Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion

Miscellany for deletion (MfD) is a place where Wikipedians decide what should be done with problematic pages in the namespaces which aren't covered by other specialized deletion discussion areas. Items sent here are usually discussed for seven days; then they are either deleted by an administrator or kept, based on community consensus as evident from the discussion, consistent with policy, and with careful judgment of the rough consensus if required.

Filtered versions of the page are available at

• Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion no drafts
• Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion no portals

Information on the process

What may be nominated for deletion here:

• Pages not covered by other XFD venues, including pages in these namespaces: Draft:, Help:, Portal:, MediaWiki:, Wikipedia: (including WikiProjects), User:, TimedText: and the various Talk: namespaces
• Userboxes (regardless of namespace)
• Pages in the File namespace that have a local description page but no local file (if there is a local file, Wikipedia:Files for discussion is the right venue)
• Any other page, that is not in article space, where there is dispute as to the correct XfD venue.

Requests to undelete pages deleted after discussion here, and debate whether discussions here have been properly closed, both take place at Wikipedia:Deletion review, in accordance with Wikipedia's undeletion policy.

Before nominating a page for deletion

Before nominating a page for deletion, please consider these guidelines:

Deleting pages in your own userspace	If you want to have your own userpage or a draft you created deleted, there is no need to list it here; simply tag it with {{db-userreq}} or {{db-u1}}. If you wish to clear your user talk page or sandbox, just blank it.
Duplications in draftspace?	Duplications in draftspace are usually satisfactorily fixed by redirection. If the material is in mainspace, redirect the draft to the article, or a section of the article. If multiple draft pages on the same topic have been created, tag them for merging. See WP:SRE.
Deleting pages in other people's userspace	Consider explaining your concerns on the user's talk page with a personal note or by adding {{subst:Uw-userpage}} ~~~~  to their talk page. This step assumes good faith and civility; often the user is simply unaware of the guidelines, and the page can either be fixed or speedily deleted using {{db-userreq}}. Take care not to bite newcomers – sometimes using the {{subst:welcome}} or {{subst:welcomeg}} template and a pointer to WP:UP would be best first. Problematic userspace material is often addressed by the User pages guidelines including in some cases removal by any user or tagging to clarify the content or to prevent external search engine indexing. (Examples include copies of old, deleted, or disputed material, problematic drafts, promotional material, offensive material, inappropriate links, 'spoofing' of the MediaWiki interface, disruptive HTML, invitations or advocacy of disruption, certain kinds of images and image galleries, etc) If your concern relates to these areas consider these approaches as well, or instead of, deletion. User pages about Wikipedia-related matters by established users usually do not qualify for deletion. Articles that were recently deleted at AfD and then moved to userspace are generally not deleted unless they have lingered in userspace for an extended period of time without improvement to address the concerns that resulted in their deletion at AfD, or their content otherwise violates a global content policy such as our policies on Biographies of living persons that applies to any namespace.
Policies, guidelines and process pages	Established pages and their sub-pages should not be nominated, as such nominations will probably be considered disruptive, and the ensuing discussions closed early. This is not a forum for modifying or revoking policy. Instead consider tagging the policy as {{historical}} or redirecting it somewhere. Proposals still under discussion generally should not be nominated. If you oppose a proposal, discuss it on the policy page's discussion page. Consider being bold and improving the proposal. Modify the proposal so that it gains consensus. Also note that even if a policy fails to gain consensus, it is often useful to retain it as a historical record, for the benefit of future editors.
WikiProjects and their subpages	It is generally preferable that inactive WikiProjects not be deleted, but instead be marked as {{WikiProject status|inactive}}, redirected to a relevant WikiProject, or changed to a task force of a parent WikiProject, unless the WikiProject was incompletely created or is entirely undesirable. WikiProjects that were never very active and which do not have substantial historical discussions (meaning multiple discussions over an extended period of time) on the project talk page should not be tagged as {{historical}}; reserve this tag for historically active projects that have, over time, been replaced by other processes or that contain substantial discussion (as defined above) of the organization of a significant area of Wikipedia. Before deletion of an inactive project with a founder or other formerly active members who are active elsewhere on Wikipedia, consider userfication. Notify the main WikiProject talk page when nominating any WikiProject subpage, in addition to standard notification of the page creator.
Alternatives to deletion	Normal editing that doesn't require the use of any administrator tools, such as merging the page into another page or renaming it, can often resolve problems. Pages in the wrong namespace (e.g. an article in Wikipedia namespace), can simply be moved and then tag the redirect for speedy deletion using {{db-g6|rationale= it's a redirect left after a cross-namespace move}}. Notify the author of the original article of the cross-namespace move.
Alternatives to MfD	Speedy deletion If the page clearly satisfies a "general" or "user" speedy deletion criterion, tag it with the appropriate template. Be sure to read the entire criterion, as some do not apply in the user space.

Please familiarize yourself with the following policies

• Wikipedia:Deletion policy – our deletion policy that describes how we delete things by consensus
• Wikipedia:Deletion process – our guidelines on how to list anything for deletion
• Wikipedia:Guide to deletion – a how-to guide whose protocols on discussion format and shorthands also apply here
• Wikipedia:Project namespace – our guidelines on "Wikipedia" namespace pages
• Wikipedia:User page – our guidelines on user pages and user subpages
• Wikipedia:Userboxes – our guideline on userboxes

How to list pages for deletion

Please check the aforementioned list of deletion discussion areas to check that you are in the right area. Then follow these instructions:

Instructions on listing pages for deletion:

To list a page for deletion, follow this three-step process: (replace PageName with the name of the page, including its namespace, to be deleted) Note: Users must be logged in to complete step II. An unregistered user who wishes to nominate a page for deletion should complete step I and post their reasoning on Wikipedia talk:Miscellany for deletion with a notification to a registered user to complete the process. I. Edit PageName: Enter the following text at the top of the page you are listing for deletion: {{mfd|1={{subst:FULLPAGENAME}}}} for a second or subsequent nomination use {{mfdx|2nd}} or {{mfd|GroupName}} if nominating several similar related pages in an umbrella nomination. Choose a suitable name as GroupName and use it on each page. If the nomination is for a userbox or similarly transcluded page, use {{subst:mfd-inline}} so as to not mess up the formatting for the userbox. Use {{subst:mfd-inline|GroupName}} for a group nomination of several related userboxes or similarly transcluded pages. Please include in the edit summary the phrase Added MfD nomination at [[Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/PageName]] replace PageName with the name of the page that is up for deletion. Please don't mark your edit summary as a minor edit. Check the "Watch this page" box if you would like to follow the page in your watchlist. This may help you to notice if your MfD tag is removed by someone. Save the page II. Create its MfD subpage. The resulting MfD box at the top of the page should contain the link "this page's entry" Click that link to open the page's deletion discussion page. Insert this text: {{subst:mfd2| pg={{subst:#titleparts:{{subst:PAGENAME}}||2}}| text=Reason why the page should be deleted}} ~~~~ replacing Reason... with your reasons why the page should be deleted and sign the page. Do not substitute the pagename, as this will occur automatically. Consider checking "Watch this page" to follow the progress of the debate. Please use an edit summary such as Creating deletion discussion page for [[PageName]] replacing PageName with the name of the page you are proposing for deletion. Save the page. III. Add a line to MfD. Follow   this edit link   and at the top of the list add a line: {{subst:mfd3| pg=PageName}} Put the page's name in place of "PageName". Include the discussion page's name in your edit summary like Added [[Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/PageName]] replacing PageName with the name of the page you are proposing for deletion. Save the page. If nominating a page that has been nominated before, use the page's name in place of "PageName" and add {{priorxfd|PageName}} in the nominated page deletion discussion area to link to the previous discussions and then save the page using an edit summary such as Added [[Template:priorxfd]] to link to prior discussions. If nominating a page from someone else's userspace, notify them on their main talk page. For other pages, while not required, it is generally considered civil to notify the good-faith creator and any main contributors of the miscellany that you are nominating. To find the main contributors, look in the page history or talk page of the page and/or use TDS' Article Contribution Counter or Wikipedia Page History Statistics. For your convenience, you may add {{subst:mfd notice|PageName}} ~~~~ to their talk page in the "edit source" section, replacing PageName with the pagename. Please use an edit summary such as Notice of deletion discussion at [[Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/PageName]] replacing PageName with the name of the nomination page you are proposing for deletion. If the user has not edited in a while, consider sending the user an email to notify them about the MfD if the MfD concerns their user pages. If you are nominating a WikiProject, please post a notice at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Council, in addition to the project's talk page and the talk pages of the founder and active members.

Administrator instructions

XFD backlog

V	Feb	Mar	Apr	May	Total
CfD	0	0	11	35	46
TfD	0	0	0	1	1
MfD
FfD	0	0	0	0	0
RfD	0	0	5	18	23
AfD	0	0	0	3	3

Administrator instructions for closing and relisting discussions can be found here.

Archived discussions

A list of archived discussions can be located at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Archived debates.

Discussions

Active discussions

Pages currently being considered are indexed by the day on which they were first listed. Please place new listings at the top of the section for the current day. If no section for the current day is present, please start a new section.

2008-02-02

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

The result of the debate was does not look like there is any consensus to delete no matter how you interpret it. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 08:03, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Portal:Heraldry/Web resources

Wikipedia is WP:NOT#REPOSITORY nor are we a collection of external links. This is a linkfarm Hu12 (talk) 13:13, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

• Keep clearly useful, most sites are non-commercial.  Grue  14:34, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
• Comment Arguments of WP:USEFUL do not make for exemption of official Wikipedia policy. This conflicts with Wikipedia:NOT#REPOSITORY. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, so many useful things that do not belong in an encyclopedia are excluded. Commercial or not, linkfarms do not belong in an encyclopedia.--Hu12 (talk) 16:15, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
• Keep I can see that this resource could be useful for encyclopedic collaboration as a potential source of references. WP:NOT#REPOSITORY does say that Wikipedia articles are not mere collections of external links or Internet directories but this is not an article. Hut 8.5 18:19, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
• comment, maybe this could be moved to project space say Wikipedia:WikiProject Heraldry and vexillology/Web resources. Inclined to keep as the linked sites are mainly official societies. --Salix alba (talk) 20:32, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
• Keep per Hut 8.5. It's a handy reference tool.--Bedford 22:34, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
• Keep as per Hut 8.5. Wikipedia contains many lists that are useful. This is such a list.--VS ^talk 22:36, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
• Move per Salix alba. Absolutely inappropriate in Portal namespace; per WP:PORTAL, the purpose of portals are "help readers and/or editors navigate their way through Wikipedia topic areas ... portals are useful entry-points to Wikipedia content." (Italics added for emphasis.) Portals are for WP material - not external material. A Project can list these links as useful resources, unless the Project sees no use for them. If not moved, then delete.--12 Noon ^2¢ 02:38, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
• Move per Salix alba - perfectly appropriate as a collaboration tool in WP space, but Portal space isn't the best place for it. JPD (talk) 07:08, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
• Move to WP space Perfectly appropriate as part of a project. Thats what wikiprojects are for. The noms argument only applies to article space. DGG (talk) 08:41, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
• Keep as part of this project (and useful). CarbonLifeForm (talk) 12:21, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
• Keep - clearly is useful to the project. John Carter (talk) 22:44, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
• Keep - It's fine here, does no harm and adds value. Maybe it really should be in Project space, but I don't see that as important, as mentioned above there is a world of difference between Portal space and the mainspace, not so much between Portal and Project space - at least one entire project is still in Portal space (Poland).--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 18:39, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
• Move to WP space, but make sure the link from Portal:Heraldry still works. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 00:22, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
• Move to project space. Don't leave a link on the portal as a direct result of the MFD, allow the WikiProject to make that decision. --Coredesat 01:03, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 08:00, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

User:Sureshmayan

Not sure what the point of this user's userpage is, but it looks like it might be some sort of board where people are invited to submit their names or something like that.

User has been blocked previously for creating pages containing gibberish (the first edit to this page was gibberish) and sometimes containing a table similar to the one now on the page I am listing. Tuvok[^T@lk/_Improve] 11:05, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

I haven't yet looked at this fully, but I did see that there were phone numbers on there which may or may not have been posted with permission, so I blanked the page. Seraphim♥ ^Whipp 14:03, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

• Delete. Above posts say it all. It looks like some sort of board, possibly related to a company. Bart133 ^{(t) (c)} 19:10, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete as per nom.--VS ^talk 22:34, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete and Block per Seraphim Whipp, Wikipedia:BLOCK#Protection prohibits "disclosing personal information (whether or not the information is accurate)" and user is habitually adding this info without confirmed permission. This was added after the block expired [1]. --12 Noon ^2¢ 02:46, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete and block the user (who has been blocked before for the same reason). The personal information should be oversighted. --Coredesat 11:34, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

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

2008-02-01

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

The result of the debate was delete. нмŵוτнτ 20:53, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Singing

Entire WP set of pages (4 of them) were created by one person, almost all edits to those pages were by that same person, and no one has edited them since April of last year.

Full list of pages to be deleted:

• Wikipedia:WikiProject Singing (edit talk links history)
• Wikipedia:WikiProject Singing/Assessment (edit talk links history)
• Wikipedia:WikiProject Singing/Members and Leadership (edit talk links history)
• Wikipedia:WikiProject Singing/Project banner (edit talk links history)

-- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 03:14, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

• Delete - It should also be noted that the creator has been inactive since July. Most of the ground is or could be covered by other extant projects anyway. John Carter (talk) 16:42, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per John Carter, without prejudice. It's admirable to see users taking the initiative to start a WikiProject but in this case the project is going nowhere and other projects seem to cover the topic. Mangojuice^talk 19:21, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
• Keep and tag as inactive and historic. --Bduke (talk) 04:23, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Comment I would agree with you, Bduke, except that there's nothing on the pages worth archiving. In particular, take a look at the "Members and Leadership" page - the user seems to have been on a power trip :) But since there's almost no input from anyone else on the pages, I don't think it's worth keeping them. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 18:09, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was speedy close, wrong forum. For redirects, please refer to Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion (WP:RFD), not MFD nor AFD. - Mtmelendez ^(Talk) 22:18, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Kate Kennedy Klub

Genuine name is "... Club", redirect appears to only exist to give the initials "KKK". Already removed from KKK (disambiguation). Speedy declined by User:Jauerback. —Sladen (talk) 22:05, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

• Comment This is an article, and should go to AfD, not MfD Mayalld (talk) 22:14, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

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

• • Query (the ...Klub is a redirect page, to an article). Should I take User:Jauerback's direction with a grain of salt and renominate for Speedy deletion? —Sladen (talk) 22:22, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

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

The result of the debate was Delete. Acalamari 20:25, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

User:Canada-kawaii/wow!

Unnecessary glorification of troll and indefinitely-blocked user. The page was probably useful to some back in 2005 - early 2006, but now it doesn't seem relevant, and it just seeks to glorify WoW as a myth, when it is merely page-move vandalism from (probably) unrelated individuals carrying it on as a meme. It's probably best that we don't feed the troll this way. However, if there are good reasons for keeping this, then I will withdraw this nomination, but for now it should probably be deleted.

That's not to say that userspace pages like these are bad, it just depends on who and what the purpose of the pages is for. If I was to keep one on, say, User:Artaxiad or Homeopathy editors, would that be useful, or would it be glorification of vandalism/trolling?? --Solumeiras (talk) 15:22, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

• Speedy Delete per CSD G4 as recreation of page deleted by Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Long term abuse/Willy on Wheels 2 Mayalld (talk) 15:48, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
• Do not speedy delete, allow discussion - This is an interesting subject, and it's not in mainspace. WP:CCC and Wikipedia:Editors matter are certain issues to take into account. Frankly I don't see how it can feed trolls.--WaltCip (talk) 18:04, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete (but not speedy). There's a hundred different rationales for wanting to keep or delete this page, but I'm going to go with this one: It isn't needed. Willy hasn't been around in ages, so we don't really need a page explaining how to combat him as a vandal. And we absolutely don't need a page glorifying him. WoW is a footnote, let's move on (and there should be no G4 here. It's been a long time since the last MFD, and the closing admin all but welcomed recreation in his close) --UsaSatsui (talk) 19:14, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete unnecessary (indeed very little use whatsoever). This only serves to glorify a vandal who isn't around anymore. Even if he was, we don't need a page telling you how to combat him - if someone moves pages to nonsense titles they get blocked regardless of who they are. Hut 8.5 20:58, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
• Keep harmless.  Grue  21:31, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
• Speedy delete for all reasons given for deletion of the LTA page. This is textbook G4. Pages like this have the potential of being detrimental to the project, as in the case of various users baiting User:PWeeHurman a while back. Last I checked, we don't feed trolls in any way, shape, or form. --Coredesat 05:38, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete and let's move on.--VS ^talk 22:43, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
• Keep Totally harmless archival page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Canada-kawaii (talk • contribs)
• Delete, but not speedy. Discussion should be allowed, but this page violates Wikipedia:Deny recognition and Wikipedia:Don't feed the trolls. I can't see how keeping an article glorifying a vandal is necessary to the encyclopedia. Also, we don't need a page explaining how to combat him, per Hut 8.5. Bart133 ^{(t) (c)} 16:57, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per Bart133. This was probably not an intentional recreation of the Long-term abuse WOW page, but it is nonetheless an MFD we've had before. Mangojuice^talk 19:20, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
• Keep Part of WP history. DENY is a long-past concern on this one. DGG (talk) 00:31, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
• Comment I certainly agree that it's part of WP history. But the LTA page was deleted. DENY is long past, in the case of the user himself. But describing the methods of a no-longer-active vandal might still encourage wannabe-vandal teenagers to emulate him. After, WoW did get recognition while active. Bart133 ^{(t) (c)} 01:01, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete per CSD G4 (recreation). нмŵוτнτ 20:51, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete item that could actually inspire other vandals. Let's not inspire them to work toward getting their own memorials. Doczilla (talk) 07:53, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was user requested deletion, plus GFDL issues --Salix alba (talk) 20:45, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

User:Solumeiras/Fish out of water comedy film

I'm not sure if keeping this for deletion review purposes is OK, so I've nominated it here. The only reason it was kept was for if the subject came back up on deletion review. Solumeiras (talk) 13:36, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

• Does Solumeiras want it? If not, add {{db-author}}; if he does, this seems harmless and should be kept. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 14:36, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete: It seems to be very, very odd to have "what if" files. Can't we keep such things on our own computers? The point to user space, I'd say, is to make a thing available to the Wikipedia community, but under the purview of the individual. Thus, unless this is a likelihood, it's very peculiar to keep a stash. It's not a criticism to say that storing such things is bad news. Utgard Loki (talk) 19:21, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete, not necessary for deletion review of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fish out of water comedy film, and a violation of the GFDL. Kusma (talk) 05:14, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete, unnecessary and violates GFDL. --Coredesat 05:41, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
• Comment Please can someone copy the history of the article to the talk page whilst the MfD is still ongoing?? --Solumeiras (talk) 10:27, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was speedy close and archive into the withdrawn requests section of WP:BRFA. --Coredesat 11:09, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/PartyBOT

Withdrawl of my bot. Party!^{Talk to me!} 01:30, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

• Speedy close and archive into withdrawn requests. This is not the proper venue. bibliomaniac15 01:34, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
• Speedy Keep - It is the proper venue, practically everything in Project space should come here except redirects and some templates. But it's just not appropriate for deletion. I think the requestor/nominator thinks that because he or she withdrew the request and there wasn't much discussion (and then the requestor blanked the page), it doesn't add anything to the Project and should be deleted. That is not the case.--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 02:24, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

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

2008-01-31

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

The result of the debate was delete. нмŵוτнτ 19:05, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

User:Polsoc

User page of an editor whose most recent of 8 total edits (all to his user page) was in May 2006. Page is simply an article which has been maintained by anons and what appears to be mostly SPAs about a non-notable amateur football club. --Onorem♠Dil 15:17, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

• Delete Appears to be a whole group of WP:OWNers editing a NN page in userspace. This isn't what userspace is for Mayalld (talk) 15:21, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete. The nomination statement is accurate. Jehochman ^Talk 15:21, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
• Question - if it was on my user page, or if the user account was my own rather than this one being my own, I could put anything I wanted on it couldn't I? Or is that not the case... Petepetepetepete (talk) 15:34, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

• Answer - No. More lattitude is permitted in user space, but that doesn't extend to allowing a user to host an general article-like page in user-space Mayalld (talk) 15:55, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

• Delete - it is a very lengthy, though uncited, article. User_talk:Polsoc contains nothing offensive and should stay.--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 02:14, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per nomination and WP:NOT#WEBSPACE. --jonny-mt 05:25, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

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

2008-01-30

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

The result of the debate was Speedy Close/Wrong Forum Redirects belong to WP:RFD. (non-Admin closing) Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 05:32, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:PROMINENCE

redirect created by ScienceApologist to support his arguments at Talk:Rue and Talk:Deadly nightshade. This is an underhanded means to reinforce one's viewpoint. - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 21:50, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Delete. This also goes for Wikipedia:GLOBALWEIGHT‎ and Wikipedia:CITATIONNOTABILITY‎ all of which he originally created as a tactic in reinforce his viewpoints at Talk:Thuja_occidentalis#Why_is_this_a_debate and he has gone on to claim these at points of arguments at Talk:Rue and Talk:Deadly nightshade. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 22:05, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

• Keep redirects are cheap. PouponOnToast (talk) 22:06, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Reply. But creating pages to reinforce your own opinion violates the spirit of WP:NPOV. - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 22:08, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
    • Reply Redirects do not reinforce opinions. They redirect people from one place to another. If you find an example of someone using the existince of a redirectto enforce their POV, please point me at this, as it would be disconcerning behavior. PouponOnToast (talk) 22:17, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
      • People create essays and proposed guidelines all the time to support their arguments. This redirect didn't change the content on WP:NPOV, did it? — Scientizzle 22:28, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
• Keep. What harm does it do? ScienceApologist (talk) 22:14, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
• Move: to UNDUE WEIGHT - which is a slightly different concept. Stephen B Streater (talk) 22:26, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
• Keep I don't even think this is the right fourm--WP:RFD deals with redirects. Furthermore, I see no relevant deletion criteria presented, only a dislike for the content. — Scientizzle 22:28, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
• Keep No reason to remove redirect, it's a link to policy and the name makes sense --DrEightyEight (talk) 22:32, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete since no reason has been put forth why PROMINENCE should redirect to WP:UNDUE, and it is certain that no community consensus has formed about the matter. This redirect seems nonsensical. Why should PROMINENCE redirect to WP:UNDUE? Dlabtot (talk) 22:41, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
  • To quote from the relevant section:

    Note that undue weight can be given in several ways, including, but not limited to, depth of detail, quantity of text, prominence of placement, and juxtaposition of statements.

    If a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents

    (my bolding). I see two instances wherein this can refer to (ahem) prominent points of the WP:UNDUE section... — Scientizzle 22:49, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
    • Yes, the word appears in the section. That doesn't mean it should have ahem undue weight applied to it by making a redirect. Dlabtot (talk) 05:00, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
• Keep Perfectly good redirect to consensus policy; and, yes, in extreme cases, mentioning a POV at all can be Undue Weight. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:52, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
• Keep. Perhaps it will help people to understand the policy a bit better, per morphic resonance. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 00:15, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
• delete Why the capitals--this is really just a way to get a nice rhetorical link to use , which is not a neutral way of doing things. We have rules of abbreviated links, and this does not meet them. One could just as well make redirects from every word in that sentence, from detail, from quantity, from placement, from uxtaposition. DGG (talk) 01:27, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
• Keep. There is no POV to discuss, it makes sense, and it redirects to policy. BTW, the use of policy "to reinforce one's viewpoint" is the most legitimate form of argument one can make here. Whether one agrees with SA's arguments, referring to policy was proper. -- Fyslee / talk 03:07, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
• Keep. I think a bit more good faith toward ScienceApologist would make this a non-issue. ScienceApologist certainly can and should help others understand his interpretation of policy. If he does so with a redirect to emphasize it, I don't think there's any harm. That said, this is absolutely no reason to delete this useful redirect, nor do I see any other legitimate reasons for deletion listed here. --Ronz (talk) 03:37, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was This discussion is clearly tough to close – we have strong feelings on either side, and much conflict has been caused because of it. The overwhelming majority of people who have commented want this page deleted, they feel a process that has no official role here should not have its own page. People commenting feel that there is no special reason for this channel to have its own page. There is only one person who wishes to keep the page, and this is because they feel it must have an official role here. The channel itself cannot be deleted, it’s under the jurisdiction of a third party (Freenode) and users that frequent the channel are not going to go away. I have therefore found that the page should be redirected to Wikipedia:IRC channels and the access request section should be merged into the main Wikipedia:IRC channels page. Further to this, an RfC (Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Wikipedia:IRC channels) should be opened to look at the role that wikimedia IRC channels play within the project to air the community views – this will no doubt help the arbitration committee decide the future role of the channel (as they look set to decide on). Ryan Postlethwaite 01:30, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

User:Ryan Postlethwaite is a chanop at #en-admins. --Joopercoopers (talk) 10:04, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:IRC channels/wikipedia-en-admins (3rd nom)

This is the third nomination of this page. (see First nom, Second nom) The last was closed, to allow Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/IRC to run its course. One month on, the case is still rumbling along with little consensus or conclusion regarding IRC and WEA, other than that the IRC issue will be dealt with separately from the case, at an unknown date by the committee, and that in certain circumstances pages may be 'owned'. This MfD is brought to seek community consensus on a number of matters including deletion of the page itself. It is hoped that this debate, will both clarify matters relating to the page and inform Arbs deliberation regarding it, IRC in general and ownership of pages, in a case which appears to be stalled. I should perhaps note that I believe Arbcom and Jimbo's authority for policy matters should ultimately be derived from community consensus. We might wait for Arbcom's deliberations regarding IRC and WEA, for which they will seek community input; or we may, as I am attempting here, give them initial soundings, that can be fleshed out with a more lengthy RFC.

Arbcom appear to have asserted during the case, that some pages are 'owned' and are in some regards, exempt from the 'edit any page' ethos of wikipedia. Do we approve of pages that can be 'owned' in certain circumstances? What are those circumstances? Does it apply to WP:WEA? If so, does Arbcom now own the page or user:David Gerard? (David appears to believe Arbcom now have ownership.) How should such pages be identified?

There are clearly arguments for the page's retention and deletion. On the deletion side, this obscure page has become the focus of a lot of community drama, ill-feeling and edit-skirmishes. Do we continue to allow a devisive page described in the 2nd nomination as "long-winded irrelevant fluff"? Or, should we keep it and use it as the instruction and policy page for conduct and dispute resolution on the #admin channel? Should it be userfied? Perhaps moved to meta, merged back to WP:IRC, or kept permanently as it is?

One thing should be emphasised; the intention here, is to seek a consensus on the issues and not create a battleground for personalities to take chunks out of each other. What's done is done, Arbs will rule on behaviour - this MfD seeks to move the debate forward.

Joopercoopers (talk) 14:44, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

• Endorse community discussion (ie. endorse the nomination) - I discussed this nomination with Jooperscoopers, and I agree that MfD is as good a venue as any for this discussion. I argued for closing down the 2nd nomination, but I now think that a discussion here may help clear the air, and remove focus from the personalities and behaviour (that is the job of ArbCom), and focus it back on IRC (an issue which needs community input at some stage). I will state my views on the page later. It is time to let fresh opinions be heard. Carcharoth (talk) 15:12, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Keep or Delete WP:WEA and other options

• Delete: According to evidence in the case, the page was not promoted to Wikipedia space without any discussion. It was just placed there. It seems to be a policy page for something that isn't Wikipedia, so that makes it like a manual page for a software program elsewhere. Wholly inappropriate, regardless of the "edit war" there. Utgard Loki (talk) 15:13, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

  I am confused by the double negative in your statement. Can you clarify? Jehochman ^Talk 15:22, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

  Whoops. It was not promoted with discussion. It was promoted without. Amended. Utgard Loki (talk) 17:30, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

• Userify: Move the page into the user space of whoever owns the channel. If and when Wikipedia formally accepts responsibility for the channel, then the page can be moved back to project space. Jehochman ^Talk 15:17, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete the page and the channel and the arbitration and forget the whole thing and move on. None of it is any use as far as I can see. DrKiernan (talk) 15:19, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
• Metafy or userfy pending arb com decision about the status of IRC channel. Note that WEA (the page, not the channel) has been the venue of clashes, not their cause; its fate is in fact a minor question but whatever helps defuse the situation should be done. Kosebamse (talk) 15:43, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete, Userfy, or Metafy It needs to be out of Wikipedia space unless it sanctioned by the community and subject to popular/consensus oversight like other pages and processes. Lawrence § t/e 16:12, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete - It's been nothing but a hamper on the community since it came into existance. Requesting access can be done some other way. SGT Tex (talk) 16:38, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
• Whatever The page is there to inform people about the channel, if it is deleted the channel will continue. Geez, it is just a page describing a way for admins to talk. This is making a problem where there is none, but the page being deleted will not really effect the IRC channel. _(1 == 2)^Until 17:07, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

  True, but that's no one's aim here. I don't imagine that DreamFabIconWrks will go out of business if we delete their advertising page from Wikipedia, but Wikipedia does not advertise. Utgard Loki (talk) 17:31, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

• Having a page that talks about a channel where people go to work on Wikipedia is not advertising. It is directly related to improving and maintaining Wikipedia, so your analogy is not compelling to me. _(1 == 2)^Until 05:41, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

• Delete it. Users can request access on IRC, or on a subsection on the main IRC channel page. Majorly (talk) 17:22, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete. No project-space page is worth the amount of drama this has caused. Its continued presence is clearly harmful to Wikipedia. *** Crotalus *** 17:35, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
• At the very least, keep the page as a place to request access. John Reaves 16:02, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

That can be handled by a page with an appropriate name "/request access" or something. Similarly, complaints can be diverted to arbcom, or where-ever. No need to overload a page with lots of different functions. Carcharoth (talk) 16:06, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I see no reason not to let the current page be used were the result of this be to delete. As far as letting arbcom handle it: 1.) They have no control of IRC whatsoever and 2.) they're already bogged down. John Reaves 17:48, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Sure, but there are people who want an on-wiki place to note problems with IRC and see some action taken. It is very easy to go to IRC and complain about aspects of Wikipedia (or even individual users). Sometimes someone will even do something about what you are complaining about (ie. join a debate, delete a page, or block someone or whatever). The reverse is not true. It is difficult to come from IRC to Wikipedia and make a complaint about what has happened on IRC. In part this is due to differences of culture, process and the basic nature of the two mediums of communication. If there was a noticeboard or somewhere to report IRC abuse, then this might help. It would require chanops or channel loggers to be trusted to be neutral and review the evidence, and to be active on Wikipedia and respond to any concerns appropriately (kicking from the channels and (where the on-wiki identity is known) leaving a warning on the user page on Wikipedia, maybe?). Carcharoth (talk) 08:27, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

• My impression is that the page is being used as a scapegoat for certain users' dislike of IRC or perceptions of its misuse. I remain unconvinced there are any problems with the page itself that extend beyond that. — Carl (CBM · talk) 18:13, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
• Strong Delete A disruptive vehicle for one person's views and perception of IRC, which is against the spirit of Wikipedia. Giano (talk) 18:16, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

  I don't believe the page itself is disruptive. Certainly it has been the scene of disruption, but that's a different thing, as is the general argument that IRC is disruptive. Neither of those is particularly relevant to this MfD. — Carl (CBM · talk) 18:28, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

  Changing to strong delete for the good and wel being of the project. Who is Carl? Giano (talk) 19:38, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

• Delete There is no reason to have the WEA page. The basic IRC page (with instructions for finding it only) is more than enough. ^Avruchtalk 18:17, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
• Merge the access request part and a basic description into WP:IRC, get rid of the rest. I don't see the point in completely getting rid of WP:WEA when we have WP:IRC as well. Mr.Z-man 18:18, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

  That seems reasonable. — Carl (CBM · talk) 18:28, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

  Carl (or anyone) - if you think it would be beneficial to open up another section header here relating to a more general discussion of IRC in the light of Jimbo's fiat and how much control the community should assert, please do. --Joopercoopers (talk) 18:35, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

  I don't - this is an MfD about a particular page on wikipedia. Using an MfD to try to change something about IRC is somewhat parallel to Colbert's crusade to save African elephants by editing articles to say their population has increased. — Carl (CBM · talk) 18:37, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

  Well, quoting Carch below "Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Community sanction noticeboard (second nomination) and Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Esperanza are examples of large MfD discussions" - which effectively changed wikipedia consensus. I'm saying, lets have a discussion - I'm not inciting a 'reality fraud' (Colbert). --Joopercoopers (talk) 18:43, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

• Delete Non-access request parts. MBisanz ^talk 19:00, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
• Transwiki with soft redirect I suggest to meta. The page is useful but Wikipedia community is too divided along quasi-political lines to maintain it adequately. --Tony Sidaway 21:01, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

  FGS, someone just delete it, or we will have Sidaway ranting about for ever, life is too short. Giano (talk) 21:05, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

  It may surprise you to learn that I've seldom discussed the page. --Tony Sidaway 21:13, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

  Really? Sudden attack of verbal constipation? Or was it just entirely to your liking? Giano (talk) 21:30, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

  Beyond a general feeling that such a page has a general utility, I have no strong opinion on the matter. Its creation took me by surprise, frankly. --Tony Sidaway 21:49, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

• Merge access request section into WP:IRC; the rest can go. I note the existence of m:IRC channels which might provide a suitable home; it already has access request data for non-public channels like #wikimedia-admin. Mackensen (talk) 21:08, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

  Note. In case anyone's interested, WikiDashboard provides edit analysis on a page-by-page basis. The top editor for WP:WEA is Giano II (talk · contribs), with 65 edits, followed by Geogre (talk · contribs) and David Gerard (talk · contribs), each with 37, and Ideogram (talk · contribs) with 34. I clock in with 12, probably back from when I processed access requests. I believe these totals include the talk page. Regrettably the data dates from mid-July. Mackensen (talk) 21:36, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

  I grepped the history myself and, of those who have edited the page ten times or more, I got:

  14:Bishonen, 17:Geogre, 19:John Reaves, 21:Duk 32:Majorly 51:David Gerard 61:Giano II

  I don't know why there is a discrepancy between the wikidashboard figures from mid-July and these from 14:42, 30 January 2008 [2], unless some edits have been removed by oversight. In particular, I can find no trace of edits by User:Ideogram in the edit history. --Tony Sidaway 22:49, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

  Ah, I see that you said the wikidashboard figures include the talk page. Mine do not. --Tony Sidaway 22:51, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

• Userify to David Gerard's User space. Even there, he won't strictly own it, but it will make clear the distinction between Wiki{p||m}edia-endorsed venues for discussion versus others, such as this, which the presumptive owner appears to intend to run as a private, albeit Wikipedia-influenced, club. Jouster  (whisper) 22:12, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
• Transwiki to Meta and leave a soft redirect. In theory, a page on that IRC channel can be useful, but it has proven to be nothing but a headache on Wikipedia. I've said from the beginning that it should be moved to Meta. Alternatively, just delete the thing and be done with it, and let's get on with working on the encyclopedia. --Coredesat 23:49, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
• Per mackensen. ~ Riana ⁂ 09:56, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
• Comment: In light of this, I think a transwiki to Meta is a bad, bad idea, as it will effectively allow WP:OWN, according to the page's author. I.e. doing such a thing is to heighten the drama and declare a winner to the owner, as he, at least, seems to perceive all dissent to be at en.wikipedia, and yet the page is purported to be not a meta page but a page about "en.wikipedia.irc." Presumably, meta has its own IRC administrator's channel (I don't know). Utgard Loki (talk) 13:42, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
  • watch this space. —Random832 16:36, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete - I think Mackensen the right idea here, though I don't think a Requests section is even necessary, just provide a list of ops who can provide access at m:IRC channels as is already done for e.g. the checkuser channel. krimpet✽ 17:28, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
• Transwiki to meta - To keep it out of the reach from the WP-mob. _→AzaToth 19:02, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

:responses removed - not the place people --Joopercoopers (talk) 15:09, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

• Delete a factual line on WP:IRC and WP:ADMIN noting that a channel is independently run on freenode for the benefit of admins (and pointing people to a meta or userpage) will suffice. Having the page on en.wikipedia gives the false impression that the channel is, or ought to be, under the control of the en.wp community.--Doc^g 19:20, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
• Merge a bald description with access request details into WP:IRC and then delete. We should not have a whole page in Wikipedia-space causing this amount of trouble for something which the community apparently has no control over. Given the controversy the page has caused I would recommend marking the thing historical in order to preserve old links/diffs but I don't think that would solve the problem. --Hut 8.5 22:06, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
• Userify-ish – Move it to someone's userspace (Jdforrester's or David Gerard's) for the sole purpose of providing details of how to request access to the channel. —Animum (talk) 02:26, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete. It is long past time to put this little vanity page out of our misery. Nandesuka (talk) 02:55, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
• Merge to WP:IRC per Mackensen, with an emphasis on "the rest can go". I agree that m:IRC channels would be a good place to have access details, and that can be linked from WP:IRC, which can also have a subsection for access requests (a low volume in any case). Care will be needed to ensure that similar edit wars and "descrptions" of the channel don't appear at WP:IRC, either now or in the future. Please see the talk page for my proposal for a more complex (though really fairly simple) procedure to excise the page and deposit the evidence at the arbcom case, fix the incoming links, redirect to where-ever, and have the community symbolically wash its hands of this page. That would be my preferred option, but I'm noting here my support for a simple merge to WP:IRC for the benefit of whoever closes this debate. Carcharoth (talk) 06:45, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
• Transwiki to Wikibooks, Meta or Wikisource but here it is a drama magnet. --Solumeiras (talk) 14:49, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete - I've waited some time before commenting here and tried to write the intro in as neutral a way as I could muster, because I believed a community debate on the issues was necessary. I am nonetheless quite partisan. There's a lot of talk above calling for deletion on the basis the page is a drama magnet. My reason for deletion, is the page appears to be like few others on wikipedia - it appears it is, or was secretly owned, and none of us may edit it without the editorial approval of 'still unknown' parties. This is patently wrong and against our longstanding ethos that we are an encylopedia that anyone can edit. That ownership has never been fully declared to the community, and those users who attempted to edit it are currently facing charges at an arbcom case for attempting to add a 'criticism of the channel section'. Discussion on the talk page was met with 'this is not the place for criticism of the channel', and then simple reversion. That the situation became dramatic is hardly surprising. But we have a fundamental problem if we tolerates such pages, the content of which would normally be developed from the compromise and consensus of the community. The page should be deleted because it may never reflect the consensus view in these circumstances. The content at Wikipedia:IRC channels should be amended to include brief notes to reflect the current uncertain quasi-official status of IRC, the ongoing Arbcom deliberations and if necessary, links for obtaining access. --Joopercoopers (talk) 16:17, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
• delete per WP:NOT#WEBHOST - if David Gerard wants to have his own page about the channel, over which he has sole editorial control, then he can host it on his own web server. —Random832 16:30, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
• If we are determined to hold this debate, I support moving it to meta as a sensible compromise. I note to whomever closes this, though, that this is a viper's nest of policy issues - absent a ruling from the arbcom or Jimbo on the question of exactly how official or unofficial the channel is or exactly who runs it, declaring that it must be "hosted in his own webspace" or whatever is an argument that is longer on rhetorical flourish than on substance. Given that the channel appears to exist in a penumbra that goes at least somewhat beyond "wholly unofficial," deletion seems inappropriate. If we must take premature action, at least preserve it on meta, where we are generally looser about some of the issues that people seem to have with this page. Phil Sandifer (talk) 16:42, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment: Absolutely none of that is an argument about keeping. Suppose the channel is totally Wikipedia. Whee! Now we need a policy page that comes from our process. Suppose it is 100% not Wikipedia. Whee! Now we need to divest ourselves of this advertising. Suppose it's half in and half out. Whee! Now we can leave the damned thing out until we have a reason to have it, and then we can figure out what its policies are. It's simple: if it's less than 100% Wikipedia, it has no place here, and if it's 100% Wikipedia, then it has to be derived by the usual means. All the hand wringing about laws and gods and divinities at JamesForester's bar & grill is utterly beside the point for an mfd. Utgard Loki (talk) 19:16, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
    • And absolutely none of that relates to Phil's suggestion to move it meta. Mr.Z-man 00:05, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
    • In fact, it is. Is this a Meta-owned thing? I believe I was speaking of Wikipedia, which includes Meta. If Meta has rules for running IRC and regulates it and deals with its problems, then Meta can have a page. However, there is no reason to move this there unless there is an established case that Meta owns the IRC channels and therefore should have the page. Given the link I cited above, where the author of the page said that he wanted it moved to Meta to keep anyone who disagrees with him from editing it, to do so would be to endorse a violation of WP:OWN and to make a move solely to please individuals, and not for any reasoning. See, also, the comments above that resulted in a storm of controversy, where Aza Toth said that moving to Meta would keep it away from the "mob" at en. That isn't a reason for a move, either, that can be endorsed by MfD. Utgard Loki (talk) 15:46, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
• Is that case still on? I thought they accepted in in two hours, surely they aren't still deliberating? Wow. Anyway, delete from WP space/userify to David's space till a final decision is in. Relata refero (talk) 18:59, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete completely. I really doubt the folks at meta want this toxic waste after we decide to get rid of it. On the other hand explicitly giving them labeled as toxic waste would in some small step help ensure that whatever page is there (and there will be one) shows how little respect Wikipedia editors have for the channel. Eliminating the access request portion will help the channel die off, moving it to WP:IRC would theoretically help limit the degree the folks on the channel are an unrepresentative faction of users, as they appear to be today. Since having an access page at all hasn't prevented the folks in the channel from being an unrepresentative faction, I think we are better off with no mechanism for adding new users. Userfication would make the actual status - a small club controlled by a handful of users - more clear. So I won't object to userfication or transwiki, but think that total deletion with no replacement anywhere is the best possible outcome for en.Wikipedia. For the avoidance of doubt, I also would like to remove all reference to the channel's exitence from WP:IRC. GRBerry 21:32, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
  • I strongly disagree with your opinion over it. You have never been in the channel, and you therefore are not a good person to form an opinion over it. The channel, while it has its bad points, is a very useful forum for admins, and should be advertised as much as possible in order to reduce this silly fear about it. It should definitely not be removed from the main IRC channel page. It is going to exist whether you like it or not. Majorly (talk) 22:06, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
    • The channel is bad for en.Wikipedia. I've seen plenty of evidence of that on en.Wikipedia. And here is the only place that we should look for evidence, because the channel logs are not supposed to be published and when that rule is routinely broken, they can't be reliably published. I'm aware of large numbers of bad decisions made because people were in the channel, and I've never seen evidence of any good decisions made or bad decisions averted because people were in the channel. As far as I can see, the actual evidence is that the channel is 100% harmful to en.Wikipedia. Whether or not I've ever been in the channel (and if you are honest, given the level of sockpuppetry around here, you'll admit that even if you had (which I'm sure you don't) a continuous log since the founding of the channel you wouldn't have a clue whether or not I'd been in the channel), it is the evidence on Wikipedia that matters, and to the best of my knowledge the evidence is uniformly that we would be better off if the channel went silent and stayed that way. GRBerry 19:47, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
• Keep. (1) the channel exists, (2) its name suggests it's a part of wiki-en process, (3) the people who frequent and run the channel are Wikipedia admins, arbitrators, etc. The conclusion must be that the channel is indeed a part of English Wikipedia's process and as such needs to be described and regulated on the English Wikipedia. The page should go iff the channel is completely deormalized. Otherwise, the channel should be properly formalized, and the page should clearly define the authority of the community, the ArbCom, and Jimbo over the channel. Zocky | picture popups 00:26, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

• How long do you think it will be until we get a page that "[...] clearly define[s] the authority of the community, the ArbCom, and Jimbo over the channel"? The page being unclear is what caused this problem. Given the problems the page has caused, isn't it better to move it, or reduce to a single paragraph in WP:IRC, until the limits of authority have been sorted out? Otherwise this whole thing will erupt again - progress of some sort (on the nature of the page, not the channel) needs to be kick-started, and this debate seems to be the best way so far (as opposed to, say, edit warring on the page, or going in circles on the talk page). Carcharoth (talk) 08:34, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

• Doesn't matter The channel is the source of the problems. You can't delete that with an MfD, so the outcome of this will change nothing. Mønobi 03:47, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

  Deleting the page gets rid of the source of the on-wiki aspect of the disruption. The channel is in no ways an "official" channel, and it's pretty evident that it's impossible to solve issues with it on-wiki. --Coredesat 05:43, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

• Query: Is it the information someone wants deleted? Notability is scarcely an issue. I disapprove of accurate information being deleted anywhere at Wikipedia. If pages are to be "owned", may I put in a modest bid for Heracles? --Wetman (talk) 02:14, 3 February 2008 (UTC)--Wetman (talk) 02:14, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
• Merge with WP:IRC per all of the various reasons already stated many...many times above. The channel itself is a very good tool for administrative oversight...especially when quick second opinons are needed. However, there's no reason for this to exist as it is now, the information would be far better consolidated into the more obvious page. Trusilver 03:48, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete. If WMF wants the page to be owned by someone then they need to come out and say so. In the absence of an unambiguous statement from the Foundation, this page will continue to be seen by many in the community as an insult from an arrogant, self-appointed elite. --MediaMangler (talk) 12:10, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete We don't need a page on this IRC channel. WP:IRC says enough about it. Captain panda 22:19, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per Captain Panda and many others. Risker (talk) 01:19, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Page ownership

• Community ultimately decides ownership - I agree with Jooperscoopers, here. The community ultimately makes these decisions. Some pages the community own, some pages the community delegate to committees, like arbcom, or individuals like Raul et al and the FAC/FAR processes. Whoever owns the pages needs to be responsive to community concerns. That hasn't been the case with WP:WEA, and the process by which the page was created and owned was not clear. Start from scratch. Carcharoth (talk) 15:48, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
• Community ultimately decides ownership and should aim at a decision whether WP:WEA is a vanity page, policy page, or whatever else. And again, its fate is of little relevance, the real problem is the consequences of behavior on IRC, and the question of authority over the IRC channel. Kosebamse (talk) 15:59, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
• Community ultimately decides ownership Absolutely. Everything here, from the simplest thing to the Board elections and the employees hired by the Foundation (Sue Gardner, Mike Godwin) to serve and work for the community are ultimately decided by the community either with on-Wiki process or board elections. It's preposterous for any page to be exempt from our core way of doing things. Lawrence § t/e 16:14, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
• Community ultimately decides ownership - Or "no pages are owned". That's why there is a "edit this page" tab at the top. I also echo Lawrence Cohen above. SGT Tex (talk) 16:40, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
• Community determines what is and what is not policy for Wikipedians, and therefore the community decides what may and may not be at Wikipedia name space. There is no private ownership of any Wikipedia page. If a party wishes to make a private page, then that is for user space (and then subject to MfD). Utgard Loki (talk) 17:35, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
• Community decides ownership per foundation issue #3. Ultimately, the community has the responsibility to determine the content of all pages, using the wiki process; sometimes we choose to delegate certain portions of this power to specific individuals or groups, like Arbcom or the Featured Article Director. *** Crotalus *** 17:38, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
• Community decides ownership and so far I believe the community has trended towards the "no pages are owned" policy without exception, since the creation of Wikipedia from what I can tell. MBisanz ^talk 19:00, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
• Community decides ownership per MBisanz above (and I'll take the opportunity to sound a note, although not a strident one, of disagreement with Crotalus). Jouster  (whisper) 22:12, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
• Foundation decides ownership ultimately the foundation owns the wikimedia servers and all the wikipedias. As a non profit foundation they have process they must follow and limitations in what they can and can't do and are mandated to do things like board elections where stakeholders (i.e. the community) elect them. But within that framework, they are ultimately the ones who decide what happens on any wikipedia. They have generally speaking, delegated most of their authority to the community and AFAIK have never conflicted with anything the community has decided by definte consensus. But there is an unwritten? rule IMHO that there are some areas we can never overide, everything on meta obviously and everything on here which should direct to meta e.g. the privacy policy, copyright rules etc. The arbitration committee is a community approved process. But it doesn't change the fact it's foundation directed and its decisions are considered binding. I see no evidence that the community feels we should overide the arbitration committee nor any evidence that the arbitration committee may necessarily decide they will overide any decision we reach (the arbitration committee usually follows community consensus if there is any). But if it does ever happen, the the arbitration committee is the ultimate authority until and unless the foundation decides they've overstepped the mark. The point is not that the the arbitration committee or foundation are likely to overide anything we do but that we should never forget that the foundation ultimately overides the community and the arbitration committee has the authority from the foundation to overide the community if there is ever an absolute need. In other words, I'm not saying that we can't make a decision here, all I'm saying is that if the arbitration committee feel it is necessary to overide us they do have that authority. N.B. In the very unlikely event we really do ever hit upon a constitutional crisis where the foundation decides one thing and the community decides another and the community feel the foundation are violating the framework of their non-profit organisation, then this will have to be decided by a court of law. But this is very, very unlikely to ever happen IMHO. Nil Einne (talk) 07:58, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Community-Foundation issues should always be considered in the light of the relevant US laws (or local laws for the chapters), the Foundation's board elections, and the possibility of forking that is ever-present due to Wikimedia projects freely licensing their core products under the GFDL. I agree though, that in reality the community will usually follow the lead of the Foundation (though not always), and that the Foundation aims to (or should aim to) listen to and respond to the core concerns of the community. Most of the time, the community and the Foundation work in harmony, with the more complex issues usually arising from the above legal, electoral and licensing points. The key point is that the community needs the Foundation to actually run things, and the Foundation needs the community to do the detailed organising, writing and building of the individual projects. Neither can do without listening to and working with the other. Carcharoth (talk) 09:33, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
• Ownership is complicated but is defacto decided by the community Ultimately, Jimbo and the foundation theoretically call the shots here, they own the servers and run the board. However, it is clearly in their interests to move with the consent of the community. Jimbo is not a Godking as often stated, he's more like a constitutional monarch, Royal Assent may theoretically be refused, but in practice never would because we might demand Regicide or revolution. I think that croatus is right above, in certain rare circumstances, it is useful for the community to provide itself with pages or tasks where ownership is delegated and restricted - arbcom decision pages, FAC promotion etc, - this is necessary for the efficient running of the place - however, such exceptions must be clearly announced and enjoy the consent of the community. Pages can never be owned because important people decide they are and 'forget' to tell anyone. --Joopercoopers (talk) 16:41, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Discussion status and venue

• Move to a discussion page. If discussion is meant then a discussion page (perhaps structured, or modeled on RFC) is more useful than MFD probably. The only discussion at MFD of any issue is "do we delete the page, yes/no". None of the other issues stated, usually get touched. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 15:14, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

That's rather procedural - we can surely discuss wherever we choose - is here any worse than anywhere else? I see this as a toe in the water. --Joopercoopers (talk) 15:18, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Community sanction noticeboard (second nomination) and Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Esperanza are examples of large MfD discussions. The idea is (or was) that MfDs get more attention. I'd support moving the debate at some point, but much like Categories for discussion, miscellaneous pages should really have somewhere to be discussed, rather than just have deletion considered. Marking something as "historical" is an oft proposed option at MfD. Carcharoth (talk) 15:21, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

• Postpone - given that the arbcom has indicated that they will take control of these issues, deleting the page is premature. Phil Sandifer (talk) 15:57, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
• Hold discussion here - MfD is as good a venue as any for this discussion. Carcharoth (talk) 16:10, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
• Postpone per Phil _→AzaToth 17:05, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
• Hold discussion here The community doesn't need to technically delay this (again) in deference to Arbcom. If this page(s) doesn't survive this test, Arbcom can always make a controlled, sanctioned page later. Lawrence § t/e 17:39, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
• Discuss here and now: Why wouldn't we? If ArbCom is going to take control, then they can when they do. I don't see why we have to wait for Godot to arrive to determine community consensus. I know that I will die one day, but that doesn't mean I want to get buried now. Utgard Loki (talk) 18:26, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
• Discuss here, but postpone implementation pending an arbcom ruling making it moot. Nearly everything at Wikipedia is discussed on-wiki; indeed, even if you disagree with their decision, surely you find it as heartening as I do that Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Danny/Bureaucrat chat exists as a way to recall and reference the discussions surrounding that contentious RfA, and we are not forced to rely on third-hand IRC or IM logs when we look to (re-)evaluate that decision. Our ability to discuss on-wiki, and, coupled with it, insofar as legally possible and practical, a prohibition on discussing off-wiki, should be one of our core values as a project. We have one of the greatest collaborative tools ever invented, and it lends itself perfectly to ideals of truth, honesty, and openness. Not to use it—and, indeed, not to use it when confronted with an issue where our ire is raised precisely because of the lack of implementation of those ideals—would be counterintuitive, foolhardy, and destructive beyond measure. Jouster  (whisper) 22:12, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
• Table discussion pending outcome of active arbitration case. Durova^Charge! 23:21, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
• Continue discussion here, now. If Arbcom is interested in preempting it, that is their prerogative. But I wouldn't hold your breath; Godot has been gone an awfully long time. Nandesuka (talk) 02:59, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
• discuss here - but won't the people who disagree not vote, if we're asking, at the MFD, whether it should be discussed at the MFD? —Random832 16:27, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Good point Random :-), this section was created to initially host FT2 objection - if eveyone had piled into here in the first couple of days, it would be clear this wasn't the forum for a debate, it's rather moot now. --Joopercoopers (talk) 16:46, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

• discuss here convene an RFC after arb case closes Let's hope some of the viewpoints voiced here might be useful to the arbs in their deliberations - but we need a full debate regarding IRC in the future. --Joopercoopers (talk) 16:46, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Other issues

• After reading this page, the Talk pages and community-editable pages over at the RFAr, and some portions of the involved parties' Talk pages, I'm torn as to whether to declare we have too many administrators and policy wonks, or not nearly enough. Either way, I want to take an opportunity to endorse arbitrary GodKing fiat, even if it goes against my views of what should be done here. It'd be nice to move on (and to condense my Watchlist by an order of magnitude). Jouster  (whisper) 22:16, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Cute reference, fond memories of that cartoon. I sometimes wish for a little bit of fiat to end the craziness, but what if it goes the wrong way? (Whichever way is wrong...) ^Avruchtalk 22:53, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

by definition, the way it goes is right. DGG (talk) 04:00, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Exactly. If you still think there is an absolutely "right" answer at this point, you haven't been paying enough attention to the levels of hyperbole, paranoia, trolling, assumption of bad faith, accusations of cronyism and cabalism, baiting, citing of logical fallacies, incivility, process and policy wonkery, and just plain asshole-ish-ness that have characterized the arguments of people on both sides of this case (and yes, I know that constitutes an attack, but it's not a personal attack, it's an attack on how they're editing, and I'm just telling it like it is for the betterment of the Project, anyway). I just want a fiat to end this process so we can all move on. How many bytes of debate has this whole situation generated, and how many are in an average featured article? I know my watchlist is so full of edits related to the RFAr that my editing of articles and level of vandal-fighting has slacked off, and I doubt I'm the only one (I still haven't had an opportunity to use this shiny new "rollback" button, dammit!). Ah, well. At least I can tell people I got yelled at by Jimbo now. Jouster  (whisper) 06:48, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

When Jimbo says something, its very rarely the end of the drama, it generally tends to get worse after that. Mr.Z-man 18:23, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I don't think there is an answer that everyone will agree is right. That was sort of my point, I guess I wasn't clear. Its always the issue with governance by fiat - there is no right way, there is only the way. Thats why its generally better if we can figure stuff out alone, because when we ask Daddy to intervene everyone loses. ^Avruchtalk 19:19, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Channel ownership

• Community does not decide ownership, this is not a question for discussion. The IRC channel is obtained through Freenode. Freenode deals with free content projects, not with userbases and contributors. The existence of the channel thus exists because of contact between the Foundation and Freenode. Unless the WMF explicitly delegates control of the channel to the community, it is simply factually wrong to suggest that the community has control over the channel. They don't, as a basic matter of fact. At best the community could come to agree that they want to ask the Foundation to cede some control over the channel to them, but that is not something that can be done on a MfD. As long as the channel has a Foundation relationship, though, it is not meaningful to say that the community can set the policy for the channel. Phil Sandifer (talk) 16:46, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

I think the ownership in question is of 'pages' not IRC - that's a separate issue, feel free to start a new section if you want to discuss that. regards --Joopercoopers (talk) 16:48, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

If IRC is under Foundation control then the community does not have the authority to set policy on it. One may as well demand that the en community be able to create and maintain a policy page for the Foundation Wiki. Phil Sandifer (talk) 16:51, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

If that's the case, the community may decide it wants an admin channel it can set policy on and so may create one - where there's a will there's a way. I'm pretty unconvinced by 'this is just impossible' arguments. I think your point is pretty moot giving jimbo's fiat though really - he thinks (and always did apparently) that he and Arbcom may have authority over the channel - if the channel owners aren't ok with that, perhaps we will have to look at another channel. --Joopercoopers (talk) 17:02, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Such a channel could not be created via Freenode, by my understanding. And so this is a very, very theoretical proposition. Phil Sandifer (talk) 17:10, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

In a section about 'page ownership' :-) Joopercoopers (talk) 17:11, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Phil, you have missed the point. You are talking about the channel. We are talking about the page on en-wiki describing the channel. This debate is (or should be) limited to issues of page ownership and when it is acceptable to have pages describing off-wiki processes, and whether such pages can be 'owned' (and if so, when). That is an issue that en-Wikipedia is fully entitled to debate, and which has nothing to do with Freenode. Please, by all means create a section called "channel ownership", and move your comment and this thread there, but don't muddy the waters in this section titled "page ownership". Carcharoth (talk) 08:46, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

If the channel is controlled by James and David, and if the channel has a non-incidental relationship with the project then the page describing how the channel works is, ultimately, in control of the people who control how the channel works. That does not mean they have sole authority to edit it, but it does mean that they have the right to go "Ummm, no, that's just not true" and be listened to. Phil Sandifer (talk) 23:11, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

• Freenode deals with free content projects, not with userbases and contributors. - The contributors are the project, and freenode certainly does allow community-driven projects. Moreover, the foundation explicitly[3] does not have any involvement in the channels that exist now, and even if it did, freenode allows unofficial channels, starting with "##" rather than a single "#". And no-one said the new channel had to be on freenode. —Random832 20:56, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
  • The contributors are not the project. It's a nice slogan, but it has no relationship with the truth. Phil Sandifer (talk) 23:09, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

• If tomorrow all contributors leave, where's the project? It's not a slogan, Sandifer, it's the damned truth, whether you like it or not. In fact, it's the only truth that really matters on this project. The sooner you deal with the fact that you can't shut the actual contributors up, just by commanding them to shut up, the better off you'll be. 24.182.64.206 (talk) 00:17, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

• If tomorrow the WMF shuts down and takes away the webservers, where's the project? The project is not the community. It is not unrelated to the community, but it is not the community. Phil Sandifer (talk) 00:58, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

• I would guess that someone, somewhere, would take a database dump of Wikipedia (there would probably be a good case, legally, under the GFDL, for forcing the WMF to provide an up-to-date database dump version) and, as is their right, restart Wikipedia. Only they would have to call it something different. And use a different logo. They could even use different policies to those the Foundation use. See here. As I've said elsewhere, the community needs the Foundation to get certain things done, and the Foundation needs a community to get certain things done. The Foundation has the alternative of getting a new community to edit the encyclopedia (and other projects), Nupedia is a good example of an attempt to use a different community. Citizendium is a more recent example. The community has the option of joining a different project, or setting up a competing project. The stuff that is truly free in all this is the content. At some point in the future, some encylopedia (or whatever it is called then) will inherit the work of many of these different models and projects, because at the end of the day all the Foundations and Editing Communities in the world are just a means to that end. Carcharoth (talk) 02:54, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

• And that would result in a project. But that project would not be this project. This project is more than just the community. Phil Sandifer (talk) 04:14, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

• My point is that it is easier for the community to migrate, than it is for the Foundation to find a new community. Though having said that, the turnover of Wikipedia editors suggests that communities can be built and destroyed quite rapidly. Instances of migrations of communities are fairly common. Look at what happened to USENET and BBS and internet forums in general. Carcharoth (talk) 05:18, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
• Fortunately, it also turns out there's no shortage of those with self-inflated egos willing to hang out on an IRC channel telling themselves how cool they are. So whichever way we go, everyone is replaceable. Nandesuka (talk) 07:19, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

• If phil's point about the relationship between the foundation and freenode being the only one that matters, I think we need to get rid of the official irc program all together. if the community does not have a substantial say in how something related to en.wikipeida is run, it's not part of en.wikipeidia and should not be a) discussed here as if it does (the page should be deleted), and b) no action or decision can be taken based on 'consusus discussion' on irc. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 22:57, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
  • The community has a substantial say. But so far they haven't said anything. They've just howled in generic rage without reference to, well, any actual objections or reason. Phil Sandifer (talk) 23:09, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
  • (e/c)b) no action or decision can be taken based on 'consusus discussion' on irc - I think its generally agreed upon both on wiki and on IRC (where doing things "per IRC" is a running joke) that doing things using IRC discussion as a substitute for on-wiki consensus is a Very Bad Idea. Mr.Z-man 00:21, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Surely the simple and obvious fact than an owned page is contrary to the fundamental spirit and foundations of Wikipedia is enough to have this contraversial, troublesome and divisive page deleted. Giano (talk) 19:38, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

The idea that the community is not the project is simply wrong. The community creates all content. The community elects and had final say over who sits on the Board. The Board grants special positions on the board itself, such as Jimbo's. The Board decides who to hire, like Sue Gardner, Mike Godwin, and Cary Bass. As the community has it in their power to completely scrub the board with a simple election or two, and in turn scrub all paid employees or any business relationships, the community is the project. It's absurd to claim otherwise. Lawrence § t/e 19:58, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Closing and continuing discussions

Please see here for a comment on the MfD part of the closure. I don't want to say too much more there, in case it prejudices any decision. What I do want to say here is that the non-MfD parts of the discussion should probably be continued or archived somewhere else. Any ideas for suitable venues to continue/archive the sections above? Or should they be allowed to continue here for a bit? Carcharoth (talk) 00:59, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

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

2008-01-29

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

The result of the debate was Redirect, feel free to edit to new target if old style is desired. — xaosflux ^Talk 03:34, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Template:User WikiProject Golfers

Project has been redirected to WikiProject Golf, this template duplicates the function of Template:Wikiproject Golf-Userbox. DrKiernan (talk) 13:45, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

• I don't disagree with you, but template discussions belong at WP:TFD, not here. --jonny-mt 16:12, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
  • See WP:TFD "Userboxes: List at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion, regardless of what namespace they reside in." DrKiernan (talk) 08:36, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
    • Right! I wasn't paying attention, thanks for catching that DrKiernan! Ironically, I was part of that discussion at WT:TFD, and made the changes to the TFD page based on the discussion - essentially that function not namespace should determine WP:XFD jurisdiction. I tried to make the same change here and got reverted, so I just left it. Since I made the earlier close, I'll abstain from this discussion, but I concur that it should happen here. We have been getting a lot of TFD and RFD "wrong forum" nominations lately and I saw the template namespace and the refer to TFD comment and jumped the gun.--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 14:59, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
      • And I didn't check--seems that particular change was made fairly recently, so it's good to know. With regard to the userbox, I would suggest redirect to Template:Wikiproject Golf-Userbox. Although whatlinkshere doesn't exactly show an overabundance of transclusions, a redirect will save the additional hassle of having to go back and change all the instances that do exist. --jonny-mt 05:22, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
• Redirect to Template:Wikiproject Golf-Userbox. нмŵוτнτ 20:46, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. нмŵוτнτ 19:01, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Various userspace forks by User:Homy

Several homeopathy-related userspace articles. User hasn't edited in over a year, and the pages may well work out to POV forks of the current articles. They were showing up in Category:Homeopathy until quite recently, and, somewhat worryingly, when I was checking that I had got them all, I found Wikipedia:WikiProject_Spam/LinkSearch/Angelfire.com, which seems to say they're getting linked - maybe not. Still, this seems a fairly standard clean-up deletion.

List:

• User:Homy/classical homeopathy
• User:Homy/Hompath
• User:Homy/homeopathy
• User:Homy/relativity

Of these, all but the last are more-or-less the same article, and are also pretty much a slightly modified two-year old version of the Homeopathy article.

Adam Cuerden ^talk 09:14, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

• Keep: I like and appreciate these articles. A lot of time, wisdom, and NPOV references are within them. It is good to have these articles as a record of what was said about homeopathy before the anti-homeopathy editors began to hijack the article. Adam, have you written to its author and to the various others who have contributed to it? Dana Ullman ^Talk 15:05, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

• Delete: Whether the articles are wondrous or dreadful, if they are not appropriate for article space, then user pages are not appropriate for hosting them. Wikipedia is not a free web host. It is not Gmail, and it is not MySpace. There are many, many options for the private publication of material that cannot be held as articles, and, with no attention in that much time, it's stale as well (i.e. there isn't a realistic hope that homeopathy articles will suddenly bloom in the desert with this content). Utgard Loki (talk) 15:24, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete Not appropriate, and appear to be dead content forks. If anyone wants them they can achieve them themselves - there's been plenty of opportunity. Agree with Adam's points and Utgard above. --RDOlivaw (talk) 15:27, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete without prejudice. Generally great latitude is given for userspace content, particularly if the user intends on eventually rolling out the content, or parts thereof, into article space. Nevertheless, this material is quite clearly stale, as (in particular) the homeopathy article has been completely rewritten since this user content was established. I vote to delete, but should the user return to Wikipedia wishing to have it restored, then the request should immediately be granted. Silly rabbit (talk) 16:12, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete User can request undelete if they ever become active again, and they are woefuly out of date and very poor quality --DrEightyEight (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 17:37, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete without prejudice to restoring these upon user request. —Whig (talk) 01:47, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete and move to close. Baegis (talk) 09:18, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per Utgard Loki and others; WP is not a webhost. --Orange Mike | Talk 14:11, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
• Blank Other editors will still be able to access them, but outside links will not; if some editors find them useful, they should still be reachable. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 14:34, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete Septentrionalis has a fair point, but these are so old I consider this unlikely. (left message on user talk page) --Salix alba (talk) 21:03, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was keep. нмŵוτнτ 18:57, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Portal:Information technology

While this portal may be pretty, it's never updated and has no active maintainers. Repeated requests for signs of life go unanswered. Please delete all related subpages. /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 07:23, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

• Keep - per {{sofixit}} and there was a response to one of your posts from a user saying he or she checked it often. It hasn't been added to in any substantive way since early to mid 2006 but then, it's a Portal. It has sufficient scope and contains appropriate and useful information. Consider telling some of the projects that cover this topic that the Portal is going unused. Merger might be appropriate if there are other good portals to merge with, but this is very well organized (yes, I know they used a template, but at least they filled it out) for an inactive portal (besides portals don't have members so it's unfortunate but common for them to be unmaintained).--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 15:32, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
• Keep - per Doug.. It might not be being altered much, but it contains useful links. That is what Portals are for. --Bduke (talk) 22:04, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
• Keep inactivity is not a reason for deletion. LaMenta3 (talk) 03:32, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
• Keep per above, with the additional note that once-viable portals and projects that are no longer active should be tagged with {{Historical}}, not brought to MfD. --jonny-mt 16:14, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

  {{Historical}} is not for portals, rather, for Wikipedia: pages that are relevant to maintaining and keeping Wikipedia in order. Portals exist primarily for readers, and so this kind of tag is inappropriate. Spebi 23:37, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

  Then I stand corrected about the use of {{Historical}} for portals. Thank you for the information. --jonny-mt 05:38, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

• Keep per all above, and suggest closing this discussion. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 18:49, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
• Keep per the above. John Carter (talk) 22:22, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
• Keep - it is an appropriate portal with a clear and useful scope. Its only problem is that it is undermaintained, and I don't see that as a good enough reason to delete it. - Neparis (talk) 01:58, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was keep for now. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 23:58, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

User:Renandchi3

User page is obviously being used for promotional or advertising purposes - WP:SPAM. User has already been warned and blocked temporarily. Wisdom89 (talk) 05:56, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

• Delete, speedy under G11 if possible. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 07:07, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
• Weak keep - The page has been blanked already, which to me is enough for the time being. It's worth noting, too, that the user only has a 24-hour block (Luna Santin has the patience of a saint) and, judging by their contributions thus far, may very well be permanently blocked by the time this MfD has run its course. In that case, any deletion arguments would be moot, as any questionable content on their user page would most likely be replaced by {{Indefblockeduser}}. On the other hand, if my string of assumptions proves to be false, it's safe to say that a deleted userpage would only serve to unnecessarily upset the user in question, particularly if they were actively trying to be good. --jonny-mt 07:26, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
• Temp. keep It is probably unfair to nominate while the user is blocked, so I would want to at least let the user opine. Otherwise, since the block was only for 24 hours, that means an admin is giving this user the benefit of the doubt (or enough rope), so I would say let's sit tight for the time being. In spite of the user's atrocious short-lived history, and this request on their talk page (suggesting WP is not for them and they will probably be moving elsewhere soon), I still would not want to delete during his block. Let's see how it goes and maybe bring it back in a week or so (but if he is indef blocked, then speedy it). I think it would have been easier for me to just say "what jonny-mt said".--12 Noon ^2¢ 09:11, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
• Keep status quo as a blanked page. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 18:50, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

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

2008-01-28

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

The result of the debate was braaaaaiiinns. >Radiant< 23:50, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Zombies

Basically the same thing as Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:What Were They Thinking?... a seething attack on a group of editors opposed to the author which he's trying to get away with by saying "but it's just a joke!". This sanitizing edit reveals some of what the intent is here. I just don't really see what we gain from effectively having an essay where people can say "I think you're nothing but a mindless zombie! Ha ha! Why aren't you laughing?". --W.marsh 00:06, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

A sincere question from someone unfamiliar with the background of this essay: is the writer criticizing an actual specific group of editors? Or is he criticizing mentalities that he characterizes as groupthink? It looks to me like the latter, and not being familiar with the circumstances that led to this essay, I'm not sure if criticizing groupthink mentalities is out-of-bounds. Of course, if it's the former that's a different matter. I do apologize for being unable to make the determination just from the essay. --JayHenry (talk) 00:25, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

It would seem the diff above shows at least one specific group he wrote the essay about. --W.marsh 00:31, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Forgive me for continuing with this, but I still don't see to which identifiable group of editors the essay refers. User:ScienceApologist has not, to my knowledge, had a conflict with a single, identifiable group of administrators, but rather has had a lengthy series of frustrations, more against a mentality that's developed (here characterized as groupthink), than against anyone in specific. I can't consider this essay a personal attack, if I can't identify any persons being attacked. --JayHenry (talk) 00:38, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

JayHenry: see WP:CABAL - Revolving Bugbear 00:52, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

• Keep. If I had not seen that diff, there is no way I would have concluded that he was talking about any specific group. And since the sentence is not even there anymore, why delete it? -Amarkov moo! 00:29, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
• Comment as the person who made the "sanitizing edit". The original version of the essay was much, much more critical. In the beginning the author's malcontent was relatively transparent. I urged the author to tone it down a bit, and he did. Groupthink clearly is a problem on Wikipedia, with or without the incident that the author was referring to. However, with the reference to the specific user in there it appeared to serve as a platform to bolster one side in an ongoing dispute, which I thought was vastly inappropriate. - Revolving Bugbear 00:35, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
  • I don't think the solution to groupthink (or supposed groupthink) is to call people names. That really just entrenches people more deeply in their groups. --W.marsh 00:37, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
    • I didn't say it was. I just said that, although this essay clearly appears targeted, there is a larger issue. I don't know how to solve it, but this probably isn't it. - Revolving Bugbear 00:51, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
• Keep. To repeat what Amarkov said, I had no idea that this was supposed to be aimed at anyone in particular. Perhaps that is because I am unfamiliar with the author and the dispute being discussed above. Seraphim ^Whipp 01:00, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
  • I don't think it's okay to have a prefab insult page to use in discussions just because it's not instantly clear who was originally being insulted. I'd feel insulted if someone used this attack on me in a discussion. --W.marsh 01:07, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
    • But there's no evidence that anyone has used this as an attack in a discussion. It's just a funny essay. Seraphim ^Whipp 01:15, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
• Weak Keep Whilst I can appreciate W.marsh's concern that this could be used against people, for instance in an AfD discussion. I believe it would probably say more about the editor using it than the editor on the receiving end. If it is kept then it's only a matter of time before ConZom or similar is used in deletion discussions. Would that really be so terrible? Surely we're not so thin-skinned that this piece of harmless flummery offends us. RMHED (talk) 02:10, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
• Don't dekete, I just checked Google and added several sources. Gracenotes^T § 03:10, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
• Keep - This is not particularly seething, inflammatory, or soapboxy. We talk about angry mastadons and joke about secret organizations without any ill effects--considering that this is basically a humorous (okay, not that humorous) restatement of WP:CCC I see no reason why it can't stay. --jonny-mt 07:34, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
• Keep provided that no specific individual editors are named. This essay is actually a remarkably perceptive and accurate representation of many editors' mindsets, and an essential reminder to everyone that consensus can change. Consensus is one of the most misused terms on Wikipedia; the Wikipedia idea of "consensus" has long since departed from the ordinary meaning of the word, which is "most people agreeing on an issue", something which very rarely occurs here. While consensus decision-making may work fine for a small community, it is completely useless for a vast one like the English Wikipedia; the lack of structure and formality means that small groups can effectively take control of processes and disregard the wider views of the community. What we need is to move over to a democratic form of decision-making in which every editor's voice counts. (I know I've gone somewhat off-topic here, but it needs to be said.) Walton^One 11:37, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
• Keep - Knee-slappingly clever and unfortunately quite true.--WaltCip (talk) 15:26, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Even as jokes, I am less than happy with metaphors like "Editors must load their rifles with the best ammo they can find and fire as quickly and accurately as they can, directly towards the brain of the consensus zombie" DGG (talk) 20:15, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, I await your equally funny and less offensive rephrasal.--WaltCip (talk) 20:48, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

The words are wiki-linked to mean different things: "Editors must [[Logical argument|load their rifles]] with the best [[logic|ammo]] they can find and [[debate|fire]] as quickly and accurately as they can, directly towards the brain of the consensus zombie"Seraphim ^Whipp 13:32, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

• If this gets deleted, or even if it doesn't, the essence of expression in the first sentence absolutely needs to find a home in some other guideline. There are some absolutely stupid discussions that get brought up over and over again (how do you spell yogurt?) that have three year long arguments, and the only defense of the stupid thing is "because that's the way it always has been." It isn't a good reason for anything. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)
• Keep - as is, this is a marvel of satire. Ursasapien (talk) 06:45, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
• Keep, this is brilliant. Per Walton, jonny-mt If DGG is unhappy with the rifle metaphor, I remind him that this is a Wiki and he can edit it. KillerChihuahua^?!? 08:32, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
• Keep Though I would like to see the Howto section expanded with ACTUAL suggestions to combat groupthink. (I personally need all the ammo I can against these "Delete, non-notable" zombies over here...) -- RoninBK _{T C} 17:34, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
• Brains! Brains. Brains? Brains. (Seriously, though, hard tot think this is meant to attack specific people, and it's clearly meant as humour.) --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 15:24, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Right below this comment it's being used to call me specifically a zombie... so it's clear how this is being used to attack specific people. --W.marsh 02:45, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
    • Okay, I'm officially very stupid, blind, or both. Exactly where? Care to elaborate exactly why you find this page (or labelling) problematic? I see you seem to believe (due to the removed content) that this appears to be some sort of part of a grander mud-slinging scheme. Try to understand this from my point of view: I'm not familiar with every bit of drama and conflict that goes on here, to me, this is Just Another Humour Page, one page among many. If I think really hard, I may even remember that there may have been some Arbcom case or something, but I forgot what the heck that was about. You see, I don't care about Arbcom cases unless there's significant repercussions concerning the whole community.
      Here's an analogy: Two countries are at war, and the conflict isn't beautiful at all to them; a random observer in the nearby third neutral country just looks in the horizon and says "oo, there's some pretty cool fighter planes flying out there". To others, it's a bloody war; to other observers, it's purty fighter planes glittering in the sunset. In its present state, the page is not offensive.
      That said, in WWTD? case, I was leaning toward userfication to keep the page in its "intended" course and avoid conflict (one user's opinions on specific admins are okay, but the page could have turned into a mess if others edited it); here, I'd lean on keeping this in project space to keep this page humorous, just to stomp on the fact that the page originally had content you deemed offensive. As you point out, an editor who wasn't the original creator removed a potentially problematic phrase. Hence, it can be kept non-specific if it's in project space. The archetype of editor the user the page describes clearly isn't unique. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 12:53, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
      • Right below, someone is saying "this Miscellany for deletion may be a consensus zombie"... I took that as a comment about me. --W.marsh 13:56, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
        • I understand where you're coming from but at the same time, it's the person who uses an insult, not the insult itself that is at fault or in this case, essay. Seraphim ^Whipp 14:33, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
        • I think it's a hell of a lot more generous than being called a WP:DICK (not saying that you are, by the way). I'm surprised you even take offense to that benign comment. If that's the case, I shudder to think of what a personal attack would do. Plus, Seraphim is right: if a person wrongly invokes WP:AFD to speedy delete a clearly notable article, you wouldn't delete WP:AFD as a result.--WaltCip (talk) 14:37, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
          • The comment was not indented for YOU it was indented this Miscellany for deletion the Miscellany for deletion don't care about the comment, however if anyone part of this Miscellany for deletion is takes offense I am sorry that was not my indentation --Looktothis (talk) 15:13, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
          • I'm just sick of this attitude that it's okay to call your opponents names so long as you can somehow couch it in tradition or humor or something. I don't think being called a zombie or a dick or whatever is funny for anyone... I am all for getting rid of things, like this page, which help reduce discourse to name-calling. I see no evidence this kind of stuff helps with the various disputes we have on Wikipedia, it only wides the gaps between the various "us" and "them" camps every time we have some page saying people in the other camps are zombies or whatever. --W.marsh 15:53, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
            • This is something you'll want to take up at the Village Pump, not at an isolated MFD.--WaltCip (talk) 16:40, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
              • I need a policy change to request people not call me a zombie any more? --W.marsh 18:47, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
                • Weighing the consensus, yes, I believe you do, if that's your gripe.--WaltCip (talk) 20:04, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
• KEEP "This page contains material which is kept because it is considered humorous. It is not intended, nor should it be used, for any remotely serious purpose." --Looktothis (talk) 22:32, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

come to think this Miscellany for deletion may be a consensus zombie read this:

A consensus zombie (or "tea drinker") is a person who doesn't actually work towards building consensus, but stands in the way of building consensus by invoking policy and past consensus, as an appeal to tradition, and supports an irrational false compromise in content disputes rather than working towards a rational consensus.

ha ha ha --Looktothis (talk) 22:38, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

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

2008-01-27

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

The result of the debate was delete. --Coredesat 11:22, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject iPhone

A WikiProject dedicated to the maintenance of a single article. Its single contributor, GranTurismo2 (talk · contribs) (now MyMii (talk · contribs)), has made no contributions to Wikipedia since 2007-11-24. — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 00:47, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

• Speedy delete, P1 → A1 Fails all aspects of Wikipedia:Portal guidelines, and contains little or no context. --12 Noon ^2¢ 01:18, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
  • This is neither a portal nor an article, though, so neither of those speedy criteria apply. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 02:45, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
    • Please pardon my intermittent aptitudinal ineffectiveness.--12 Noon ^2¢ 15:01, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete as entirely undesirable. The scope is too narrow to justify a WikiProject (or even a taskforce) and therefore is unsustainable, as evidenced by the lack of participants. --12 Noon ^2¢ 15:01, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete - This is not a speedy candidate, but it is a one member single-article project. No one else has edited (not counting removals of images, tagging for mfd, etc.) The really unfortunate thing is that the talk page starts with a post "I need HELP" and the user_talk page is full of Help requests; if someone had seen this back when the user was still editing this enthusiasm could have been redirected to improving the article, working on other projects, etc. I only hope the editor doesn't come back, find the Project deleted and decide to leave. Suggest a personal note from the closer assuming we delete this, or I can post one if I notice it close.--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 05:05, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Note: the "I need HELP" comment was on the template, which was just deleted, so it no longer appears on the talk page. --12 Noon ^2¢ 15:01, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete. Seeing as this project didn't really get too far, and would be better covered by other more broad projects (Mac project, etc), it doesn't do harm to delete it now. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 09:30, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete - It seems to be an abortive, if well-intentioned, attempt to coordinate coverage of the iPhone. As pointed out above, though, that purpose is better served by existing projects, and the additional fact that this didn't get very far means there's no need to tag it as historical. On a related note, I've tagged {{WikiprojectiPhone}}, a template transcluded on the project talk page, for speedy deletion as a test page. --jonny-mt 11:32, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete - per the above. Project does not have sufficient scope to justify its existence, and other projects already cover the material in question. John Carter (talk) 01:01, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete Too narrow. MBisanz ^talk 06:55, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete - The subpage is serving no other purpuse besides serving as a attack page against another editor, Wikipedia is not a soap box and we certainly don't need more drama, no attempt to use this information in a venue to resolve the conflict between both users has been made since its creation two weeks ago, so as it stands its only serving to inflame the situation further, as it has become apparent by the ongoing edit war there. A perpetual sub page is not the place to keep track of user conduct the place for that is WP:RFC. - Caribbean~H.Q. 01:56, 28 January 2008. (UTC)

User:VigilancePrime/Doc:SqueakBox

attack page from user with a long history of using his personal space to attack others. See here for full details of the attack. He can go do it somewhere else. Thanks, SqueakBox 20:37, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

• Keep-Quite frankly, I just don't see how accurate quotations (supported by diffs, no less) constitute personal attacks.--Fyre2387 ^{(talk • contribs)} 21:42, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
• Whatever the nature of these attacks, SqueakBox clearly has a conflict of interest in proposing this page for deletion. I note also that he removed all the real material, leaving only an introduction. I suggest that its removal be undone while this discussion continues. --Bduke (talk) 21:54, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
• Removinfg the mfd notice the mfd notice merely proves my point. Wikipedia is not here to launch attacks on other users. How would you feel if it was you being trolled. VP claims I am obsessed with him but I don't set up attack pages against him. And for the record his issue with me concerns Girllover not my alleged bad behaviour22:24, 27 January 2008 (UTC). Thanks, SqueakBox
• Strong keep. The piece is neutrally worded and consists almost exclusively of literal quotes with links. Author is doing a good work because many people have been driven off from specific articles, topics, or even all Wikipedia by SqueakBox, and even many of those he hasn't driven off would like to see admin intervention taken against his behavior. Also, as author asserts, admins often need vast evidence before they can step in, so it's a good idea to conveniently collect it all in one place. Another user has also announced building a similar record of blocks and bans regarding users that had been involved in disagreements with SqueakBox that ended with their being blocked or banned. --TlatoSMD (talk) 22:30, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

• Vote-stacking and content disputes. TlatoSMD (talk · contribs) (aka Tlatosmd (talk · contribs)) was canvassed by VigilancePrime, and is in the midst of extensive content disputes with SqueakBox. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 00:59, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

• Keep and speedy close MfD I have recently opened a dialogue with both users, in an attempt to (while sealing the rift seems a near impossible task) at least end the arguement, as it lends itself to an uncomfortable wiki-enviroment for both SqueakBox, VigilancePrime and every other user who comes across it. My take on this particular aspect of it is that both users have been uncivil in the past, and both have plenty of evidence against the other. It is a case of mutually assured destruction as far as I can see, with each out doing the other. Hopefully with polite negotiation and dialogue both users and disentangle themselves cleanly, both coming out happy. I personally believe that both users agreeing to wipe a slate clean is the first step, and it would be better, I feel, if Viliglance voluntairly had the page deleted, in conjunction with SqueakBox reducing his level of hostility in an equal measure, rather than Squeakbox take "the lead" with this MfD. SGGH ^speak! 22:50, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

• Comment. This is not some personal issue between SqueakBox and VigilancePrime. See my vote above. --TlatoSMD (talk) 22:54, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

• • Perhaps not, but from what I can see, there is a particular battle between the two, and both are equally hostile and aggressive. SGGH ^speak! 23:10, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
• Keep, as freedom of speech issue, with no apparent policy vio. Whilst I'm drawn to opine that the page has far more than a grain of truth in its assertions, this really shouldn't matter. GrooV (talk) 22:59, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

• Content disputes. GroomingVictim (talk · contribs) has an iron in this fire, extensive content disputes with the user targeted by the attack page. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 01:04, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

• Delete with prejudice. all the pro-pedophile activists come swarming like bees to honey. How much longer will wikipedia allow this stalking of a good editor by pedophiles anfd their supporters? Pol64 (talk) 23:13, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
• Comment. And you have evidence for this? Are you saying I am pedophile supporter? The above comment is appalling. This is exactly the problem. Any criticism of the anti-pedophile editors is taken as being in bad faith and that does tend to put off new editors, and does lead to NPOV issues. --Bduke (talk) 23:19, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Don't you mean criticisms of Pro pedophile activists. And isn't it appalling that editors support that stance. We don't see editors supporting murder or racism so why do we see them supporting Child sexual abuse. The day an editor says Jews and Niggers should be edit4ed they get indef blocked but to these people who onl;y want to justify abusing children we treat them as if they were arguing about fish and chips. And wikipedia's reputation as a site that supports pedophilia grows daily. Thanks, SqueakBox 23:33, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
    • Yes, it is appalling that editors support pro pedophile activists, but it is not what I was talking about. I was referring to the comments by Pol64 that assumes that everyone, including myself, who did not go 100% in support of your nomination, are pro pedophile activists. It is simply untrue and he had no evidence for it. It was not assuming good faith in those people, and it does not help your case or the encyclopedia. --Bduke (talk) 00:17, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete - attack page. If the user wants to collect quotations and diffs in preparation for mediation/RfC/RfArb, then he may do so on his personal computer. This really qualifies as a speedy delete, imo. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:55, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
• Comment (Abstain from Voting) - No harm in direct quotations. If a user does not want his own words to haunt him, he should not voice them. If someone chooses to be disruptive and uncivil, he should be accountable for his behavior. Thus, in a way, SqueakBox willingly provided the fodder for this page, and there's nothing really against policy here. Still, some may legitimately interpret this as trolling. However, SqueakBox has been known for following the edits of other users himself, so I guess (to put it bluntly and not at all to support this assertion) "what goes around comes around." ~ Homologeo (talk) 00:08, 28 January 2008 (UTC) (Per request above, I would like to state that I was informed about this MfD via my Talk Page, but the decision to comment was my own) ~ Homologeo (talk) 01:15, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
• Keep - This is not an attack page; it makes no decisions or judgments about the comments themselves, merely puts them on display in a concise manner. There is no reason for this page NOT to exist, and quite frankly, looking at the diffs on display, it's a wonder such a page hasn't surfaced sooner. Clearly something needs to be done about SqueakBox's conduct. DEVS EX MACINA _pray 00:35, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete attack page. VigilancePrime's publicly visible page accuses Squeakbox of personal attacks and other serious offenses in the text and in the section headings. He claims he's doing that to format diffs for a planned "admin intervention" request. If that is really his purpose, he can easily do so off-wiki in a text document. When he's ready with his case, he can file an RFC/U or AN/I report. Maintained on-wiki without engaging in due process, it's an attack page pure and simple. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 01:00, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
• Keep - I have not known SqueakBox for long enough, but I have seen similar opinions expressed about him. If they are allowed to make these opinions, why not all in one place. I think that the person feels that they are under attack and would like to improve the place by collecting evidence against a possibly disruptive person. This is fine by me, and at least does not violate bad faith or civility. Karla Lindstrom 01:02, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
• Speedy close Seems more like a personal dispute that should be settled via a user conduct RfC or ANI rather than an MfD. Suggest speedy close and take it to a more appropriate forum. --12 Noon ^2¢ 01:08, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
• A second comment the page has been blanked again. I have continually warned that content must be maintained until an MfD is over, however I am reluctant to warn again as I am being accused of a lack of neutrality, not to mention accusations of being in favour of pedophiles.... SGGH ^speak! 01:09, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Mfd debates do not trump BLP (mine) or PA, we need to stick with policy while the debate continues. pol is right that you need to know take responsibiliy for the PAs. It is my reputaion on and opff wikipedia that is at stake here. Thanks, SqueakBox 01:12, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

• It doesn't affect this MfD to have the attack page blanked, because the initial MfD nomination has a link to the unblanked page that editors can view to decide their votes. Considering that it is an attack page, it is in accord with policy for it to be blanked on sight by any editor; though it should be deleted through this process so the history is gone too. (I have never edited or blanked that page, this is just a comment here). --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 01:18, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

• Comment. I'd like to point out not only the disruptive behavior of repeated blanking conflicting with established MfD process, but also the flaming language and accusations those voting for delete have put forth even here. I think these ought to teach a thing or two about about these people's general lack of civility and their often-seen vandalizing behavior, which is exactly why the nominated piece is so crucially needed. This is exactly how SqueakBox, Jack, and Pol have edit-warred in the past even with admins that they have treated with just as flaming language, in spite of official admin warnings. Hadn't it been for unpopular topics, all three editors would not only have received temporary blocks for their repeated violation of WP:3RR, they would have certainly been banned long ago. --TlatoSMD (talk) 01:29, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

• Eh? I've never been warned by an admin for anything, since there's been nothing to warn me about. I've never used "flaming language" towards anyone. And, I've never exceeded 3RR. There's nothing at all disruptive to this process for the page to be blanked, because the link to the unblanked page is at the top of this page for all to see. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 01:47, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

• Comment. Not being familiar with the MfD process and the policies that prevail on User space, I'll abstain from !voting too. I can't help to find it ironic, though, that a wikipedian who will, as it seems, routinely shower his fellow editors with epithets carrying such heavy social stigmas as "pedophile" or "pro-pedophile activist" should consider his own reputation endangered by a collection of edits of his. Bikasuishin (talk) 01:54, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

comment — Page has been protected from editing until the conclusion of this mfd. editors should know better than to start edit warring. — DarkFalls ^talk 01:52, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was tag historical. --Coredesat 11:21, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Deletion of all fair use images of living people

obsolete essay _→AzaToth 16:29, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

• Obsolete, but its contains the debate, and should be saved for historical purposes. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 18:00, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
• Just mark it historical and move on. There's no need to delete it, because keeping it will not harm the project. — Gavia immer (talk) 18:57, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
• Tag as historical - It's actually kind of interesting and might make a proper essay if someone wants to rewrite it. Given that it does no harm as is, though, I see no reason to delete it. --jonny-mt 11:35, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
• Keep I agree, it's interesting and should be kept for historical reference to an issue that remains controversial today. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 18:53, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete both User:Idrees Majeed and User:Thatbrownguy69. --Coredesat 11:19, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

User:Idrees Majeed

Per Wikipedia:User page, this is inappropriate userpage content. User has no other contributions to Wikipedia. An article on the same subject was created in the mainspace but has been deleted for not meeting notability guidelines. I left a message on his talkpage on the 15th of January, but he has not replied or edited since. BelovedFreak 16:01, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

• Delete, recreation of deleted content, WP:NOT self-promotion tool/MySpace. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 21:05, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
• Interestingly enough, this account seems to belong to User:Thatbrownguy69, as evidenced by the presence of similar material on his page and the upload history of Image:Idreesdrunk.jpeg. However, since this account has most of the edits, I think it's safe to say that the user uses this one as the primary account, which means that your notice was directed to the right place. So I'll say delete for this one per WP:NOT#MYSPACE and suggest adding User:Thatbrownguy69 to this discussion. --jonny-mt 11:48, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

  Comment- User:Thatbrownguy69 has been notified of this discussion. --BelovedFreak 21:02, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

  I actually meant adding the user page as a candidate for deletion, but notification works, too :) It might be best to give him the running time of this MfD to participate/clean up his pages and then nominate that one afterwards if there's no improvement. --jonny-mt 03:51, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

  Ah, ok... see what you mean. I have left a message at User talk:Thatbrownguy69 about that user page.--BelovedFreak 17:15, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was speedy delete, author requests deletion. Pegasus «C¦T» 11:58, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Scottish football

This project seems to be inactive. It could be started as a WP:FOOTY task force. _{WEBURIEDOURSECRETSINTHEGARDEN}^{play it cool.} 11:39, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

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

2008-01-26

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

The result of the debate was delete. --Coredesat 11:08, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

User:Owainbut/software.css

This page is using Template:WPFS which is the assessment template for the WikiProject Free Software, with parameters set to GA and Top importance, causing the page to show up in those categories in the project's summary table. The page itself looks like patent nonsense and has no actual relation to the project. The user has apparently retired the account. Please note the page is protected so I posted the mfd notice on its talk page. Ham Pastrami (talk) 04:44, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

• Delete. That's not even CSS, and whatever it is doesn't help the project. Add to that the fact that the user seems to have left, and... well, delete. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 04:52, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
• Comment Technically, it is not protected per se. Since it is a user's personal setting, others do not have permission to edit it (click on the "view source" tab and note the displayed message above the edit box [4]). I have no opinion on deletion since I am rather ignorant of how these pages work. Also, where is this "summary table" you speak of located so we can see what damage is being done. --12 Noon ^2¢ 05:16, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
  • The link is Wikipedia:WikiProject Free Software. The assessment table is right under the TOC. Click on either the FA or Top links and you will see that page listed in the category. Ham Pastrami (talk) 05:41, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
    • Ah, you mean Category:FA-Class Free software articles and Category:Top-importance Free software articles. I do not think that is a big enough reason to delete the user's settings, even if he is "retired". Maybe the offending text can be removed from the page instead ({{WPFS|class=fa|importance=top}}), but like I said, I am rather ignorant of the functionality of the nominated page, so I will leave it to other, more technically-inclined, users to opine. --12 Noon ^2¢ 06:14, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete The user left in May 2007, and so this is useless. _{WEBURIEDOURSECRETSINTHEGARDEN}^{play it cool.} 11:46, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
• Speedy delete as CSD G1 (nonsense). *** Crotalus *** 12:36, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
• Speedy delete as patent nonsense. That's not CSS, it's just using the file extension as a poor man's page protection. It appears to be a draft of ... something ... that isn't going to be finished now. — Gavia immer (talk) 18:52, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete This user has retired months ago and it is patent nonsense. It is likely not going to be edited, so delete. PrestonH 22:08, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete. The user blanked the page, anyway. нмŵוτнτ 20:16, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

User:DanielTAR/DanielTAR2

Its a userpage documenting some odd event, and its defintly agaist WP:userpage(fixx that if its broken) BonesBrigade 04:04, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

• In looking at the user's contributions, it is obvious this is related the "The Amazing Race". If the user can show that this is somekind of sandbox for the WP article once the season is over, then that would be an acceptable reason to keep. BUT, if the user cannot, or does not, show this within the timeframe of this MfD, then by default I opine delete. --12 Noon ^2¢ 04:38, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Did a little more digging. It appears the user has done this before: Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:DanielTAR – this is why his user page is a protected title [5]. It appears the user recreated this page and tried to hide it "Hiding this page from public view first". By looking at his archived talk [6] it looks like the user has recreated this page over and over. This would lead me to opine Speedy delete, G4 and suggest warning the user that gaming the system again will result in a block. --12 Noon ^2¢ 04:55, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete (CSD:G4 - recreation of deleted material) and warn - per User:12 Noon.--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 18:03, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete as recreated material per CSD G4, and warn user. Thanks to 12 Noon for the diffs. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:16, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
• Note: I am not speedy deleting this page because it appears not to be the same material (not even substantially similar) as User:DanielTAR, but if this is deleted then User:DanielTAR/DanielTAR should also go as well (non-redirect, clone of this page). Pegasus «C¦T» 12:06, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Convenience links for closing sysop: Special:Contributions/DanielTAR, Moves log, Special:Prefixindex/User:DanielTAR/. Pegasus «C¦T» 12:10, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
• Speedy delete per 12 Noon. --BelovedFreak 15:51, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
• Alright, just delete it. I wanted it only to screenshot and use it for reference since wikipedia's coding and presentation is the most comprehensive for this. But apparently everyone is so anal about having to delete such pages and whilst other similar pages are just left alone. DanielTAR (talk) 10:15, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

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

Closed discussions

For archived Miscellany for deletion debates see the MfD Archives.

2008-01-25

• Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Adam Cuerden 2 (nom. withdrawn)

2008-01-24

• Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Shatilov Konstantin (keep)
• Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Userspace original research on organized crime (User:Alexbonaro subpages, delete all)

2008-01-22

• Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User talk:Martinphi/diffs1 (keep}
• Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:VOJOA (speedy delete, G11)
• Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Endlessdan/pizza (speedy close)
• Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Princess Beatrice of the United Kingdom (disambiguation) (speedy close, wrong forum)

2008-01-21

• Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gay Nigger Association of America (6th nomination) (speedy keep}
• Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Zappernapper/Bulba (delete)
• Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Jhelum (speedy delete, P1→A1)
• Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Mythdon/user info (speedy delete, U1)
• Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Ronnalyn anuyo (delete)
• Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Bobby fletcher (keep)
• Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject Spam/LinkReports/autonoc.com (keep)