and on other editors which is hard to argue with. By deleting this, rather than letting the deletion discussion run its course, I'd have to say you increased the level of drama and division, which is the last thing we need at the moment. Or are you honestly still saying that your deletion fulfilled Speedy deletion is intended to reduce the time spent on deletion discussions for pages or media with no practical chance of surviving discussion (policy again, my emphasis)? --John (talk) 22:40, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
                          • As per John. Speedy deletion is for obvious things that don't need any discussion. It is for saving time and effort. This speedy deletion has not saved time or effort, and so was a bad speedy. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:46, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, that's just fucked. You can't say the only problem with my deletion is that it increases the drama, when the only reason there's drama is because wikilawyers like you are objecting to the deletion. That's inherently circular. If someone was actually saying "hold on I object to the the deletion because that which you deleted has some inherent worth" you'd have a point. But no one has suggested this useless piece of shit serves any useful purpose at all (how could they). So your objection to my deletion amounts to objecting because people like you object. Now, that's exactly the type of nonsense that our key WP:NOT policies are designed to eliminate. There is really no debate here except a fabricated one by people who like such nonsense.--Scott Mac 22:49, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

That comment is garbage Scott Mac, and you should strike it. Just to speak for myself, I am no way a wikilawyer, and I have clearly indicated why I think this category has some inherent worth. You may disagree, but please try and ground yourself in some reality. --Epipelagic (talk) 23:30, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Sorry you feel that way. I believe I answered that specific point in the latter part of this comment. --John (talk) 22:54, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

If you like, I can tell you reasons to keep, reasons why this usercatergory has non-zero worth. However, that would be a discussion for a talk page or a CfD discussion. But to begin: where someone asserts that something is nonsense, and someone else asserts that it has value, then there is a need for discussion, not administrator-privilege-empowered action to terminate. With regard to what invalidates a speedy, CSD is deliberately narrowly written to be exercised conservatively. It is not true that the only problem is that it increased drama. The most basic problem is that the level of offensiveness did not rise to the level of G10. Note its wording inlcudes "and serve no other purpose". --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:38, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

• Endorse per User:Tijfo098 above. We have long since moved on from our attempt to see if two wrongs make a right, right now we are busily trying to see if we can make something like seventeen wrongs make a right. This is something that fails to improve the situation... it only makes it worse. An attack page does not require XfD to delete it. The deleting admin was correct in his application of a speedy delete, regardless of any presumed consensus. Trusilver 08:29, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

  The CSD:A10 speedy deletion request had already been declined by another admin, and the deletion was clearly not uncontroversial - therefore it was not a valid speedy deletion. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:45, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

  Because I tremendously respect that other admin, I reserve any further comment in the matter other than to say she was mistaken. A person attack is a personal attack, regardless of what kind of facade you attempt to legitimize it with. Trusilver 20:55, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

  Where's the personal attack inherent in this category? As I see it, this is in protest at this personal attack. A protest against a personal attack is not automatically a personal attack. --John (talk) 21:28, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

I get that it was intended as a joke/protest in response to a widely criticized remark by a sitting arbitrator. I for one don't think it is a personal attack. It also is not a category that actually aids in navigation of the project. That is what categories are for and it is obvious this was never intended to be helpful to anyone. If you want to have a protest, write an essay, open an RFC, campaign to get the offending Arb thrown off the arbitration committee, etc. Just don't ask us to pretend that this category serves any legitimate purpose for this project when it was never intended to do so. That is what we should be discussing here. How is anyone, ever, going to be aided in using WP by the existence of this category? Beeblebrox (talk) 00:46, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Utility of the category? Joke/protests have utility in providing an alternative, non-obvious perspective, and as such can aid discussion and learning.

“That is what categories are for”? Says who? Why are usercategories more sacrosanct for experimental uses than userspace and project space?

How is anyone, ever, going to be aided in using WP by the existence of this category? Usercategories enable shared identification, and they do so in a way that is more likely to be kept current than a list. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:20, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Recently many of our best content contributors have left or ceased contributing. This has resulted from insistent demands by a segment of users that everyone else conform to their own versions of what they call "civility". The alternative they offer is to leave the project. These users also indulge in a characteristic moral indignation. A similar flavour of indignation and contempt is occurring on this page, where some users are making sweeping dismissals of the people who want to retain this category. An erosion is happening to the ability of editors on Wikipedia to state things plainly and honestly. The category has, in my view, the legitimate purpose of allowing editors who are concerned by this development to express that concern. --Epipelagic (talk) 16:43, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

• Endorse per wp:POINT, this is extremely disruptive, coercively disruptive, also per Scott MacDonald's deletion rationale. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 13:13, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Please read WP:NOTPOINTY, and the speedy deletion rationale was invalid per the speedy deletion policy itself. - SudoGhost 13:23, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
    • Have checked on NOTPOINTY. It reads "As a rule, one engaging in "POINTY" behavior is making edits which s/he does not really agree with, for the deliberate purpose of drawing opposition". Certain editors were upset with the "not Wikipedian" statement, in solidarity they call themselves "not Wikipedians". that is classic POINT! SM's deletion rationale as explained here is what I refer to, apart from POINT, the category is also a blatant case of wp:BATTLEGROUND. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 13:51, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
      • That's an interesting interpretation of "making edits which s/he does not really agree with", especially when you seemed to ignore the preceding sentence. Following such a literal yet broad interpretation, you might as well try to get Jimmy Wales and most of Wikipedia blocked making edits which s/he does not really agree with, for the deliberate purpose of drawing opposition. I also don't think you've read WP:BATTLEGROUND, otherwise could you please point out what part of WP:BATTLEGROUND this is supposed to be violating, especially so egregiously that it warrants ignoring Wikipedia policy in order to speedy delete the category? - SudoGhost 14:21, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
        • I do not understand the Wales analogy. Well we can agree to disagree on that point. Hope you read BATTLEGROUND one more time, the sub-section also has the policy shortcut wp:NOTFACTIONS, brings to my mind user:tarc's comment to the effect: Mob rule needs to be overturned by saner voices. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 14:38, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
          • I have read it, and I see nothing that warrants disrupting a CfD discussion. You believe that the category violates WP:BATTLEGROUND and WP:POINT, others disagree. If you're going to ask that WP:BATTLEGROUND and WP:POINT be followed, it's not appropriate that you at the same time ask that WP:CSD and WP:CONSENSUS be ignored. Wikipedia operates by consensus, not "mob rule needs to be overturned by saner voices". - SudoGhost 14:54, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
            • CONSENSUS: Consensus on Wikipedia does not mean unanimity (which, although an ideal result, is not always achievable); nor is it the result of a vote. Decision-making involves an effort to incorporate all editors' legitimate concerns, while respecting Wikipedia's norms. SG I agree with SM, the category is so egregious that it necessitated the action taken. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 15:33, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
              • What you quoted from WP:CONSENSUS has absolutely nothing to do with this discussion, and I'm truly at a loss as to why you even copied it. Consensus was bypassed here, there was no consensus-based close in any stretch of the imagination. WP:CONSENSUS does not say "If the speedy deletion policy does not allow a deletion, any admin can bypass an ongoing consensus-building discussion in order to implement what they believe is best for Wikipedia." That's what consensus is supposed to determine. You believe it is "egregious", other people disagree. How do we solve that? Through consensus, because everyone thinks they are right, consensus is the only way things can get done if everyone thinks their way is correct and everyone else is "a mob rule that needs to be overturned by saner voices". If the category requires action, consensus will determine that, consensus is not a vote and if that's the correct action then a consensus will reveal that, but you don't ignore two policies in order to enforce your interpretation of another, especially when that same policy you're claiming needs to be followed also says that "Disagreements are resolved through consensus-based discussion," It does not say "Disagreements are resolved through admins enforcing their interpretation." - SudoGhost 15:55, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
                • The words to watch are "legitimate concerns" and "Wikipedia norms", SM acted well within these boundaries. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 16:07, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
                  • That's a leap of logic there that isn't found in what you quoted. If someone has a legitimate concern about something, it is discussed. That's the very basis of how Wikipedia operates, and the basis of what you just quoted. You discuss concerns, you don't violate one policy to enforce what you believe is found in another policy without discussing it. "Wikipedia norms" are determined by consensus. There was no consensus here, so how do we know how "Wikipedia norms" apply here? We don't, it's a bunch of differing opinions and no consensus whatsoever. - SudoGhost 16:15, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
                    • Well it looks like we are two people with two different opinions on what is best for Wikipedia. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 16:26, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
                      • If you truly believe that one single editor prematurely shuting down and stopping any discussion in order to enforce their opinion is somehow in line with WP:CONSENSUS, then yes, we have different opinions on what is best for Wikipedia. I believe that consensus is best for Wikipedia, otherwise we have a bunch of editors believing that they know best and ignoring any discussion taking place, and that's not conducive to a collaborative editing environment. Administrators enact consensus, they do not bypass consensus in order to enforce their opinion. This close did not allow a consensus discussion to even take place, instead the decision was made by a single editor. That flies in the face of what makes Wikipedia what it is. You think the category doesn't belong, and that's perfectly fine, but that's what CfD is there to determine. You have a right to explain your position on the matter and if an administrator had decided to "speedy keep" the discussion based on their opinion you'd think that wasn't right and would want the ability to discuss it as Wikipedia policy intends; the fact that their opinion agrees with yours does not mean other editors have no right to even discuss the matter. Wikipedia operates by consensus; if you think consensus should be ignored when you agree with the one that did it then that's fine, but that's not what's best for Wikipedia. - SudoGhost 16:45, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
                        • While disgruntled elements created and support a terribly pointy, disruptive and divisive category, you lay so much emphasis on numbers and taking a discussion to its logical conclusion, considering your suggestion, we should understand that Wikipedia has about 17 million named accounts, 3-4 thousand editors make over 100 edits per month (reference Wikipedia:Wikipedians). Many a times there are indefinite global bans or blocks, which are exercised as a result of consensus. These are enforced with 10 - 15 editors comprising the consensus. For all practical purposes the sun is no nearer to a person standing on the top of Mount Everest than it is to a person at sea level, as is evident SM acted in the best interests of Wikipedia, to nip mischief in the bud. Does consensus mean agreement among a tiny fraction, described as "mob" above by a comrade editor ? Do they represent the consensus of 17 million, or even the 3- 4 thousand most active? If you insist that we seek a broader consensus in case of such a flagrant debasement of all that Wikipedia stands for, don't you think that it be the norm in case of other important "community" decisions. Anyways I wonder what your opinion on the category created is? Yogesh Khandke (talk) 04:23, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
                          • It seems your views on how things should work are not in line with Wikipedia's policies, if you think that we shouldn't bother with consensus just because there are a lot of accounts. That this is a "terribly pointy, disruptive and divisive category" is your opinion. You are entitled to your opinion, but that does not make it any more valid than anyone else's opinion. The point of DRV is to discuss whether a given deletion discussion was closed properly. This one was not, as it bypassed an ongoing CfD discussion and speedy deleted the category in violation of Wikipedia's policy on speedy deletion. You're welcome to your opinion that Wikipedia shouldn't operate by consensus, but that's not an argument that the deletion discussion was closed in keeping with Wikipedia's policies. You're also welcome to your opinion on the category, but WP:CfD is the place for you to present that opinion, Not DRV. - SudoGhost 13:36, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
                            • it is always easy to attack a strawman. The interpretation of "consensus" is left to the judgement of the interpreter, it is not a head count. SM did not err in his action, it was perfectly kosher as far as policy goes. The category hurts the project, it is a manifestation of rotten mind sets. Such is my opinion and as I glance up and down the opinion of quite a few who endorse SM's actions. Thank you very much. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 14:43, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
                              • Please don't claim something is a strawman, and then go on to say that a consensus is not a head count. Nobody said that it was, or even alluded to such a thing. The issue is that where was no consensus close here, I don't think anyone is even coming close to suggesting that consensus played any part in how this was closed, because that's absurd. WP:CONSENSUS and WP:CSD are both policies, and the close violated both of those, so it was also not "perfectly kosher as far as policy goes". Your opinion that the category "hurts the project" is what WP:CSD is for, your opinion on the category itself has no weight in a DRV discussion, that is not the purpose of DRV per the instructions that apparently were overlooked. - SudoGhost 14:53, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
• Delete Appropriate speedy deletion as a intentionally POV and divisive category, created, as I think even the keep arguments show, for the purpose of expanding an already divisive argument. DGG ( talk ) 19:46, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Thoughtcrime? --John (talk) 21:46, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Gotta love delete !votes at deletion review -- yet another participant who has mistaken this venue for AfD... Nomoskedasticity (talk) 22:31, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
    • You are referring to someone who has more knowledge about XfD procedures and the relevant policies than anyone else I know. I am quite sure he understands where he is. Trusilver 00:19, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
    • It is a shame that knee-jerk snark was the automatic response here, when it is pretty clear that DGG just put the wrong word in bold, and the gist of the text after that actually does address the merits of the close rather than the merits of the category. It's a shame that neither John nor Nomoskedasticity had the maturity to go to User talk:DGG and say "hey, did you mean to say "endorse" ? Tarc (talk) 16:10, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Delete in this context is a shorthand for Endorse the Deletion. Was anyone actually confused about what I intended? (I add this comment only because it was mentioned on my talk p., but Tarc is right that when one is reduced to trying to take up such extraordinarily minor & peripheral side issues, it is usually because one had no valid arguments on the actual matter at hand. Anyone who knows the background and is being honest with themselves would realize that both the category and this DelRev were intended to prolong trouble is deluding themselves. FWIW, I have previously made no comment in any direction at the underlying RfArb & various subsequent attempts to extend it. DGG ( talk ) 16:28, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

• I find that the more this is discussed the less I care. think ignoring this as part of the ridiculous forest fire that has spread from the underlying incident is the best course of action. I still think the category is useless and deliberately divisive but if we take a "let the baby have its bottle" approach to it this acrimonious and completely unproductive discussions are more likely to fizzle out. please feel free to heap all the abuse and backhanded accusations you like on me for making these comments as I will not be watching this or replying further. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:21, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
  • When does anything like this actually fizzle out, though? If anything, it will be cited as precedent the next time a similar situation comes around, and one of these yahoos on the support side will make a essay about it. Tarc (talk) 13:06, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
    • Arguing against what you see as an attack page by making personal attacks against those you disagree with probably isn't the best thing to do. - SudoGhost 14:12, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
      • The entire aim of this categorization is itself a personal attack, so if you as one of it's rabid supporters feel attacked yourself, well that's just too bad, now is it? This is already a simple and straightforward WP:IAR case anyways, to which you and the other support yahoos have mustered little rebuttal. Also, please let me know when you're done trolling me via edit summaries over a few typos I made earlier. I mean, we all know that one someone starts pulling on the Grammar Nazi act, they have lost the argument, and lost it badly. But still, it wouldn't hurt for you to try. Tarc (talk) 14:44, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
• Endorse per WP:POINT and WP:DEADHORSE, not to mention WP:IAR. Deescalate, don't escalate. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 15:44, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
• 'Overturn and keep If editors want to petulantly self-identify with an inherently self-contradictory category, why not? (deescalation, in this context, is simply ignoring the category) Nobody Ent 15:47, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

  Do you really think just ignoring problems makes them go away? Tarc (talk) 16:11, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

  Depends on the problem. Since we're not going to get a quick, clean consensus to delete the cat the best approach is to ignore it. It's an attention seeking device, all this discussion provides positive feedback to the behavior. Nobody Ent 17:10, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

• Endorse WP:POLEMIC and WP:POINT. Just look how damaging and divisive this poorly-thought out template has been to the community as a whole (✉→BWilkins←✎) 15:58, 30 October 2012 (UTC)