Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2012 October 31

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< October 30 November 1 >

October 31[edit]

Category:Wikipedians who are not a Wikipedian 2[edit]

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]
  • Oppose first off, mergers should not be proposed seperately from existing discussion. Secondly, the category in question is an attack category that needs to be deleted.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:14, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    If the category is merged into the new category, it will be deleted. What is your point? Kiefer.Wolfowitz 00:17, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • support addresses my concerns about being an attack. Would seem to be a reasonable user cat. Hobit (talk) 03:45, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose: Aren't all Wikipedians wedded to the five pillars. The category is platitudinous and redundant. I oppose the creation of this category (perhaps wrong place to do so) and I oppose merging "not Wikipedians" category into this one. Thanks. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 03:55, 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[edit]

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]
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[edit]

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[edit]

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]
  • Delete being "affected" by any giving storm is not defining for places effected.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:39, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: This is an ongoing situation; also concur with nominator and with JPL. Quis separabit? 22:05, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom Michaelzeng7 (talk) 02:09, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Difficult to see how this wouldn't end up being primarily a parent category for several Caribbean countries, U.S. states, and Canadian provinces. On the other hand, I could see, possibly, a category for specific things (structures, etc.) seriously damaged by Sandy, but I can't think of a category name that wouldn't seem awkward, and it doesn't seem like that many already-notable subjects have been documented in WP:RS as seriously damaged: The only two I can think of from the U.S. national news are Casino Pier and the crane of (but apparently not the building) One57 in Manhattan. Plus a huge number of subway stations that look bad, but whether they really are difficult to restore to service remains to be seen. --Closeapple (talk) 05:44, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete in accordance with the nominee's reason ypnypn (talk) 13:44, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per precedents, though I would leave the category open to re-creation if needed for a series of articles about the effects of the storm, in the vein of the articles in Category:Hurricane Isabel. Beyond that, there is no viable standard for how much something must be "affected" for inclusion, leaving it undefining; the closure of New York financial markets has global implications, does it not? See also related discussions on places affected by the Chile earthquake (CfD 2011/Mar/27), Tohoku earthquake/tsunami (CfD 2012/Mar/11), and Haiti earthquake (CfD 2010/Oct/13).
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[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

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]
  • Delete Category:Wikipedians who are not a Wikipedian
  • Nominator's rationale This is an attack category, which we do not allow. It was created to show solidarity with one editor in a dispute with another editor. It exist for the purpose of increasing divisiveness and division within the wikipedia community, which is the exact opposite of what categories should do. It also seems to exist to prove some sort of perverse point, which is another thing we do not allow.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:18, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Don't hold back now, Johnpacklambert. Do you even realize the disconnect between your second sentence and the rest of your diatribe? You could have let me know, BTW, that this was up again. Drmies (talk) 13:42, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete i thought this was already deleted. this is not even funny, an obvious attack category, the source of my misplaced humorous category below, and another. we dont need any of them, in particular this one.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 16:21, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I have consented to the deletion of the category I created, Category:Wikipedians who are not a Wikipedian and therefore are Wikipedians because that's the way Wikipedians like us roll, and feel this should also be deleted, because it serves no purpose other than to get people to hit the "edit" button on non-article pages.--Milowent • hasspoken 16:45, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete 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) 16:51, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: This category exists solely to memorialize a stupid remark by an editor, and to draw up battlelines. It is divisive and does not contribute to building an encyclopedia. A user-namespace attack category, like uncivil edit summaries, is especially unfair as an attack because it is hard to respond to. If people feel the need to speak further about this incident, there are venues where they can do so that invite response and debate. Bovlb (talk) 16:58, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Bovlb. Communities that try to stifle legitimate protest are doomed, see Velvet Revolution. Ideally the injustice that provoked the creation of this category would be properly addressed (for example by the arbitrator's apologising) and then the category would empty and be deleted in the normal way. In the meantime it needs to be kept. --John (talk) 17:05, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    John, if editors want to signify their protest, then there are other ways they can do that without abusing the category system.
    For example, they can create a userbox to do so. If they want to make an easily-accessible list of editors who are displaying the userbox, then it can include a whatlinkshere link. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:46, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete There's dissent, and then there's climbing the Reichstag dressed as Spider-Man to make a WP:POINT. Just let it die and let's get on with editing stuff. Mangoe (talk) 17:10, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Mangoe, while I respect your right to wish this category deleted, it's hard to see why REICHSTAG (content dispute) or POINT (making an edit one disagrees with because something else you did was undone) would apply. Can you either adjust your rationale or explain why this rationale applies? Thanks. --John (talk) 17:15, 31 October 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]

  • delete why the fuck are we even debating this. Protest is fine, I might even agree - but you get to speak, to vote, to start legitimate discussions, you don't get to graffiti the building with polemic and then shout censorship when someone wipes it off. That this was created was idiotic, and that the DRV closer insisted there's something to debate is staggering.--Scott Mac 17:57, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sorry if you're still pissed off that your improper admin action was reversed. We are debating this because that is the way Wikipedia traditionally has decided things. We didn't, historically, practise summary execution or unilateral diktats. The policy is WP:CONSENSUS. --John (talk) 18:11, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Look, I can quote plenty of the alphabet soup back to you in response, but we've done that at the DRV, and a substantial minority of people seemed to have taken your view that we do, in fact, need to debate bits of polemic. OK, let's not rerun that. However, I'm still hopeful that an overwhelming consensus of people in this debate will agree that category has no place, and never could have any place, on Wikipedia.--Scott Mac 18:18, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        Scott and others, would you agree that the category could be renamed, as I suggest below, in a way that respects its members intentions while avoiding the appearance of incivility? Kiefer.Wolfowitz 18:48, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but merge (explained below).
    The intention clearly is to express solidarity with Malleus, and expressing solidarity with a mistreated colleague is an important part of healthy organizational life. This name or "Wikipedians who are net negatives an an influence on Wikipedia" is useful for expressing solidarity with Malleus. (Other names could be suggested.)
    Like other approved categories of Wikipedians, the category facilitates cooperation among its members, many of whom are concerned about
    • procedural propriety at ArbCom,
    • upholding the Civility Enforcment decision's admonishment to avoid double standards (abusive administrators do not face sanctions for violating WP:NPA and WP:Civility), etc.
    For this function, an alternative name (e.g. "Wikipedians ... against hypocrisy, or ... for civility for all") could be appropriate, also.
    Sincerely, Kiefer.Wolfowitz 18:26, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I actually find this to be a pretty compelling argument. I would be open to changing my view of the matter should a less POINTy name be chosen. Trusilver 19:50, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Rename: I would suggest merging with the new category "Category:Wikipedians working towards even enforcement of civility", which has a NPOV name that rephrases but uses the same words as the decision's finding (7.2.10). A renaming reorients the category in a constructive and welcoming direction. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 20:34, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree both with the merge and with the sentiment behind it. Trusilver 00:00, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks! I used the template for such merges, above, which seems to be the standard method of such mergers. People can continue to argue about the wickedness of the old name here, but this does not seem like a path towards consensus. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 00:05, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keepin part per KW's thoughts above.Intothatdarkness 18:44, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Now that proper process has been restored and the power to decide has been handed back to the community, I'd like to explain the reasoning behind my original support for this category.

    What I saw as an abuse of ArbCom power took place at the recent request for clarification regarding the discussion of RfAs by Malleus. The incident itself was minor and was soon resolved. But some members of ArbCom saw it as an opportunity to ignore the simple request for clarification and instead attack and try to get rid of one of our best content contributors - and that included personal attacks and untruths.

    In the course of that, various ArbCom members tried to Ban Malleus for 6 months, discounted him as "not a Wikipedian" and attacked him as a "net negative". It is right to protest against individual ArbCom members when they abuse the position of power that we have placed them in and instead use it to pursue their own personal agendas driven by personal animosity. It is also right to show solidarity with our fellow community members who are abused in this way.

    So, I saw the category as intending to achieve those things - to express solidarity with the abused editor, to take a stand against ArbCom abuse, and to publicise that abuse.

    Is the category useful and does it help to improve Wikipedia? Potentially, yes, I think it could…

  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]
  • Comment to Kiefer, Intothatdarkness, and Boing: I understand that you feel strongly about this. But let me repeat: 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)." Are you specifically invoking IAR to say "we don't care what policy says, we agree with the protest and point that inspired this category, so it should stay." ? Because IAR is the only policy-based argument that can be applied to this category. --MelanieN (talk) 19:48, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thank you for explaining your point without cursing or demeaning those who have a particular position. It was suggested that the concept might be better captured as a userbox previously, although I'm not sure that a userbox would be allowed to stand, either. Intothatdarkness 19:51, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • So keep the category since a user box would be deleted? Vegaswikian (talk) 20:14, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • (ec)I didn't say that. I expressed the opinion that a userbox might come under the same form of attack. I was also thanking another user for making her point without demeaning those who hold an opposing view. Groupthink is dangerous in any project, and a non-pointy reminder of that, be it a category or userbox, is always good. Not everyone who supports the category or userbox idea falls into a user's "posse" (to use one of the stereotyping terms in common use), after all. Intothatdarkness 20:24, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • MelanieN, regarding your question "Are you specifically invoking IAR to say "we don't care what policy says, we agree with the protest and point that inspired this category, so it should stay?": If I were doing that I would have said something like "I am specifically invoking IAR to say "I don't care what policy says, I agree with the protest and point that inspired this category, so it should stay"". As I quite clearly did not say that, you should be able to work out quite easily that that is not what I said. If you reread what I actually wrote, you will see that I am not, in fact, even !voting to keep it. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:22, 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]
  • Comment contreary the view of some people here, wikipedia is not a democracy. This is not a vote decided by majority rule, but an attempt to carry on a discussion to reach a consensus. I am still waiting for any real argument for keeping. "Protest is good" or "rebellion is good" is not a principal of wikipedia and clearly not an argument for keeping this attack category.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:13, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    John, please read what I wrote above. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 20:35, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete It was a mistake to speedy delete this category but I think it would also be a mistake to keep it since it clearly fails our guidelines for user categories and since many categories advocating various positions in wiki-politics have been deleted in the past. Could this survive as a userbox? Meh... I wouldn't fight against it since I don't see the core message as being all that divisive or provocative. But it's not very constructive either and I'm concerned that all these in-jokes and references that you can only understand if you've been around for three years while closely following ANI and arbitration cases are not helpful in building a healthy community that can integrate newcomers. But again, that's my 2 cents and if people want to express their opinion through such a userbox, fine. Pichpich (talk) 20:17, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, wasn't this just nominated? Benkenobi18 (talk) 20:42, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    It was nominated and speedy deleted, then that speedy deletion was taken to deletion review and overturned. It has now been renominated. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:55, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. If it was kept after deletion review, then it shouldn't have been renominated. Benkenobi18 (talk) 21:35, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • However it was only kept because it was determined that it had been deleted out of course. Deletion reviews in general do not consider whether or not deletion overall is acceptable, just whether the reason for doing so were justified. In this case, this is an attack category that should not be kept, whatever various reviews say. It is an attack and a pointy and a disruptive category that does not fit any known justification for having categories.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:42, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment. I have been thinking about this particular nomination for awhile now. I have had zero interaction with JClemens or with Malleus either positive or negative. I have since read up on things when it first came around. As someone who's the interpretation of a 'neutral, uninvolved party', I cannot see a consensus for deletion here. Just because it's been renominated, I don't believe the consensus was close last time, and I don't believe the consensus for close is here this time. I've been banned previously for taking down an attack category used to label people that the creator didn't like. Is this category being used in this fashion? Are people complaining about being labelled, 'not a wikipedian'? To my knowledge, all the people in this category are the ones who have chosen to be added to it. If the category were being used in this fashion I would have zero hesitation to vote delete, but that is not the case here. Could it stand to be renamed as 'wikipedians who support Malleus' and userfied? Sure. And if my keep vote gets overturned I would hope that would be the result of consensus here. From what I can see, as an uninvolved party - the folks on one side are butthurt about the existing category because it highlights some rather uncivil comments that should not have been made in the first case and they feel this category brings up all the bad stuff again. The folks on the other side want to show solidarity for a friend that they believe was wronged. That's my thought on this matter, and why I'm voting keep. Benkenobi18 (talk) 22:03, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Actually, I did not participate in the deletion review but if I had, I would have said something along the lines of "Overturn so that we can delete this in the proper way". Pichpich (talk) 21:50, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • It was not kept! The deletion was overturned because the consensus at review was that basically it should not have been closed and deleted. That is in no way a determination to keep this. It was a ruling on process and not on the keep/delete decision. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:35, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this is, quite simply, not an appropriate use of a user category. User categories are meant to aid in facilitating coordination and collaboration between users for the improvement and development of the encyclopedia. This one doesn't. Furthermore it falls under several of the prohibited uses of user categories, in that it groups users by advocacy of a position, it is divisive, provocative, or otherwise disruptive, it categorises people by enmity toward a particular group of people, dislike for or hatred of a particular individual and support for or opposition to a controversial person, group, project, idea, policy, or activity. User categories aren't intended as tools for advocacy or to show support for a position. Of course people are allowed to criticise ArbCom on their user pages, but that doesn't mean we can have a category for the purpose. Hut 8.5 22:38, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
    • FWIW, I don't think renaming the category to a euphemistic title would make any difference. Something like Category:Wikipedians interested in civility might conceivably be OK, but not if "interested in civility" is going to be used as code for "thinks Malleus shouldn't be banned". Hut 8.5 07:57, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: There shouldn't be a snowball's chance in the proverbial place of this nonsense remaining. Quis separabit? 22:44, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - pointy nonsense promoted by hyper-partisans, clearly disallowed by the "divisive, provocative" part of Wikipedia:User categories#Inappropriate types of user categories. A shame the speedy wasn't upheld, so here we go for 7 days. Tarc (talk) 23:07, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, pointless pointiness. Yworo (talk) 23:20, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just let it die already Whatever point in creating the category has been made, it serves zero use in showing solidarity now, so just delete it. This is the Nth discussion and it just a pissing contest now to see who can launch the most clever attacks on each other without getting blocked. Regards, — Moe Epsilon 00:06, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I was about to suggest that everyone who wants to comment at length here go and cleanup an article from Category:Articles_needing_cleanup instead but, when attempting to put my suggestion to practice, the very first article I clicked on was this one. Might actually be more productive to waste time discussing the existential nature of things that are but are not. --regentspark (comment) 02:35, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete (merge ok too) WP:POINT and a pretty clear attack page. I'm fine with the merge/rename suggested above on this page too. Hobit (talk) 03:47, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Hurts the project in all ways possible. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 03:50, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • If editors wish to express solidarity with Malleus then they should follow this example and simply refrain from contributing to the encyclopedia until their preferred form of justice is served, rather than continuing to perpetuate the problem by airing their grudges through the category system. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 10:24, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Forgive us our trespasses, but don't deny us our voices, giving us only my-way-or-the-highway ultimatums. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 11:41, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    There is no right of protest on Wikipedia. If editors wish to express concern with the handling of this debacle then there are ways to do it which don't themselves cause further acrimony. One way is to continue the discussion minus the histrionics. Another (which has apparently become quite popular) is to hold one's breath until one gets one's way. Either works for me. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 11:56, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Of no value to wikipedia. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 10:57, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I have a different view. Because the idea for the catagory was born out of the negative situation that others are using to justify labelling the catagory an attack category, or protest category, is short-sighted. (Let me explain ... When the words came out of Jclemens mouth re "not a Wikipedian", and someone synthecized from that the paradox "Wikipedians who are not Wikipedians", the whole thing became something different, something new, and at that moment left or removed itself from the negative exchanges and accuses going on which produced the phrase from Jclemens. What did it become? A puzzle, a paradox ... just the same as "Ignore all rules" seems paradoxical, too. "Wikipedians who are not wikipedians" is like a Zen nonsense sentence, that challenges one to meditate on it, to find something fresh. What? Perhaps the category means "Wikipedians who think out-of-the-box" or "Wikipedians who are seldom properly understood, but valued and are actually quite brilliant". (Maybe User:Penyulap could be in that category.) The point is, all the chiming in about what an inherent attack this catagory is, are looking only at the "birth surrogate mother", and not at the the unique "creature" that was born. It actually reveals more about the editors fixed perspectives who are judging it in only one way, as a clear attack, than what the thing itself is/has become, once it got "out of the box" to quickly claimed a life of its own. That life is not a negative one, it is positive. (Before I'm laughed at and ridiculed, here's a concrete example what I mean, from the movie I Heart Huckabees: a client of the existential investigators is advised his life would be happier if he worked on being less superficial and "more himself". To this he asked, defensively: "How am I not myself?" The rest of the scene didn't respond to that question, but instead instantly branched to a pondering of the metaphysical meaning of the query: "How am I not myself?" and Dustin Hoffman and Lily Tomlin (the investigators) kept repeating the phrase softly to one another, in deep thought in effort to capture the valuable insight the words seemed to gave clue to. The client just stood there, still feeling defensive, waiting for a response, but Hoffman and Tomlin had "left" the conversation at moment the phrase was uttered, pondering its meaning and significance to human psychology and self-identity. I contending that "Wikipedians who are not a Wikipedian" is a similar ponderable, and no one really knows what it means, we should think about it, but one thing is known: it is all good (and all good for WP). Ihardlythinkso (talk) 12:21, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or rename - The current title is an attack on a user for attacking another user, and as such is highly POINTy. Renaming to what Kiefer suggested (Category:Wikipedians interested in even civility enforcement) is fine, since that name is neutral and reasonable. Reaper Eternal (talk) 12:36, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, though I hope not too many editors use it, especially if they often deal with newbies. It has been suggested that this is somehow an attack rather than a defence, but as there is no link to the incident or naming of the person who some presume this to attack, I would dispute that description. The emphasis on solidarity makes this an "I'm Spartacus" style bit of paradoxical community building. It has been suggested that this contributes nothing to the pedia, which misses the point that debate within the pedia is healthy, especially if it is pedia related. We do differ as to how we define our community, some seem to reject those who've not been around recently, others would only include those who have a particular type of contributions, quantity of contributions or indeed those who uncritically sign up to every one of the pillars. Personally I'd define Wikipedians very broadly, certainly including anyone who has contributed goodfaith edits and who hasn't specifically rejected the label Wikipedian. But I'm conscious that others differ, and this category could be a healthy part of the discussion re that difference. ϢereSpielChequers 12:49, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • It is disingenuous in the extreme to suggest that because this category isn't actually titled "Wikipedians who disagree with JClemens when he says that Malleus is not part of the community" that it is really a fluffy community category for people to express their general solidarity with their fellow men. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 13:02, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • I don't consider it fluffy, but I do see a big difference between this and a category that names individuals, especially naming them critically. ϢereSpielChequers 15:31, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • You see, what people take away from a comment like that is "it's ok to be incivil as long as you're not obvious about it". That's almost not a bad proposition... hell, rock musicians have been doing it for decades. I mean, we all know what AC/DC's Sink the Pink was about back in the day; they didn't need to come out and say it. But as I said in an Arbcom statement last month, if this is how it's gonna be then it is really time to chop that 5th pillar out of the wiki-foundation. Tarc (talk) 15:41, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete : Apart from agreeing with most of the reasons given above, I also think that in the long run this category will only encourage rude behavior by editors who endorse this category. Editors should not end up saying "Because I am a wikipedian who is not a wikipedia, I don't care about the Fucking rules "--sarvajna (talk) 12:51, 1 November 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]
  • At the deletion review I said there was plenty of bad faith on both sides; I'm glad to see that it is now mostly limited to one side. It's really something, watching this parade of editors who practically fall over each other to clean the place up. Ha, one little user category will destroy the entire building? "It exist for the purpose of increasing divisiveness and division within the wikipedia community": nonsense. I don't accept that interpretation at all. It is you who have turned this whole thing into a spectacle. It is clear, of course, where this is headed--though one wonders where all the delete voters will be next time someone gets baited into an expletive and dragged before ArbCom, for another modification of an already incomprehensible verdict. You know, there are user pages where editors take credit for having driven (or having tried to drive) other editors off the project. Is that going to be next in some MfD? Please do let me know, and I'll reward you with the nicest civility barnstar I can find. Drmies (talk) 13:49, 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]
  • Delete per BHG, MelanieN, et. al.'s well reasoned references to policy instead of wiki-politics. Per KWs suggestion -- folks are free to join the new category but that should be an individual choice. Nobody Ent 14:42, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Obvious abuse of category system. As for the merge idea, kill it. Kill it with fire. If I add myself to a category, nobody has the right to put me into another when the first is deleted. --Guy Macon (talk) 15:29, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete It was created to make a point, which is not what categories are for. As has already been pointed out, user boxes can be used if solidarity is required. IRWolfie- (talk) 15:51, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I don't know why it was created, as it has no expalantion, but the title doesn't make much sense. Delete it as confusing. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 16:35, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Because it is a free world, we have a free society, and as such Wikipedia IS NOT CENSORED. Darkness Shines (talk) 18:29, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Articles are not censored for content. That has nothing to do with this issue. There is no constitutional right to edit wikipedia. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 20:33, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Actually, there ought to be reasonably free speech for criticism of arbcom and its decisions. In this case you could try here, here, here, perhaps here or even significantly here. There's probably several other venues besides. Censorship concern suppressed speech, and it is a serious impediment to any community's health. However, it is not suppressing your speech, or curtailing legitimate discussion, if we remove polemical graffiti from one inappropriate place.--Scott Mac 22:36, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and give all involved parties a time out - this is obviously an attack category and it should have been speedily deleted a long time ago. Even if it somehow isn't an attack, it does not serve the purpose of user categories, which is to facilitate collaboration to improve the encyclopedia. There is no basis in policy that allows for the retention of this category. Buck Winston (talk) 19:03, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete All this category has done is lead to disruption and controversy. It is of no value to Wikipedia. AutomaticStrikeout 20:02, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Categories are not to be abused to make a point, even if the point is valid. This isn't exactly a case of WP:POINT, but the principle is the same. ypnypn (talk) 01:23, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep- Criticism of someone's words or actions is not the same thing as a personal attack. Wikipedians (even those that aren't) should be able to use user categories to subscribe to, or distance themselves from, the various philosophies floating around the place. I'm getting tired of the user space censors. Reyk YO! 01:30, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question - Is this group well-organized enough to even have a proper category? Malleus knee-jerking a "fuck off" to a Merridew sock was priceless. Get your shit together, "non" Wikipedeans. Write another essay on Wikipedocracy. Doc talk 04:56, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Quite like it; it's humorous. Don't see the harm. AndreasKolbe JN466 05:28, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The message and intent is very hard to read as a personally offensive attack, and very easy to read as satirical criticism of a poorly written statement by a senior member of the community (soon after modified to something more reasonable). The fact that this category came in response to a contentious statement by a senior member means that this category should be given leeway and not suppressed by deletion. To do otherwise smacks of control by an elite. The fact that protest by self-categorisation is an unusual method of protest doesn't mean that it should be forbidden. I was briefly tempted to support a rename to correct what appears to poor grammar, but decided that what it really means is "Wikipedians who identify with Wikipedians are a labelled as being "Not a Wikipedian" (I guess, anyway). The category causes no harm per se, but I recommend that it be put under Wikipedia protest categories under Wikipedians, to minimise confusion as it is confusing to anyone not familiar with the related history. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:34, 2 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]
  • Delete -- This is an attack category. It is POV of the person who adds it, and potentially libellous. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:36, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    As commented in the deletion review, I don't care what happens to this category, but please stop saying there is anything libelous about my POV that I am a Wikipedian who is not a Wikipedian. There isn't. It is possible (and in my case it is the case) to add oneself to this category without thinking mean things about Jclemens or intending to attack him (as also already commented in the diff given above). ---Sluzzelin talk 16:59, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete attack category with no useful purpose in building an encyclopedia. ‑Scottywong| communicate _ 18:06, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete...has nothing to do with building a better encyclopedia.MONGO 19:52, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I neither know nor care what the story behind this is, but the category as such makes no sense (all Wikipedians are Wikipedians, what else?) and Wikipedia should not be disrupted to make a point.  Sandstein  20:33, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I don't see the category as disruptive or offensive. For one thing, "Wikipedians who are not Wikipedians" is clearly meaningful as a category (if you ignore the jclemens bit!). There are many editors out there who are perfectly willing to contribute to Wikipedia but don't necessarily feel that contributing here means that they belong to some sort of club or view the Wikipedia part of Wikipedia as a substitute for a social network. However, we can't really divorce the meaning of the category from the recent arbcom ruling (John, above, has a clear exposition on why so many people, including people like me who are not necessarily Malleus fans, were unhappy with the ruling) and given that the point is made and that hammering a point home with a sledgehammer is never a good idea, I think it's time for this category to go and it is time for all of us to move along. --regentspark (comment) 21:48, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • See Wikipedia:Wikipedians who are not a Wikipedian. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:22, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:POINT. Kaldari (talk) 04:15, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Please explain how this category applies a WP-policy to show how the policy is faulty, the topic of WP:POINT. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 20:04, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    If you weren't aware, there are comments above this with the same rationale. Regards, — Moe Epsilon 21:43, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    There are, but they have been discredited pending an explanation of just how WP:POINT applies. WP:NOTPOINTY explains that not all instances of making a point are automatically disruptive; I challenged Mangoe above to justify this rationale and he was unable to. A good closer of this will rightly discount any vote which mentions WP:POINT as an IDONTLIKEIT response as it does not match anything to be found there. --John (talk) 21:55, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Though I'm not exactly sure how "stifling a protest" is a justified keep !vote. Regards, — Moe Epsilon 22:03, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, I say. I'm actually considering adding myself to the alternate tamer category when I next edit my user page. Or what the hell, I might join this one. I've just realized I'm one of only 15 editors who have thus far even added that quasi-questionnaire to the CERFC category. I'm tired and feeling fatalistic about Wikipedia. I've now begun using nothing lower than a level 2 warning template for vandalism and other junk edits. Nothing matters and what if it did. Fylbecatulous talk 15:42, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep,, and let's keep a sense of humour too! Hestiaea (talk) 16:29, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I see a lot of people saying it is an "attack category". It could only be considered an attack category if Jclemens still stands by his attack on Malleus. Does he? I'd like to think he has grown out of it by now. I also see a lot of people talking about disrupting Wikipedia to make a point. Does the existence of the category on its own cause disruption, or is it more the manoeuvring to get rid of the category which is disruptive? Remember, some points are important and worth making. The hijacking of the governance of the entire project by corrupt incompetents; isn't that worth protesting? Calling out corruption and iniquity isn't an attack, it's a defence of the values of the project. --John (talk) 19:34, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Personally, I think the category is harmless but its existence does illustrate the tension between the content building and the social network sides of Wikipedia. (Much of the opinion expressed here against the category only reinforces the existence of this duality.) In your opinion, content comes first but, in the opinion of others, building a convivial environment comes first. I don't know which is the better focus but perhaps what we're seeing is a battle between these two sides of the community. --regentspark (comment) 01:02, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Hmm? It seems the opinion 'for' the category is the one which stresses this is a category that is somehow needed for social networking. Alanscottwalker (talk) 01:09, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The category seems incomprehensible (intentionally, so?) At any rate, given Wikipedia:User categories#Inappropriate types of user categories, IAR if there is no policy that covers that) or Brownhaired Girl comes closest to a cogent policy rationale. Either way, it should go. Keeps seem to mostly be saying "I like it," which is fine in its own way; it's just not a rationale that persuades. Alanscottwalker (talk) 20:47, 3 November 2012 (UTC) (modified for clarity -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 23:44, 6 November 2012 (UTC))[reply]
  • Rename to Category:________ that we are stuck with. (Most intelligent readers can, I think, fill in the blank pretty well.) Under that name it seems like it might be useful to other editors not familiar with these folks who run into them. Deleting the category is not going to make these people disappear -- most large organizations have people like this, anyway -- so I'm not sure how that would help. But as I say, useful to understand where the editor is coming from. There's no mechanism to force editors to join the category, but they have done so voluntarily, which I find delightful; much appreciated, guys. Herostratus (talk) 01:08, 4 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]
  • Delete User:Hut 8.5 summed up the arguments very well. I've seen no convincing policy-based arguments put forward for keeping a disruptive, divisive, pointy category, that does not adhere to the purpose of categorization on Wikipedia. It would also set a precedent for creating new categories every time a small group of editors want to attack a member of arbcom or one of their decisions. In fact, it creates a general precedent for using categorization as a tool in any dispute. It's not funny, nor was it meant to be. It's confusing to editors who haven't followed the Malleus brouhaha and to those who have followed it (a relative handful), it looks like a pretty obvious attack. The "free speech" claim is bogus. Voceditenore (talk) 07:06, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, because shutting people up is not the same as solving the problem. And secondly because if we ban protest on-wiki then the result will be that discussion about wikipedia's culture happens off-wiki instead, which helps nobody except the in-crowd on the protest forums. And thirdly because in all this debate nobody's managed to come up with any convincing reason why it would help the wiki to delete it; the arguments for deletion all confuse shutting people up with solving the problem.—S Marshall T/C 12:54, 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]
  • Delete. Serves no useful purpose, intentionally divisive. --Nouniquenames 14:36, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - per Boing!, S Marshall and others above. This is about shutting people up. Count me out. Jusdafax 19:50, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Given that quite a number of people supporting deletion have publicly stated they support the sentiments behind the category, do you have any evidence whatsoever for your assumption of bad faith.--Scott Mac 19:56, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Also, for the record, Boing! has not argued Keep. Alanscottwalker (talk) 20:06, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Actually he did here, before that discussion (which was trending to keep) was hijacked by an out-of-process deletion. I would recommend the closer read this earlier discussion too, before trying to gauge the overall consensus. --John (talk) 21:20, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per S Marshall's well thought out rationale. The largest disruption has been the constant threat of deletion to these categories. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 22:31, 4 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]
  • (Weak) Keep - Weakest possible keep, mostly per Herostratus' observation (minus the sweeping generalizations about those in this category, which I did not agree with). This is a way keep track of the more disgruntled long-term editors that happily choose to brand themselves with this divisive category. I would certainly vote for deletion if not for this fact. Now, explaining the category to brand-new curious editors who say, "Hi, ExampleUser! Thanks for your help, but what's up with you not being a Wikipedian? Why?" will be interesting if this thing is kept. Why perpetuate this stuff and recruit newbies into it, really? It's quite obvious. So let the revolution continue! If we don't, screams of "Opression!" will be ringing through the countrysides. This comes to mind with all this. Jus' sayin'... Doc talk 23:48, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I see less Reign of Terror and more Henny Penny if anything. Regards, — Moe Epsilon 01:20, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'm going to disengage from this forum for good at this point in time. I see nothing being gained from contributing to it further as consensus is not likely and to battle over this lame category is just about played out. For the record, my status = active. If your category stays, congratulations at proving absolutely nothing in two weeks time :P Adios. Regards, — Moe Epsilon 02:00, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep (with caveats) - HOLY SHIT, what a meaningless shitstorm in a quantum sized tea cup, and a completely useless waste of everyone's time. How many unproductive hours have been generated by this clearly reckless speedy of a CFD which was already underway? Just leave it well alone, it will wither and die naturally in its own time, even if it's kept at the 1st hurdle. This reminds me a lot of the equally meaningless Userbox Wars of winter (N hemisphere) 2005 / 2006. Self appointed defenders of the wiki posturing, pontificating and stomping around userspace, imposing their will on hapless victims by removing little coloured boxes. It's all pointless and petty - leave it all alone and it will run its course. (Ironically, many of the aforementioned "stompers" and "defenders" then proceeded to decorate their userpages with little coloured boxes!). This category is in the same mould, ultimately pretty harmless, it will die a natural death. It's all internal wiki politics, gone mad again, by all those in need of self gratification by loads of "look at me" actions, and "listen to me, listen to me, me, me posts". The typical reader of articles, who is likely not a registered user is, after all, our target consumer. They know nothing and care even less about all this petty, puerile, vindictive and utterly meaningless in fighting - give it a rest for fuck's sake. Just make some contributions outside of political space, put your ego's to bed and imagine you are a typical reader who just wants to look something up for information. This stupid little category has no relevance whatsoever in the larger world view. Caveat: It really should be delete. As a user category it really has no utility whatsoever, but this is an IAR response to all the "stompers" and self proclaimed "defenders" I allude to above. Gentlemen (and ladies, though I see none), I raise two fingers as an IAR KEEP --Cactus.man ✍ 12:26, 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]
  • Keep - Hurts nothing and is fun. I wish I had known this existed before so I could join it. I would argue that punishing people who want to create a harmless category is far more divisive than the category itself. Wikipedia is not the thought police[citation needed]. - John Galt ✉ 18:47, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - with the recommendation that the category be renamed with it's equivalent "Wikipedians who are the real Wikipedians". Anyway, whichever way consensus goes, some authoritarian administrator will be along shortly, the discussion will be closed and the category will be deleted. Have you a source, John Galt, for the rather odd claim you just made, that Wikipedia is not the thought police? --Epipelagic (talk) 18:49, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete rather than merge Since this category is clearly an attack, category, delete it. If the people in this grouping want to also join the civility group, that is fine, but merging the two groupings would result in the merged group being a continuation of the attack, with a prettier name. Blackfyr (talk) 19:32, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Not an attack-category at all. A useful category to group a number of Wikipedians dedicated to improving the quality of content available to our readers. Joefromrandb (talk) 01:27, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Direct violation of multiple parts of Wikipedia:Overcategorization/User categories including "Categories that are not-based", "Categories that are jokes/nonsense", and "Categories which group users by advocacy of a position". (And the fact that the position is unclear from the name makes it worse, not better.) This kind of so-called "protest" or "support" or "attention getter", by whatever euphemism, is prohibited by WP:POINT and — since it has already been stated that it is for the purpose of supporting a side in specific cases — it's also pretty close to Wikipedia:Canvassing, whether or not it actually points to the actual discussion pages where the dispute is taking place. The category has absolutely no encyclopedic value. Compare, for example, WP:BJAODN, which was removed long ago, and it had far more connection to actual encyclopedia maintenance than this category could ever have. Wikipedia already has pages for expressing opinions about Wikipedia processes; that's what process is for in the first place. Categories are not forums, and, more to the point, category names are not 80-character talk pages in disguise. I'm not much for merging or moving either: That's kind of a fig leaf; making categories of the "Wikipedians who believe in rescuing live babies from trash compactors but if you were clever like me you'd know what this is really about" class is no more helpful than the direct category under discussion. Users can edit their own user pages to create a userbox or prose instead of polluting the Category namespace; and anything that isn't allowed in on user pages probably isn't allowed as a Category either. --Closeapple (talk) 07:48, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. As per MelanieN above. If Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, would any encyclopedia have this? categories which are about users must all be rather suspect. 91.85.76.177 (talk) 02:05, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, obviously, since that was your hypothesis and Wikipedia does have it. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 03:09, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. This discussion currently runs to 15,317 words, or 96.796 characters. It is probably the most verbose WP:CFD discussion this year.
    That depresses more than any of the content of the discussion: that so many editors are more willing to devote their energies to a meta-discussion about a withdrawn remark from a weeks ago, than to the categorisation of Wikipedia's encyclopedic content. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:41, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • When was it withdrawn? I hadn't seen that. Diff please! --John (talk) 12:54, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      Rephrased to a less blatant personal attack, but not withdrawn.
      BHG, do you have any data or analysis of the use of categories? My guess is that few readers use them.... I understand that you can feel exasperated or irritated or bored, but "depressed"? Kiefer.Wolfowitz 13:21, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment One rule for categories is that they have names that are self-evident. The very fact that to understand this category someone needs to invest a large amount of time and energy into a very acrimonious dispute, means we probably should remove it as some form of attack category that is named euphamistically. Wikipedia is not a social networking sight, and we do not create categories for the sake of making people feel empowered.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:54, 7 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]
  • Comment I have to second BHG in finding it depressing that so many contribute to this discussion and not to others. What is clear is there are lots of editors who will add categories to articles without one mention of how the subject of the article fits in the category in the article. I just wish more people would care to work for following polices on categories.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:08, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    If either of you is depressed, you should get help. Rich Farmbrough noted the dangers of untreated depression recently. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 18:29, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    They say St John's wort is good. Fewer side-effects than the SSRIs too. --John (talk) 18:55, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Sex is good, too. "Side effects" is a tricky one, though. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 11:21, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fairly obvious contradiction in terms, attack. Creators comment (edit summary) was "in protest" btw.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Theda (talk • contribs)
  • Delete This does not aid in collaboration. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 16:20, 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[edit]

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]
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[edit]

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]
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]
  • Delete this is either a joke category or an attempt to be disruptive, and in either case it does not fulfill aiding in encyclopedic collaboration which is the purpose of user categories, so we whould get rid of it.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:10, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete attempt at a joke on my part. at least its not being used as an attack on any editors. I formally request that both categories (I created another one with a similar name) be deleted and that i receive a good fish slapping (or rubber chicken slapping, per monty python). I will restrain myself next time i want to do this. sorry.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 16:17, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Nope, it was a fish... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xCwLirQS2-o
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[edit]

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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2012_October_31&oldid=1136102889"