- User:Keilana/Deleted cabals (edit | [[Talk:User:Keilana/Deleted cabals|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)
The list of deleted cabals can be found on the listed page, that page is not under deletion review. There has been a lot of discussion about these deletions recently, and it seems that the issue should be settled properly. I know it's odd to review one's own deletion, but I feel this is the right course of action to properly gauge community consensus. Keilana|Parlez ici 01:34, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse deletion I'm not seeing any cabals there that shouldn't have been, and should therefore remain, deleted. MBisanz talk 01:50, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I endorse Keilana's deletion. seresin ( ¡? ) 03:36, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Restore and take each to MfD. People keep forgetting that 'cabals' were not deleted, pages were. Untagged pages. Regardless of content, they were haphazardly deleted, with no speedy criteria, and no AfD consensus. These pages were deleted arbitrarily under IAR and each page should get its day in court. the_undertow talk 03:44, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Restore and list at MfD, at least multiple listings by user. Deleted against consensus and out of policy citing IAR is not appropriate. Lara❤Love 03:57, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn deletion (if one likes, of course, list at AfD) per the The undertow, both supra and here, where he happens recently to have, relative to this issue, properly observed, at greater length than he does here, that summary/speedy/IAR-inspired deletion is almost always to be disfavored in situations like this. Joe 04:06, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse deletion. I believe Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Cabals shows consensus, and I thus think that going to MfD would be WP:BURO-ish. dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 07:58, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse deletion The RfC seems to have obtained a wide consensus that the deletion was in order as they served no encyclopaedic purpose. Bureaucracy for bureaucracy's sake helps no-one. Am also in agreement with Mbisanz's and DHMO's comments. Orderinchaos 08:16, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse deletion to end the drama and reinforce the "not MySpace" message, which seems to me to need doing at the moment. Guy (Help!) 09:14, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse deletion per Guy, let's end this now. George The Dragon (talk) 13:37, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Restore and send each to MfD per the_undertow and LaraLove. WaltonOne 14:41, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- restore and list at MfD per Undertow, Lara and nom. I really don't care about these much, but in general essentially harmless pages should get their chance to make a case for inclusion. Furthermore, as long as editors are being productive encyclopedia editors I don't see any compelling reason not to let them have a little fun. Reducing drama is not a compelling argument; the solution to that is for people to stay civil during discussion. JoshuaZ (talk) 15:20, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The merit of editors is not part of any deletion criteria that I know of. Furthermore, it's about the userpages that were deleted, not about your opinion of the contributors. the_undertow talk 17:23, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Deletion criteria were never designed to handle this situation. In this case, and in these circumstances, it's a fair consideration. Orderinchaos 17:46, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- That's incorrect. Userpages are handled at MfD. This is not a unique situation. the_undertow talk 18:02, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn There has already been a MfD [1] on most of them, and the result was speedy keep. I do not see a consensus to delete at either of the AN/I discussions, or any consensus at all at RfC--certainly not enough to justify proceeding via IAR. Personally, I would very much like to see them go, and some other cabals also, but there needs to be actual demonstrated consensus. If some eds. think the consensus has changed in the last month, start individual MfDs. There was considerable support in many places that they should be considered individually. Trying to shortcut process in the presence of dissent in the name of avoiding BURO is counterproductive--it produces more complicated debates than ordinary proceedings would have. DGG (talk) 16:23, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- As has been discussed many times already, the MfD took place without the information necessary to make a decision, and in an atmosphere incredibly hostile to non-groupthink opinions - and in addition was speedy closed after just 2 hours, so in no way demonstrated either the letter or spirit of consensus. Pretty much every rule was ignored in the MfD. Also, doesn't the multiply-endorsed views at RfC (in some cases well over 20) represent a much more constructive consensus than a !voting process on what is quite a complex situation? Orderinchaos 17:42, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- you speak as if the view to delete them all had 20 endorsers, and nobody endorsed anything else. That was not the case. I see 27 editors endorsing the opposite view that these should all be kept. [2]. adding all the endorsements, I see 83 endorsements saying essentially that they should be all kept, 68 all deleted, 64 something else, usually delete some and keep others.--of course this doesnt mean much since many people endorsed more than one view. But just by a count, it looks like the view for deleting them all was in the minority. DGG (talk) 04:28, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse deletion - Maybe it's just from having been on Wikipedia, or maybe just from having been around the internet for awhile, but these days, whenever I hear the word "cabal", even in jest, it sets me on edge. It makes me feel the need to research deeper, and examine more thoroughly the "something". I just think that even if it's a subtle sociological "knock" of elitism, group therapy, or whatever, these are little different than what ended up with Wikipedia:Esperanza. Esperanza was something I was strongly in favour of, at first and even second blush. But when you started to look "deeper", it had distinct sociological issues. Maybe I'm looking deeper at something that isn't necessarily there. But when I consider the smile campaign started by User:Pedia-I, only to discover a sleeper sock account... Well it makes one wonder. And the use of the word "cabal" doesn't help. I'm a big fan of community in Wikipedia. I strongly believe that the strength of our community, inevitably, is a large part of the strength of the growth and development of the encyclopedia. I think humour pages, for the most part, (and presuming that they actually are intended as humour), are usually fine. But "feel good" lists of users... I don't think that that's a good idea. And I'll note that I was aware of one of these, and even allowed myself to be placed as an "observer". To me it seemed to be a place that was socially connecting Wikipedians with an interest in the works of Douglas Adams; a rudimentary beginning which may have developed to a point where they "might" eventually collaborate on such articles. Almost a begining "Work group". People were actively contributing to the page, and so on. But so many of these just aren't. And if one borderline case needs to go because the rest really need to go, so be it. Besides... It's not as if there aren't WikiProjects out there desperately almost begging for Wikipedians to help out... (WP:HHGTTG, for one example.) - jc37 00:29, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not sure if this set of lengthy comments conveyed what I wished to. So please, feel free to ask for clarification. - jc37 00:30, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse deletion Undeleting all these pages and bring them to mfd seems overly bureaucratic to me. I'm not even sure that the participants in these cabals want to rebuild them. The rfc has, independently of his main purpose, confirmed that the consensus is for deletion. What is the point to relist them ? That would be a loose of time. WP:IAR has a purpose among others: don't loose your time with useless bureaucracy, it still applies now. If it had been done "in the rules", we may have gain more time in the end, though I'm not even sure about that, but now let's go ahead. CenariumTalk 02:56, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- If a user wants to review the deletion of a particular cabal, ok, but massive undeletions doesn't seem to be the right course of action here, it's purely for the sake of procedure. And I've the feeling that the majority of the involved users no longer care for these cabals. CenariumTalk 23:13, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- But we have a process for these things. Is there a good reason not to follow it in this case? The only argument I've seen is that the RfC replaces an MfD. But I don't believe notification happened correctly nor that the RfC showed consensus. Hobit (talk) 00:57, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Maybe it was out of normal process, but I'm sure that mass undeletions will accomplish nothing. RyRy5 feels that stuff like that doesn't or shouldn't belong here at Wikipedia., Basketball110 requested deletion of User:Basketball110/UserSpace. What's the purpose to undelete these ? Where is the benefit for the encyclopedia, the people involved ? CenariumTalk 14:47, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn
out-of-processWhen it comes to policy IAR is a great thing, but ignoring process seems like a bad idea unless everyone is on board.- I don't see consensus in the RfC.
- Were all the editors user-space pages were deleted notified of the RfC?
- Were editors of those deleted pages notified of this review?.
- While I have no doubt it's in good faith, bringing something a group of articles that you've already speedied in a way non-admins can't see them (as far as I know) seems like a poor idea at best.
- Per DGG(above), there was just a MfD on some of these less than 3 weeks ago. SNOW keep. Hobit (talk) 00:52, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Thus, barring a good reason to avoid process (and avoiding drama isn't a reason per anything other than perhaps IAR) I'd say bring them to MfD. Hobit (talk) 21:01, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Also, I randomly looked into two of the editors who had userspace pages deleted. Both seemed to be quite active in WP and one felt his cabal would easily fit the new guidelines. He said:
- "Looks good to me, I would have to change maybe one line in the cabal I made to fit this perfectly. When is this debate suppose to end?--Pewwer42" Hobit (talk) 21:10, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note that this user's page (42) was what I was referring to above. - jc37 21:32, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment to nominator - Would you be opposed to the 42 "cabal" being split into a separate nomination? Not that I'm necessarily supporting it being kept (at least under that name), but the rest of these seem rather clear, while that one would seem to be somewhat different. And I'd like the community's thoughts on it separately. - jc37 21:32, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I for one wouldn't have a problem with it being considered separately or even restored. It did fall into a different category to the others, and the user who created it wasn't part of the behaviour management issue which existed with the others. Orderinchaos 17:30, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn - As with "secret pages", an out-of-process deletion would've been successful, but taking the matter to MfD showed no consensus. I believe the same would be true here. IAR is for non-controversial decisions -- cases where policies seem to disallow the course of action that everyone agrees is correct. That's not this. It's not right to do something just because you're sure that you're right and that other people are wrong. That's not what IAR means. Equazcion •✗/C • 00:26, 13 Apr 2008 (UTC)
- Restore - Per Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/Cabals. The community said that the Cabals would be safe, but they were deleted and the administrator who did so ignored the decision. — ComputerGuy890100Talk to meWhat I've done to help Wikipedia 23:29, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse deletion - Ignoring the method by which they were deleted, which is and should be irrelevant, I feel that these should be deleted. (for those who say that consensus should be reached to delete, consensus is being gathered here, is it not?) The members of the useless barrage of so-called "cabals" were all completely identical in nature and having the same members. One might argue that some, such as the "Giant Panda Cabal" and the "Doggy Cabal" worked to improve mainspace. I say, prove it. How much did these cabals actually improve the articles? Look at this. This is the sum of their total contributions to the giant panda article. The dog article was even less contributed-to. The others, such as the "42 cabal," were inherently useless except for perhaps a fun break from mainspace contribution. However, as has been said countless times before, the creators and members were not at all strong content contributors, which is what differentiates this from things like WP:BRC. However, my rationale depends somewhat on the "clones" issue, and so I make a concession: One cabal can be restored, the others, which, as I have said, are practically identical, can not be. One last thing: Look at this. These have found a new home, have they not? Nousernamesleftcopper, not wood 01:22, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Also, why do I care? If that essay was cited here, a destroying of the spirit of the essay itself would ensue: "There are a lot of busybodies on Wikipedia, but before you become one of them, consider this: If a user is contributing well to articles, why do you care how good or bad their userspace pages look?" Are the cabal members strong content contributors? Nousernamesleftcopper, not wood 01:29, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The method is actually all that should be relevant. This isn't MfD, it's deletion review, to explore the possibility of an improper deletion. Improper deletions, which we are here to designate, get sent back to MfD, where the merit of the pages themselves are discussed. Equazcion •✗/C • 01:44, 17 Apr 2008 (UTC)
- Restore & send to MfD Some of these pages weren't even tagged and, therefore, a full discussion did not ensue. WP:IAR should rarely (if ever) be used to justify a deletion of a user page/subpage. — BQZip01 — talk 07:34, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn deletion, and if Keilani feels that the pages should be deleted, let her MFD them. IAR shouldn't be used like that. Stifle (talk) 11:47, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse deletion. Lets not overdose on process, I think the RfC is a pretty firm consensus for these pages being deleted and yet another discussion at MfD seems pretty pointless. Can't see that any content beneficial to the encyclopedia has been lost here. WjBscribe 14:05, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
|
