< October 30 November 1 >

October 31

Category:Wikipedians who are not a Wikipedian 2

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: procedural close. The same category is already being discussed lower down this page. Per WP:MULTI, splitting the discussion impedes consensus formation.
This closure is neither a critcism nor a support of the merge proposal; it is done to avoid duplication of comments, and to ensure that we do not end up with two contradictory decisions. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 06:17, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Merge. Avoids the problems associated with the previous name, while addressing its concerns and affirming the language of a reasonable finding by ArbCom. The new category has this explanation: "On Wikipedia, the Arbitration Committee's ruling in the civility-enforcement case found that civility-enforcement was inconsistent (7.2.10). This category collects Wikipedians concerned about this inconsistency and working to improve uniformity."Kiefer.Wolfowitz 00:01, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Anime films by date of first release

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: relisted at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2012 November 9#Category:Anime_films_by_date_of_first_release. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:54, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Propose renaming Category:Anime films by date of first release to Category:Anime films by date
  • Propose renaming Category:Anime films by decade of first release to Category:Anime films by decade
  • Propose renaming Category:Anime films by year of first release to Category:Anime films by year
  • Propose renaming Category:Anime by date of first release to Category:Anime by date
  • Propose renaming Category:Anime by decade of first release to Category:Anime by decade
  • Propose renaming Category:Anime by year of first release to Category:Anime by year
  • Propose renaming Category:Manga by date of first release to Category:Manga by date
  • Propose renaming Category:Manga by decade of first release to Category:Manga by decade
  • Propose renaming Category:Manga by year of first release to Category:Manga by year
Nominator's rationale: To match the naming schemes of Category:Films by date, Category:Japanese films by date, and every other Category:Works by date subcategory. While these categories were originally conceive to include only the years of the first release of the works, editors got carried away and added started adding the subcategories for every spin-off, sequel, re-make, etc. That is because anime and manga articles will cover multiple media with each media release being categorized. For example, Mardock Scramble is a manga series with three film adaptations that were released over a period of three years. A similar example is Shugo Chara! which has three anime adaptations, and three different magna series. All of which are included in one more more subcategories of the above categories. Thus "of first release" is now misleading. —Farix (t | c) 22:12, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I would support an alternative rename to shorten the anime and manga categories to match the worldwide ones in Category:Television series debuts by date, i.e. Category:Anime debuts by date, Category:Anime debuts by decade, Category:Anime debuts by year, Category:Manga debuts by date, Category:Manga debuts by decade, Category:Manga debuts by year. Comics categories use "debuts" in each year category, but the parent is simply Category:Comics by year. For magazines, the equivalent is Category:Magazines by year of establishment‎; I do not suggest that manga should follow that form as it is more longwinded, and is intended for publications that typically run longer than manga. – Fayenatic London 15:05, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Critics of Iglesia ni Cristo

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Delete. Timrollpickering (talk) 02:09, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete as almost unpopulated category, created in recognition of one section of Hoekema's book The Four Major Cults. This category does not indicate there will be scope to expand beyond WP:SMALLCAT. Quis separabit? 22:03, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Places affected by Hurricane Sandy

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Delete. Timrollpickering (talk) 02:09, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Unnecessary category as there were countless places affected by the storm. Dough4872 20:57, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I would also mention that these natural disaster categories tend towards cruft, with or without the Foo affected by subcats: why is [Live in Praha]] in Category:2010 Haiti earthquake? What to do with Category:Hurricane Ike? Category:Effects of Hurricane Katrina ought to be reviewed as well; the main entries are valid, but the subcategories dubious. - choster (talk) 15:40, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:People's Republic of China railway station stubs

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Rename. Timrollpickering (talk) 02:00, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per renaming of parent category from Category:Railway stations in the People's Republic of China to Category:Railway stations in China, at CfD October 29. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:41, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:WikiProject Deep Purple templates

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Delete. Timrollpickering (talk) 01:59, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete. As there is no WikiProject Deep Purple, there is no need for this category. --StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 16:56, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: concur with nominator. Quis separabit? 16:22, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Wikipedians who are not a wikipedian

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete. As one of the editors who spoke up against Jclemens' ill-considered remark that sparked this whole thing, I feel I understand the background and context of this category well enough to appropriately gauge the consensus below. I would personally be quick to sign up for a Wikipedia that had no problems with "protest categories", but judging from the comments below, it appears that that is not the Wikipedia we have now. It seems clear to me that consensus (right or wrong) is that this category does not fall within the accepted uses of our categorization system. That said, there is no reason individual editors can't be a "member" of the category even though it has been deleted; being a member of a red-linked category might, in fact, be a more effective way to protest. For the record, I don't consider legitimate criticism (which this category appears to me to be) to be an "attack", especially as our policies and guidelines define personal attacks and attack pages. And it certainly isn't "libellous" (!) by any reasonable measure. But consensus is that it doesn't fit within what our category system was designed for, so the legitimate protesting will now need to be done via a red link rather than a blue one. 28bytes (talk) 19:34, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I (and I think plenty of people) extend the REICHSTAG notion beyond content disputes. Someone said something over-the-top, which was dumb, and now we have to immortalize this in a category and then put that through this long draw-out deletion process, stirring up as much drama as possible along the way. I've stayed out of the core of this discussion, but the way it seems to be expanding to engulf every aspect of Wikiprocess is turning the whole thing into one big grandstand. Mangoe (talk) 14:25, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disagree that this category cannot facilite progress towards a more collegial comminty of editors. Navigation between the userpages of editors who feel similarly about this point is a good thing (assuming categorised editors have something more to say on their userpage). This category is not a mere joke. I read it as satire, which is a reasonable form of commentary. Leave the satire alone, and it may generate a more balanced response. Crush the satire and lots of people get upset. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:44, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Crush the satire"? Damn! You must have discovered that I have 6 battalions of elite paratroopers ready to storm the building tomorrow, and drag the dissidents off to have their fingernails extracted through their tonsils while their homes are bombed flat and their families interned. I will shoot a few of my staff officers to discourage further leaks.
    Being serious again, I do think that "crush" is a bit of an over-the-top description of a discussion to seek consensus to delete. A userbox can display the badge, and pages such as this one can be used to discuss the matter, and the editors concerned seem to have no problem finding venues to express their concerns. All this can happen without setting up factionalising categories, which are really not a good route to go down. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:12, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • OK, "crush" is a tad hyperbolic. A free discussion according to process is not "crush". "Suppress" might be more defendable. From the perspective of the suppressed.

    If some people want to protest through a particular medium, such as a category, I think it is more productive, less disruptive, to let them do it. Sure, essays allow for better articulation, but a usercategory (an explicit one, not a userbox coded one) shows users who continue to actively maintain a membership (in so far as they pay attention to their own userpage). Unless of course CfD is used to delepte and depopulate. Why is it better for protest categories to be only allowed as long as they are red-links?

    I don't think the issue here is one a potentially damaging factionalising. Some people have said and done some things. Let them. Making them have to defend themselves at XfD is to bring the issue to a head for no useful purpose that I can see. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:44, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  1. I hope it will show Malleus that he has a lot of support for the enormous contributions he has made to the content of this encyclopaedia and in helping new content contributors - very possibly more than all the members of ArbCom and all our admins put together.
  2. We have an ArbCom election coming up, and publicising the issues that divide us will surely get potential voters to consider them. People from the "community" end of the political spectrum to the "authoritarian" end, and all points in between, have seen the ensuing furore, including the discussions of this category, and so we will have greater awareness of these things going into the election. Whether the election outcome will please me, or whether it will please the authoritarians amongst us, we will surely have a better idea of how the community views the role and power of ArbCom.
Does the category still have any value? I'm honestly not sure, so I'm not going to !vote this time - I've had my say (as everyone should be able to), and I'm happy to leave it to the rest of the community to decide. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:20, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies, Boing. You're right, you didn't actually say "keep". My mistake. --MelanieN (talk) 20:54, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No worries ;-) -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:57, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Actually Wikipedians are free to ignore the rules, at least to a degree, i.e. IAR, which may need to be fleshed out further for greater understanding. Also, no need for gratuitous obscenities. Quis separabit? 14:14, 1 November 2012 (UTC).[reply]
I am sorry I did not intend to use such words I was just giving an example of how few editors might behave in near future.This category should not become an reasonexcuse to use uncivil language --sarvajna (talk) 14:49, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The only spectacle was the creation of the category. If you don't want bystanders pointing out shit, don't point fingers at those bystanders, but rather at the shit-creator himself. Tarc (talk) 14:14, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Blah blah blah, Tarc. Go and write an article or something, and stop being a bystander. Time to be an active, involved Wikipedian; this is not a social network. Drmies (talk) 14:50, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) I'm confused Drmies, are you suggesting that editors should be encouraged (or at the very least, it's not a problem) to list enemies on their userpages for the purpose of tracking to see if they have been successfully run off and showing off the usernames of those they have as a trophy? Regards, — Moe Epsilon 14:24, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, you are confused. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 14:44, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
To clarify: Drmies is not advocating for enemies lists. It's whataboutery thrown out there to deflect from the issue at hand. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 14:48, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
My apologies Moe--I was being unclear, yes. What I meant was that we have editors who have taken pride in etc, and I look forward to seeing their case brought to the civility court. My poor wording should teach me to stay away from heated debates when I'm under the weather. Again, my apologies. Chris Cunningham, thank you so much for your good faith. Drmies (talk) 14:52, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the clarification. Hope you feel better soon. Regards, — Moe Epsilon 14:56, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note also that there is no evidence that the category is disruptive. Instead, this discussion, in parts, is disruptive, and damaging. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:59, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There is no such category as "Wikipedia protest categories", because user categories created in protest or to make a point are specifically forbidden at WP:User categories#Inappropriate use of user categories. If you think such categories shouldn't be forbidden, start a discussion at that policy's talk page and see if you can change the guideline. --MelanieN (talk) 06:01, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"Forbidden", eh? Truly, as Boing said, this is a struggle between the creative people (us writers) and the authoritarians (you pen-pushers). If you win, Wikipedia is quite simply fucked, as none of you can write for toffee. Good luck though! --John (talk) 06:31, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
the authoritarians (you pen-pushers) Please don't assume you know what kind of Wikipedian a person is by what side they take in this issue. Personally I have no position of any kind of authority here and spend most of my time in content creation. I don't know any of the people involved in the recent Malleus dustup and just happened across that arbcom discussion by chance (because of someone's talk page I watch). I do think having guidelines is a good idea and I try to respect or at least acknowledge guidelines. I also think IAR is a good idea, and in fact I suggested above that the "keep this category" people should simply invoke IAR - but I haven't seen any of them do it. --MelanieN (talk) 14:21, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yet it's ok to make assumptions about people who support keeping the category? Intothatdarkness 14:27, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just to clarify my comment, when I said "...from the "community" end of the political spectrum to the "authoritarian" end" I was not referring to the two sides in this Keep/Delete discussion, just the broad spectrum of approaches that inevitably surface in a project like this, and where I feel that ArbCom has drifted too far towards the authoritarian end. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:30, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oh absolutely right. This category matters not a cunt-hair in the greater scheme of things. The wider schism that it symbolises is far more of a concern. I saw some analysis of just how little content the main "civility-warriors" have contributed. It'd be interesting to see further analysis of those who are authoritarian in their leanings and whether any of them contribute content. Ultimately you could end up with just a few semi-literate American teenagers socialising and networking with each other, unable and unwilling to write or improve any articles. More likely a self-correcting tendency will emerge. I wonder what that will be. --John (talk) 17:29, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • What an odd example...why "American"...why not just teenagers without a nationality attached to it? MONGO 19:29, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • John, you are trying to cast this dispute as some sort of vast gulf, with content creators on one side, opposed only by illiterate teenagers who contribute no content. The reality is much more mixed. There are plenty of fine content creators who make a lot less noise than Malleus, and are a lot more polite. There are also plenty of editors who contribute little content but are rude and aggressive.
    Leave aside for a moment the crassness of Jclemens's comment, and the procedural arguments about this category. Do you really believe that content creation will slow significantly just because editors are required to be less abrasive than Malleus? Really? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:35, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am glad we agree that Jclemens's comment was beyond the pale. Of course the reality is mixed, reality usually is. I never said "opposed only by illiterate teenagers who contribute no content", I said "Ultimately you could end up with..." See the difference? I have seen some evidence that civility warriors or civility enforcers don't tend to produce good content. I'd love to see some evidence in the opposite direction, do you have any? The problem inherent in your last question is that it turns out that while everyone (almost) is in favour of some kind of civility, nobody is able to agree on exactly what it means. That leaves your community vulnerable to authoritarian pen-pushers who can't write articles. I'm sure the commmunity will evolve a proper response to this problem; right now it seems not yet to have done. --John (talk) 21:15, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This Galtian experiment of yours is certainly a good way of testing that. The sky doesn't appear to have fallen down in the last twelve days, but maybe it just needs a bit longer. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 10:10, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Got that right. Replace "12 days" with "12 months" and see what happens. When the content-creators go away long-term, and the meddling busybody civility-crusaders tire of Wikipedia once they have no one with whom to bicker, there will be very little left of this once-great place. Joefromrandb (talk) 01:23, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"Forbidden"!?!? indeed. Look into the page history and talk page of WP:User categories. How many watchers does it have? Not to criticise its well-meaning authors, and yes, the majority of such pages have been deleted for good reason, but it was written and exists in a backwater. Also note prominent exceptions whereever more than a few cared to be involved. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:56, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I see no reason not to propose a protest to the protest category: "Wikipedians who are not not Wikipedians." This would have the dual humorous/protest function, as the "not not" double negative serves up a cheeky way to say one actually is a Wikipedian. Doc talk 07:14, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"make these people disappear", "large organizations have people like this". Rude! A call to stereotype. I'd love to see your description what's in your head re "these people/people like this". Tell us about them! (Didn't Ross Perot become criticized for using the phrase "you people" when speaking at the NAACP? Just a thought.) Do we all get to talk like you? Do I get to say now: "I well know people like you. Run into your kind before! So I'm not surprised in the slightest to hear that, coming from a person like you." (Are you getting the picture at all? Insulting, rude, stereotypic.) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 04:56, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, glad to clarify. No, I'm not referring to any racial group or anything like that! How one earth did you get that idea?? No, what I'm talking about assholes. I mean, I looked at the category, and granted I didn't recognize most of the names in it, I did recognize a few, and, you know, not to put to fine a point on it, they are assholes. You know: people who enjoy being annoying and troublesome. That's what I mean by "people like that". Every large organization has some, you know. I'm just saying it'd be nice if organizations had, like, the Accounting Department, and Sales Department, and the Asshole Department. You'd know right away to avoid that last one, right? Handy! Unfortunately, organizations don't work like that ("Smith, have assessed your best fit for this organization, we're assigning you to the Asshole Department"). They spread them around, and you have to find out the hard way who the assholes are. But, look, here we have some editors who have volunteered to make and join this category, for the ease and delight of their fellow editors. I think that's swell! It's not like they can't be here -- as I say, every organization has some, and there's no way to get rid of them (especially not here!) -- but there are times when you're just not in mood, you know? Anyway, I'm not stereotyping I don't think. I mean, I never say "Watch out for Smith, he's Italian" or "Don't waste your time with Jones, she's a female", but I do say "You don't want to be assigned to Williams, he's an asshole". Right? That's different, isn't it? That's just bros looking out for bros, right? Would it help to say "Jerko-American" or "Likeability Challenged" or "Person Of Dickishness" or something instead? I could do that if it'd help. Herostratus (talk) 08:24, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Wait a minute... we're not allowed to make personal attacks on fictional persons? I did not get the memo on that. You see "Williams" of ""You don't want to be assigned to Williams" is a fictional character used as an example. There is no Williams. Did the editor not understand that? Oh dear. Herostratus (talk) 17:53, 4 November 2012 (UTC) [reply]
I have restored your comments. These are fictional examples about fictional people; no rational person could think that these were in any way personal attacks. The "rpa" template is absolutely unacceptable, as it unfairly gives fellow editors the impression that you made personal attacks-you did not. Joefromrandb (talk) 01:47, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Re stereotype, maybe a poor word choice on my part, I was referring to naming or judging a group of individuals as "all the same". (A mistake common amongst gradeschoolers.) In the Perot example race was incidental to the point; there wasn't an intention to imply any race-related element was here. You seem to have bathed & relished in the opportunity to use the insulting name-call asshole, since you repeated it seemingly as many times as you possibly could, in your elucidation. (I guess that pleases you emotionally!?) Thanks for revealing to everyone your thought processes. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 09:15, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well this has really ruffled my feathers (and no I don't quack). Thank you, Herostratus, because this was just the catalyst I needed to become an unwanted Wikipedian. An asshole, a bro, an annoying and troublesome, non Wikipedian. I've just joined both the categories, even though I'll now be late for Sunday school (and had my post eaten in an edit conflict...). I couldn't make the leap fast enough. By the way, I do so dislike being unilaterally put in little boxes, because actually my reality is amazingly different from all your petty identifications. Please don't break out in hives, now that I've communicated with you. ツ Fylbecatulous talk 13:19, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Have to take issue with that, incomprehensible categories harm the Pedia, as it strives not to be non-sensical. Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:50, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Incomprehensible (to you) does not equal "non-sensical", and does not constitute a reason to delete. --John (talk) 14:05, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No. Not "just" to me although it is that. Supporter and opposers have stated it is incomprehensible and non-sensical, which is a statement adequately supported by the very words used in the category title. If you are seeking to give it meaning by a dispute over what an arbitrator may have said, than perhaps it has some meaning but not one Wikipedia uses categories for per policy, cited above. Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:23, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You may need to read up on this if if you are interested in commenting here and not looking a fool. There is no "dispute over what an arbitrator may have said", the personal attack we are protesting against is here, bears no alternate reading, and has not been apologised for as far as I am aware. What was the policy you think was cited above? I fear you may be confused on this point as well. --John (talk) 16:00, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it does appear that your support is contingent upon an insisted upon reading of what another User said. In that dispute, one party contends a personal attack was made, the other party contends that they did not intend a personal attack but were commenting on editor behavior, in an Arbcom decision, where it's their job to comment on editor behavior. Whether being called "not a Wikipedian" is a personal attack is perhaps a debatable proposition. It does not seem like a standard personal attack that most people would understand, but regardless, policy does not make allowance for wiki-politics, debate proposition categories. Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:15, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"Policy does not make allowance for wiki-politics, debate proposition categories." Orly? Again, which policy is it that you think forbids us to categorise ourseves in this way? --John (talk) 16:25, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
ArbCom were *not* being asked to rule on the behaviour of an editor in this case - they were simply being asked for a clarification of an existing restriction, that's all. With a small number of honourable exceptions, they ignored that and turned into a vindictive mob and tried to get the editor banned, and in in the process of which they were insulting and uncivil to that editor. That abuse of power is what this whole controversy is about. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:37, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
(e/c) The guidelines for categorization that have been cited repeatedly, precluding categories that are vague, categories that are "not" based; categories by dislikes, advocacy categories, categories that seek division; categories that are provocative, categories that are nonsense. All these guidelines in logic preclude this category, no matter which tack is taken in support, which appear in sum "we want this to pursue whatever political/personal/truth to power/ or humor agenda we have." Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:59, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for clarifying your rationale, and for noting that it is a guideline rather than a policy which you contend supports deletion. --John (talk) 17:53, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
@Boing! said Zebedee: If we were on a project page for debating Arbom procedure that might be a useful discussion (Arbcom due process is important, I think). My question would be how that is reconciled where all behavior is open to discussion and review on behavior boards, but whatever the validity of those arguments or its centrality to any reform proposal, it is just is not made manifest by this "Category:X who is not X," which has been referred to as an emotional issue (which makes sense as it appears to have been tied to two identified protagonists). Alanscottwalker (talk) 19:05, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
How does deleting this out-of-policy category constitute "shutting people up" or "banning protest"? They can continue to protest all they want on their user pages or by writing essays. Voceditenore (talk) 15:07, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's not appropriate for you, or anyone else here, to dictate how other Wikipedians can and can't protest. My position is that anyone who knows enough about Wikipedia to be in this category, has earned by their contributions the right to add one category to their userspace.—S Marshall T/C 19:59, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • You don't say. And what does that have to do with this discussion? Had anybody suggested doing any of those things? --John (talk) 21:05, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • S Marshall, above, claimed that Wikipedians can't tell other Wikipedians how to protest. I was showing that this is not true. Hut 8.5 21:09, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wait, so then what does "It's not appropriate for you, or anyone else here, to dictate how other Wikipedians can and can't protest." mean exactly then? Regards, — Moe Epsilon 22:03, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • What I said was that it wasn't for anyone here to dictate where Wikipedians can and can't protest. (Such rules would have to come from a genuine community consensus, meaning a more widely-advertised discussion.) What the "delete" side need to show is that there is already community consensus on some rule that would prevent the category from existing, and the question is, have they?

    I see the often-repeated assertion that the category is divisive and disruptive. I don't buy it—repeating things doesn't make them true. Surely the category's purpose is to show solidarity with Malleus Fatuorum. And if such a display of support really is "divisive", then what on earth have we come to? Has Wikipedia turned into some kind of hive mind where it's verboten to express sympathy with MF? That just doesn't pass my sniff test. No: anyone who knows enough about Wikipedia to add this category to their userspace, has through their contributions earned enough tolerance from the community to do it.—S Marshall T/C 22:13, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What has Wikipedia come to? That Wikipedia focuses on the content not the contributer. Rights, earned? Huh? "Like it." That's fine. But really, rights earned? Your appeal to emotion, however, satisfying is close to zero basis for anything like consensus. Alanscottwalker (talk) 23:30, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't you think that Wikipedians earn on-wiki rights by virtue of their contributions?—S Marshall T/C 00:21, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Absolutely not. There is no hierarchy or merits system on wikipedia. Edits are judged as edits, not for the editor. This is basic.--Scott Mac 00:26, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oh, please. You, an administrator, are trying to tell me there's no hierarchy or merits system on Wikipedia? I've rarely heard anything so easily falsifiable.—S Marshall T/C 00:49, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • (e/c)I don't know what you mean. What are these rights? People are asked to freely contribute, we are glad they do and thank them but it's their choice. In certain discussions we ask that they reference certain policies and guidelines and avail themselves of reason with respect to them -- if they do not do so, well, again thanks, but that does not help us reach consensus on anything and it's discounted. Alanscottwalker (talk) 00:42, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't know how to make it any plainer for you, Alanscottwalker. Wikipedians' contributions enhance their credibility and earn them privileges. That's self-evident. If it didn't happen there would be no sockpuppetry, and nobody would ever need to make an account. The only reason MF wasn't indeffed a very long time ago is because he earned a certain immunity through his contributions. How can you not see this?—S Marshall T/C 00:49, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, you've "made it plain" that in your view User X gets special rights, and User X's friends get special rights but, I still don't see what that has to do with the policy, guidelines and consensus we are here to discuss and come to agreement on (if possible), because that does not sound like a basis for consensus. Alanscottwalker (talk) 01:12, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It's not "my view", Alanscottwalker, it's blatantly a fact. Users who show a pattern of vandalistic edits are blocked. Users who show a pattern of constructive edits get additional user rights. And users with plenty of featured content contributions, or just enough on-wiki friends, get to be blatantly unpleasant to others. (Prove me wrong by blocking Malleus or Tarc or Giano for incivility; if the block sticks I'll eat my words. I'll never need to make good on that promise.) As for your remarks on the "basis for consensus", the basis for consensus is discussion. No meaningful discussion will happen while people like the delete !voters in this CFD persist in trying to confront dissent with force.—S Marshall T/C 13:15, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, the largest disruption was when it actually got deleted. Using admin tools to try to control the behaviour of established Wikipedians is charmingly naive, but of course it was only ever going to escalate the drama. When you're dealing with established Wikipedians, the only way to reduce the drama level is to let them have their say and talk to them calmly and rationally like intelligent human beings with a well-founded concern. Deleting their categories using admin tools will be as drama-escalating as any other brute force shutting-up technique.—S Marshall T/C 23:20, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Again have to disagree, reasonable users move on. Alanscottwalker (talk) 23:39, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
They will in time. From my observations of Wikipedian behaviour, attempts to make users move on by force are doomed to failure.—S Marshall T/C 23:45, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Force? No one was forced to create this category, and although it would have been good of them to check the guidelines, when doing so, they were not forced to do that. However, having created the category, they have (at least tacitly), willingly, subjected the category to others' opinion on its usefulness, harmfulness, and compliance, including admins and the rest of us. Alanscottwalker (talk) 01:02, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
@Asw, you have turned up here and have had a lot to say. Just to le you know: it is almost all entirely incomprehensible to me. Your melding of lawyering and philosophy seems quite cute but I just have this gut feeling that it is not in the real world. Can you perhaps just say what you mean and leave it at that? You clearly have a considerable interest in matters related to civility. Me? I rather get on with building the encyclopedia and if that means making allowances then so be it. We are not a social network: that is just a bonus, when it happens. - Sitush (talk) 01:20, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Huh? Alanscottwalker (talk) 01:48, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
IAR is fine; I myself have referenced it; however, it is not a free pass to do just anything. Like everything else it has constraints. Nothing that brings Wikipedia into disrepute like a permanent airing of dirty laundry should be here. If someone has problems with Wikipedia that are so deep-seated that they are creating these kinds of categories then create a blog or a Facebook account to bitch about it like everybody else these days. Quis separabit? 16:27, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Wasn't it an embarrassment about "airing of dirty laundry" that prompted the Tiananmen Massacre? --John (talk) 17:59, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It's pretty offensive to equate or compare this overly long, gassy colloquy, which really needs to be closed out by a neutral admin, with Tiananmen Square. Quis separabit? 00:42, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
We all find different things offensive I suppose. This category is neither overly long nor gassy; if you mean the discussion is too long I'd probably agree. You've just made it a little longer by commenting, and now I have too by replying. Hey ho. I happen to find it slightly more offensive that someone who got unbanned through the forgiveness of the community is here taking such an illiberal and authoritarian stance on this user category, but hey, there you go. --John (talk) 17:04, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Quite, that's exactly my point RMS125/Quis separabit: "IAR is fine .... it is not a free pass to do just anything. Like everything else it has constraints." It's exactly that, the utterly foolish and boorish invocation of IAR to speedy delete a category undergoing live discussion that enabled the needless airing of this this "dirty laundry", which our non registered users know little about. It's a meaningless internal political bunfight for game points and level advancement in the grand game of Wikipedia. I don't really give two shits about the fate of this category, but I do care about the behaviour of the "higher level" players towards those "lower level minions". All very tiresome and wasteful of energy, I will not be responding further in this forum. --Cactus.man ✍ 18:44, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I second this observation. Five years from now someone who comes across this category is going to have to dig through old bureaucracy posts to figure out whatintheheck this is about. By that time, I imagine, it will have become a largely forgotten memorial to a short-lived controversy— if we're lucky. Mangoe (talk) 13:19, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • It can pine for the fjords, as far as I am concerned, as long as it does so in the comfort of user page histories. Mangoe (talk) 15:44, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • You could explain why you think the existence of the category breaches WP:POINT, that would help. --John (talk) 17:34, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Wikipedians who are not a Wikipedian and therefore are Wikipedians because that's the way Wikipedians like us roll

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: speedy delete per WP:CSD#G7 deletion by author request below. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:45, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Propose deleting Category:Wikipedians who are not a Wikipedian and therefore are Wikipedians because that's the way Wikipedians like us roll (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Category has only a single entry and was apparently created as a joke. MelanieN (talk) 15:19, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Wikipedians who are not Wikipedians, and who think this is a great idea, but possibly not, and who are not being indecisive

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: speedy delete per WP:CSD#G7 deletion by author request below. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:30, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Propose deleting Category:Wikipedians who are not Wikipedians, and who think this is a great idea, but possibly not, and who are not being indecisive (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Category has only a single entry and was apparently created as a joke. MelanieN (talk) 15:17, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

American musicians of Polish descent

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Merge. Timrollpickering (talk) 01:59, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
More