The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the discussion was delete. Darkfrog24 cannot comment here but the consensus is clear here. Darkfrog24, like any editor, can always come later (if Darkfrog24 gets the topic ban removed) to WP:DRV and restore restoration if there's a basis to do so. Ricky81682 (talk) 07:53, 17 February 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Wikipedia:WikiProject Manual of Style/External support[edit]

This page faces the same problems faced by the former MOS:REGISTER, now userfied as "User talk:Wavelength/About Wikipedia/Manual of Style/Register". It does not belong in the project space, lacks consensus behind it, and has been used a platform for continuing disputes over various sections of the MOS:. It is an essay, an incomplete one, and one which consists of cherrypicked sources used to support polemics at other pages. I don't think that we should have project pages serving as a WP:SOAPBOX for the opinions of a certain few editors in this manner. At present, the page serves as a PoV fork of WT:MOS, so as to allow people to who've had unproductive disputes there to have another place in which to play. I don't think this is acceptable. Such a page as this is fine in the user space, but it shouldn't be labelled as anything other than what it is. Given the recent dispute that occurred over the contents of this page, this seems even more pressing. As with MOS:REGISTER, I would tolerate userfication if deletion is deemed unpalatable. RGloucester — ☎ 03:53, 9 February 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

At most, tag (eg ((closed down))) and/or userfy, do not delete no matter how bad it is. Bad ideas are tagged and archive so that we are not doomed to repeat the mistake. Unless, the case is made that it is a POV fork.

As a Wikipedia:WikiProject page, it ranks below a project space page and above a usersubpage. That is, it is only implied to be the opinion of the WikiProject hosting it. What is the opinion of the WikiProject members? Is this nomination an attempt at dispute resolution within the WikiProject? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:22, 9 February 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

To be clear, I'm not sure this is really a "WikiProject page" in any real sense. It was unilaterally made a subpage of the project by SMcCandlish on 10 January 2016. Prior to that, it was an MoS subpage, but had never gained consensus to be part of the MoS. Regardless, the actual "project" itself is dead, and tagged as inactive. I presume that SMcCandlish's intent was to remove it from the MoS space, where it certainly did not belong. However, I do not believe it belongs as a subpage of a dead WikiProject either. Userfication is a perfectly fine option, as I've said above. RGloucester — ☎ 04:28, 9 February 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I moved it there for lack of anywhere else to put it. It was masquerading as an MoS guideline page. The wikiproject exists for collaboration regarding MoS; the page is MoS-related, and has two editors "collaborating" (editwarring), so it seemed to qualify to temporarily live there. My intent was to MfD it immediately, but when I said I was going to do this, the effective OWNer of the page launched a bogus WP:NPOVN about the page as a delay tactic; then a WP:AE case (and another after that) were set in motion, eventually resulting in that party's topic ban. My expectation in moving it was that the page would not exist at all longer than a few days after being moved to the wikiproject's space, just long enough for MfD. There was no intent to imply on my part that it was officially part of the wikiproject (of which I'm a participant). It was just swapspace. There is nothing historical about this page and it need not be retained. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼ 05:26, 10 February 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

If the WikiProject is inactive, this sort of activity in its subpages is probably improper. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:36, 9 February 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The sort of activity on that page is improper anywhere. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼ 05:26, 10 February 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I was mistakeningly thinking that the page had your support!

First inclination is "Replace with ((Closed down))". Appears to be wholly unhealthy. On first view it appears massively overambitious. Even if not flawed, it is the wrong way to go about building something in consensus. Challenging or changing things, or building resource link pages should be done in smaller, digestible parts, in essays (essays that don't read as guideline) or in userspace. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:54, 10 February 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The template you suggest is for "closed down" Wikipedia processes. This page is not a "Wikipedia process", and never has been. RGloucester — ☎ 06:08, 10 February 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Look again. Actually, it was created for the purpose of tagging things kept only as a record of a bad idea closed down, usually at MfD. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:27, 10 February 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This isn't a project, activity, or process...your addition to the template seems strange. There is nothing to "close down" here. It is just an essay. RGloucester — ☎ 06:44, 10 February 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

If it were "just an essay", then it would be OK in ProjectSpace, as it is multi-authored and project-related. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:30, 12 February 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It would be, unless it were to be considered "to contradict widespread consensus", which this does. See WP:PG. RGloucester — ☎ 14:28, 12 February 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete as not needed and clutter. Legacypac (talk) 22:53, 9 February 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete (along with its MOS:SUPPORTS and other redirects) for all the same reasons as we userfied and arguably should have deleted the "register" version of this last week, the entire litany of which I won't repeat here. A strong and directly relevant precedent for deleting this with prejudice is here; the issue raised in the two cases are essentially identical, just the earlier one was about diacritics, and this one is mostly about the other perennial MoS battleground, quotation mark punctuation. I object to this being userspaced. It is not really part of the wikiproject, was never part of MoS, and has no "historical" value. This is just a WP:POVFORK from MOS:REGISTER and WT:MOS (and REGISTER was itself a WT:MOS POVFORK), after the now-topic-banned WP:OWNer of MOS:REGISTER got stymied by other editors resisting the constant OR, PoV pushing and WP:POLEMIC nature of the goings on at that page, in turn after said editor and allies thereof failed in repeated attempts to change consensus at WT:MOS. So, it's basically a form of WP:FORUMSHOP geared especially for WP:FACTION building against MoS bits, exactly like the page in the cited precedent. This SUPPORTS page is actually much worse than the REGISTER one (which at least tried to pretend it was documenting consensus, instead of trying to prove consensus wrong and must be defied). The sole purpose of this is POLEMIC. It exists to try to WP:WIN in years-long advocacy against various points in WP:MOS, this time on the basis of showing that they have weak RS support, as if a guideline is subject to WP:CCPOL. (Last time, with REGISTER, it was by trying to show that there wasn't really consensus for certain parts of MOS, and that failed, too.) This is part of a very long-game "source the MoS!" campaign by a handful of editors with tendentious pet peeves about certain line-items in the guideline, who will not take "consensus has not changed" for an answer, and who play a good WP:CIVILPOV game about creating pages like MOS:REGISTER and MOS:SUPPORTS as "tools" for everyone to use for constructive purposes, but which are never used for anything but disruptive activism against a policypage, and diversion of volunteer sourcing work away from articles and toward supporting efforts to work against the system – along highly nationalistic grounds (WP:NPOV doesn't apply to this namespace, but WP:SOAPBOX does). The page is a pointless and WP:NOTHERE exercise, of indulging in micro-managerial, one-sided internal documentation of internal documentation, to fight against the internal documentation, basically. It should be railgunned into the heart of the sun. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼ 05:26, 10 February 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I am still uncertain whether this should be simply deleted as a POV fork. I am finding it odd that the main authors, Darkfrog24 (talk · contribs), Dicklyon (talk · contribs) and Wavelength (talk · contribs) have not commented. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:26, 12 February 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

DF is topic banned, and can't comment. RGloucester — ☎ 14:28, 12 February 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

SmokeyJoe, thank you for pinging me. I had not commented because I did not know about this discussion until I revisited Wikipedia about 20 minutes ago and received your notification.

—Wavelength (talk) 20:54, 12 February 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete – Thanks for pinging me, Smokey. I don't consider myself a main author; I was just trying to ameliorate some of DF24's setup for treating quotation style as ENGVAR. This page serves no useful purpose that I can see, was being used by DF24 to serve a non-useful purpose. Wavelength just made a skeleton, which remains pretty much empty. Nothing to see here. Dicklyon (talk) 17:48, 12 February 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note to the administrator closing this discussion: If you decide to userfy Wikipedia:WikiProject Manual of Style/External support, please userfy it to User:Wavelength/About Wikipedia/Manual of Style/External support.

—Wavelength (talk) 20:54, 12 February 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This discussion only now clearly reveals itself to be a controversy spill out from a recent Wikipedia:Arbitration matter. Specifically

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement&oldid=701104125#Dicklyon_and_Darkfrog24.

Somehow, everyone (SMcCandlish, RGloucester, Dicklyon, Wavelength, Darkfrog24) is involved. This discussion itself is now central to

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Darkfrog24

I am very uneasy about approving a deletion of Darkfrog24's contributions with Darkfrog24 not allowed to make a statement. I think Darkfrog24 should be allowed to make a statement, and to give simple answers to simple clarification questions.

The suggestion to userfy, analagous to User:Wavelength/About Wikipedia/Manual of Style/Register, I find also uneasy. Why should Darkfrog24's contributions be given into User:Wavelength's control. In his userspace, he had moderately strong ownership rights, including the right to ((db-u1)) it for any or no reason. NB. I know nothing of the relations or interactions between User:Darkfrog24 and User:Wavelength.

My original inclination, to agree to consensus to archive where it is, stands, deferring the decision to delete to Arb Com. The question of which tag to use is not important. ((closed down)) would work, but given objection I suggest that the closer considers writing a custom non-templated tag. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:44, 12 February 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Darkfrog is not allowed to comment because his disruption, chiefly on this page, was considered to be unacceptable by the various uninvolved administrators. They deemed his presence in this topic area to be disruptive, and hence removed him from it. That's the end of the story. ArbCom does not intervene in matters of content, so you shan't get anything from ArbCom. RGloucester — ☎ 22:45, 12 February 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Understood. I did ask User:Thryduulf, who gave Darkfrog the ban notification, to comment here. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:20, 12 February 2016 (UTC) ‎Reply[reply]

Darkfrog24 may not comment here per the terms of their topic ban. I would be willing to consider an exception if this were a page in their userspace, but as it does not seem to have been ever intended to be a user essay I am not inclined to (but note I have not read the AE discussion yet). I have no opinion on whether the page should be deleted or not, but DF's topic ban means that the decision must be made whithout their input. Thryduulf (talk) 13:42, 13 February 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete – Unnecessary, clear POVFORK & attempt to undermine MOS. MOS requires no external support; only consensus. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 01:58, 14 February 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Request for specific details: RGloucester, (a) specifically what evidence of SOAPBOX and POV violations and MOS disputes have you found, and (b) specifically where have you found that evidence?

—Wavelength (talk) 13:19, 14 February 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

In the recent dispute, editors would take selective quotations ("cherrypicking") from various style guides and place them here to provide ammunition. The discussion at WP:MOS ended, but was moved here so as to avoid scrutiny. Essentially, the page was used as a battleground for continuing a dispute from elsewhere. This page will inevitably have that problem, as the selection of quotations to support one's opinion is a well-known past-time. More importantly, as is said above, the MoS does not have "external support". The only purpose of having such external support here is to provide ammunition in disputes. I imagine that this was not your intention in creating the page, but the practical realities of it, as evidenced by the dispute, make it clear that this is what it will be used for. In addition, the page simply has no consensus behind it. It being in the project space provides the illusion that it does, which is why the dispute moved here in the first place. RGloucester — ☎ 18:09, 14 February 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

RGloucester, (a) please quote a specific offending passage of text, and (b) please provide a link to the specific section or subsection or sub-subsection or sub-sub-subsection where that passage is located.

—Wavelength (talk) 03:52, 15 February 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The concern is not so much about the specific text, but about the concept of the page itself, and how that concept provides a basis for disruptive behaviour. However, read through any of the recent edits to the page, and I'm sure you'll see what I mean. RGloucester — ☎ 03:55, 15 February 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have examined the talk page carefully and impartially, and I invite other editors (including the closing administrator) to do the same.

—Wavelength (talk) 00:44, 16 February 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I was under the impression that this page contained a useful collection of links to external MOSs. I understand, from  SMcCandlish's and Dicklyon's comments especially, that the collected information is not useful.

I was concerned that Darkfrog24 was to have his contributions deleted without his comment. However, I then discovered that these contributions are very closely related to is activities that led to a topic ban from this sort of thing. Therefore, as far as DarkFrog24 is concerned, it is very probably much better for for him that it is deleted now and that he doesn't return to the subject.

Delete. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:03, 15 February 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

So are you going to strike your previous recommendations, to make it clear to a closer that we are more or less unanimous for deleting it now? Dicklyon (talk) 07:03, 15 February 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It's all too painful. I think everything I said above was unbolded and hedged? I don't think any closer could get this wrong. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:08, 15 February 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete so this circus never comes back. Legacypac (talk) 06:04, 17 February 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.