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

The result of the discussion was snow no consensus - this issue will not be resolved here. Rationale per Keeper. Best not to take this too seriously, it's silly one way or the other. Xavexgoem (talk) 04:15, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

[edit] User:Peter Damian/Established Editors

We don't need an exclusive group for users who've edited for a long time. All this says is that users who have edited for a longer time are somehow "better" and will get more support just because of this. There are already enough "cliques" on Wikipedia. Meetare Shappy ^Cunkelfratz! 15:40, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

• Comment I have not yet made up my mind about this. But I will say a close reading of the page seems to indicate that this has to do with more than just being established, or a good article writer. "Editors who have been blocked on the grounds of incivility and who, in the view of the Association are making a positive contribution to the content of the encyclopedia, will be defended, and efforts will be made to have them unblocked." seems to stand out to me to be a secondary(perhaps primary?) objective of the group not related to quality of editing or level of establishment. Chillum 15:46, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
• Comment well we don't need an exclusive group of teenagers who hang about in chatrooms either. Peter Damian (talk) 15:47, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

• Which is why we don't... –Juliancolton | ^Talk 15:49, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
• What are you talking about Peter? Chillum 15:49, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

• Delete - per nom, per precedent established by Esperanza amongst others. //roux   15:50, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Further comment - after thinking on it more, the emphasis on blocked editors and admins who have unblocked vocal editors indicates that this is not about content-building, and is in fact much more about some sort of political posturing. Given the history of the originator of this association, and the interesting nomination list, this strikes me much more as largely a group of people who feel they were blocked unfairly, giving them some sort of a club where they can reassure each other of how right they were. In fact, Peter Damian's recent commentary on the talk page of the association indicates that this is solely a reaction to some perceived IRC cabal and is built out of his antipathy towards the same.
  • While I may have loved Moni3's comment below for sheer hilarity, I don't feel an MfD on this is stifling discussion in any way; indeed, the very nature of an MfD is that discussion is required. The history of groups like this on Wikipedia shows the same trajectory each time... good intentions (though even that is highly arguable here) which quickly mutate into some unwieldy beast that has to be put down. See the [MFD for Esperanza] for more info, as well as WP:AMA. Even more basic than the above concerns, though, is a very simple one: Wikipedia is--or strives to be--largely inclusive and (theoretically) non-hierarchical. In theory, any user can contribute in any way to any page hosted on WMF servers. We do not have exclusive clubs. Yes, there are admins--openly voted by the entire community at large. Ditto crats, ArbCom, etc. The difference between those groups and this--and why I find Nev1's comment so very perplexing--is that they are necessary to the functioning of the project. This sort of club is not only not necessary to the project, it is actively antithetical to the inclusive nature of Wikipedia. It is a walled garden where admittance is predicated on the approval of those already within, and the comment about block voting at RFAs is beyond troubling. //roux   16:22, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

• While I live to please, of course, I am not convinced that discussion of this concept is not being silenced. Are there policies that state discussion is not allowed to take place in user space? How does it facilitate discourse to shut one down, such as in this case, and redirect it to the Village Pump? Reiterating that I do not yet support the concept behind this idea and cannot yet visualize what it is supposed to do, if my concerns about a specific issue were grave enough and I sensed other editors shared my concerns, where is the fault in inviting editors who have expressed such concern to have a conversation about how to solve the problematic issues we have all faced? In my view, that would clarify what we have faced as individuals, and focuses our discussion on what we should do about it. The user space is clearly not hidden and anyone can read it and participate, but I would anticipate a much broader and less structured conversation if it was posed first at the Village Pump. The alternative, of course, is to hold it off of Wiki, and that works even less. --Moni3 (talk) 17:04, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

• The problem as I see it was that this wasn't a discussion; something like "I think this is a good idea, what do other people think?" would have made it one. Instead, this has simply been presented as a fait accompli, "Okay, I'm doing this, here it is" is not a discussion. //roux   17:26, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

• I agree with you that it was not started as a discussion, but it is certainly a discussion now. It appears that the editors who were invited or nominated or whathaveyou, are some of the most anti-cabal and anti-establishment editors on Wikipedia. Ha. Wikipedia's scruffy little hippies. I see this as an attempt to address the problems that content editors face that are facilitated by policy and guidelines. Its immediate merit is getting the attention of the editors who have been invited to talk about it, be creative, and offer some options for resolving these issues. Those who are wary of another cabal very well should be, but your (plural) participation in helping to solve some of these problems would be much more helpful than such a reactionary response to shut down the discussion of it and refute that these problems exist when by the very existence of the proposed writers' guild and this MfD attest that they are very real. --Moni3 (talk) 17:38, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

• Keep "We don't need an exclusive group for users who've edited for a long time". Ok... so what about administrators? I may not support this idea, but it has merit in adding checks and balances to the currently one-sided balance of power while firmly supports administrators. Nominating this for deletion is the wrong course of action, people are allowed to discuss the matter and while I am unconvinced about whether it can work I see no reason to delete it. Nev1 (talk) 15:51, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Balance of power? Is this a Wiki-political thing? What power does this group think it has? RxS (talk) 15:53, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

This is not a rhetorical question. RxS (talk) 16:12, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Neither is it a relevant or sensible one, as the group does not exist. --Malleus Fatuorum 21:19, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

• Delete in the view of the Association? No need for splinter groups that hold different standards for what an established editor is. RxS (talk) 15:51, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
• We may not need an exclusive group of anyone, but this AfD is silencing discussion. Balls to that. That's my vote. --Moni3 (talk) 15:52, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
  • We don't interact much, but sometimes I see your comments and it makes me want to have your babies. You fucking rock. //roux   15:58, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
• Comment On what grounds is this placed for deletion WP:IDONTLIKEIT is not a criteria for deletion. BigDunc^Talk 15:53, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
• Keep for now while we work out what to make of this. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 15:55, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
• Keep at the moment. Sam, I thought better of you than this. This is as blatant a "someone said something I disagree with" MfD as I've ever seen. If/when people have discussed it and rejected the proposal, then it can be marked historical. Please withdraw this. – iridescent 15:55, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
  • As far as I can tell, no one is proposing it, just implementing it on their own. Mr.Z-man 16:00, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
• Stong delete. Wholly undermines the core policy of uniform expectations of civility, and only exists to elevate its member's interest over the Project's. There are no vested contributors. MickMacNee (talk) 15:56, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
• Delete if we want to save time, otherwise just allow it to fail on its own This recent requirement for the club added by Peter: "A willingness to defend the rights of content contributors. This might include block voting in RfA, or at least participation in RfA" seems to indicate this association attempts to work in a manner inconsistent with our ideals of consensus. A whole group that is required to vote the same way on issues, now that is a cabal. Another issue is that Peter has referred to this group as a "separate association" from Wikipedia, if that is true then they should host if through their own web provider not through Wikipedia. Wikipedia is for things that are about Wikipedia, not separate from it. Chillum 15:59, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
  • If you read this properly, you will see that these were suggestions. The criteria, and the objectives and purpose would be decided by those nominees who accepted nomination. It is not up to me. Peter Damian (talk) 16:03, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

• People can click on the link and judge for themselves. I think the motives here are clear, this is an attempt to form a lobby group. Chillum 16:21, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

• No different to the way FlyingToaster was elected. But in this case, election would be determining by solid contribution record, not being a 'nice person'.Peter Damian (talk) 16:43, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

• Keep as my comment above I dont like it is not a reason to delete. BigDunc^Talk 16:00, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
• Keep. The nomination is premature. This project should be given a chance to grow into something useful. If the project is not successful, it can be nominated for deletion later, however, to start an MFD just a few days after the project was created is wrong, in my opinion. Ruslik_Zero 16:00, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
• Keep It doesn’t matter if I agree with the views expressed by that page, nor whether I want to be a member. It is a page in userspace, not articlespace, and generous latitude is afforded in such cases. If someone disagrees with the notion of a special club for established users, then speak out against it. The proper response to bad speech is better speech, not trying to silence someone else. Greg L (talk) 16:04, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
• Keep Way too early for MFD, smacks of "I don't like it". If it turns out to be something beneficial to wiki, great. If not, then, like many other schemes, it'll die out. Minkythecat (talk) 16:06, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
• So its a self-appointed group, with no control whatsoever by the community (except for nominations?) which has a stated purpose to support each other in content disputes (where consistent with the principles of the association, which aren't really stated, except to support each other) and to support its members when they get blocked? So its like the AMA, except it isn't open to everyone and its stated goal is to resolve disputes by supporting one side of a content dispute. Rather than at least making an effort to help new users like AMA was supposed to, this would openly hostile to them by guaranteeing that if they got into a dispute with a member of the association, that the new user would quickly be subjugated. The stated goals of the proposal include supporting each other in disputes and block voting. It clearly would be in contradiction of at least one of the criteria for canvassing (partisan audience) and possibly the others as well. Why would we want to give that a chance to succeed? Mr.Z-man 16:07, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

• Very good Z-man, you endeavored to employ better speech to respond to what you perceive as bad speech. Debate is all about standing up, speaking your mind, and trying to rally others to your point of view. I think that is a much better way of behaving than running to the city council, hoping they will censor someone else’s right to speak up in their own userspace. Greg L (talk) 16:20, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

• What on earth are you talking about? I don't see this as a way to speak up. If Peter wants to do that, he's free to write an essay. A group designed to support each other in content disputes and block-vote on RFAs goes much farther than "speaking up." Mr.Z-man 16:31, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

• Then shame him by pointing out how what he is proposing is “naughty” in your view. Like BigDunc wrote, “WP:IDONTLIKEIT is not a criteria for deletion.” Greg L (talk) 16:43, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

• I attempted to do that in my 6 sentence comment above. If all you saw was "I don't like it" I don't know what I can do to change your mind about that. Mr.Z-man 16:48, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

• Quoting you: support each other in content disputes. Come on… this occurs all the time because of groups e-mailing each other. I note that you have e-mail. Do you use it only to order pizza? This is about a proposal that threatens the status quo. Too bad; it is a legitimate proposal for the community to consider. If, as you say, it is a bad idea, then it won’t gain traction in the community. There is no need to be threatened by the existence of the discussion. Greg L (talk) 17:00, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

• So because people do it, we should start encouraging it? Actually, except for mailing lists, I can't remember the last time I got or sent a Wikipedia related email. As far as I can tell, this is not a proposal, this is something Peter plans to do whether the community likes it or not. Mr.Z-man 19:40, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

• No, it's a discussion about the merits of such a group. This MfD is to delete the discussion. --Moni3 (talk) 16:11, 13 June 2009 (UTC).

• Quoting you, Z-man: So because people do it, we should start encouraging it? You are missing the point. This is an MfD. You are debating the wisdom of allowing a club of like-minded individuals to self-organize. You speak of “encouraging it.” But what we are supposed to be discussing here, is the propriety of deleting a subpage in userspace. Great latitude is allowed on user pages and according to Wikipedia policy, user pages are provided to “facilitate communication among participants in its project to build an encyclopedia.” I am quite done here debating you. This whole MfD is an utter disgrace. P.S. I see that Moni3 beat me to the punch with a more pithy response that says the same thing. Well done. Greg L (talk) 20:13, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

• Perhaps a {{rejected}} tag would be better Moni? Chillum 16:13, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

• Perhaps when editors have had more than 2 hours to hold a discussion. I just got up and saw this on my talk page. I'm skeptical that this system will work, but I think it has some merits to it. An entirely different system may be created from this to solve the widening chasm between content editors and gnomes and admins. The issue at hand here, is that this MfD attempts to shut down the discourse to bridge that chasm and recognize that content editors face enormous stresses that are allowed by the current system. --Moni3 (talk) 16:17, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

• The village pump is the place for proposals. This 'union' is already holding elections by the looks of it, that is not a discussion. MickMacNee (talk) 16:25, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

• It appears the only place any voting is being done is here. I don't see any elections. --Moni3 (talk) 17:07, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

• No-one (let alone the required 20) has dared to accept a nomination yet. You have read the page right? MickMacNee (talk) 18:13, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

• Twice, just to make sure. Still, no elections, which you just stated. What's the disconnect? --Moni3 (talk) 18:24, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

• The disconnect is you arguing that this is just a proposal for discussion, yet you yourself have been 'declined' by Peter [1] from standing for election to the already active process as laid out in the description of the workings of the Union of Vested Contributors. MickMacNee (talk) 19:23, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

• So what? I still don't understand your point about elections since there are none. Does it matter if I'm on the list, removed from the list, or the most prominent person on the list? No. It is a discussion about the merits of such a proposal. --Moni3 (talk) 20:08, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

• No the purpose would not be to support one another in content disputes. The article says "support in content issues where the core neutrality policies of Wikipedia are at stake." I had in mind a principle that would exclude special interest groups such as Scientologists, proponents of fringe science, Objectivists and so on, whose interest is not neutrality at all. I'm sure re-wording could make this clearer.Peter Damian (talk) 16:18, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

• And the block voting on RFAs? Or the support in block discussions? It doesn't take much to win most arguments. If even half the people nominated become members, they would be basically be guaranteed to win every dispute they involve themselves in. Mr.Z-man 16:31, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

• Keep and trout slap the nom. ChildofMidnight (talk) 16:08, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

• Instead of only swinging a trout about, how about you address the concerns brought up by those suggesting deletion. Your argument carries little weight if you don't make one. Chillum 16:10, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Not one of the deletes have mentioned any deletion policy in their !votes i dont like it is not a reason to delete. BigDunc^Talk 16:12, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

I for one mentioned that it seems that their stated goal is to perform group voting, and that this goes against the spirit of consensus. Is this not a valid reason to you? Chillum 16:14, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Possibly valid reason to reject the idea not a delete reason. BigDunc^Talk 16:16, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Very well. I have amended my opinion to allow for the alternative to allow for it to fail on its own. It seems like a terrible waste of time, effort, and drama to me though. Chillum 16:19, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Again very possibly. BigDunc^Talk 16:21, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Read mine again then Duncan. I don't what more reason you need than 'encourages the ignoring of a core policy.' MickMacNee (talk) 16:23, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

• Chillum. See my above picture. Instead of waiting your turn to rally others to your point of view with calm, reasoned talk that has unassailable logic, would you be in the back, trying to shout-down that guy? Peter Damian has an idea he is pitching. If it is a bad idea, it won't gain traction in the community. But Peter has a right to throw the idea out without you saying he doesn't, jumping his bones, and wrapping duct tape over his mouth. Greg L (talk) 16:27, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

• Once again, he is not 'pitching an idea', he is already implememnting it. The fact that most of the invitees, having been canvassed with nomination papers, are turning up here to defend it, is evidence of that. You could say the skewing of this Mfd is the first act of this Union enacting its own self-interest. MickMacNee (talk) 16:32, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
• I would be commenting in the discussion to reject it, but the page and discussion does not appear to be set up as a proposal, just as a "we're doing this, do you have any comments?" There's no {{proposal}} or straw poll or wording that suggests the association's existence is dependent on community support for it. Mr.Z-man 16:33, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

I am not shouting. I just think that a group that encourages others to go against policy is only going to get people in trouble. I think you are exaggerating things a bit, there is no yelling, wrapping up or jumping going on here. Just rejection of a bad idea. It is not Wikipedia's job to entertain notions that go against its goals of civility and consensus. We are not a venue for free speech. Chillum 16:30, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

• Well, Chillium; I posted my response to Z-man, which included the picture of the man in the crowd speaking his mind. Then you vandalized my post by inserting into the caption “WP:NOTFREESPEECH”. I think I understand your style now and feel soiled. I will no longer respond to you. Goodbye. Greg L (talk) 16:37, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Vandalized? Soiled? That is a bit over dramatic I think, please assume good faith. I was simply pointing out a relevant policy regarding free speech on Wikipedia. Chillum 16:44, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

(ec)@MickMacNee cant find that reason in the deletion criteria and for the record the name is not Duncan. BigDunc^Talk 16:30, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

"Pages that do not fall in the above three categories may be deleted after community discussion at one of the deletion discussions", we don't have a list of valid reasons for deletion. We have some examples on some pages, but they are not exhaustive. There is nothing invalid about the arguments Mick or I made, even if you don't agree with them. I think that it is reasonable that I ask COM to address these concerns or at least present and argument of some sort. Chillum 16:33, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

• Keep: 1. It has no operation to malign yet. As a category, it is merely a category. 2. "Undermining civility" is absurd on its face and is an intellectually bankrupt argument, as "civility" is not blocking, and "established editors" have been argued by other people in other contexts as different from new editors when it comes to blocking. 3. Creating categories to recognize editors who have been substantial or substantive contributors to content is certainly neither without precedent nor without merit, and anything has got to be better than the randomness of barnstars. The delete arguments, and indeed the deletion nomination, seem to come out of personal vituperation, if not incivility. Would they have been so quick had a different editor come up with the idea? Would they have showed up in such force and volume? If not, then they are, in fact, showing faction and factionalism, and that is the way to break down civil function. I'm not a joiner in projects, but you "delete" and "civility" people are awfully hypocritical and irrational. Geogre (talk) 16:28, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
• Keep: a ready-made list and an avowed purpose has potential use in measuring putative cabal action. It is, of course, chosen solely from the numbers of our most active content contributors. 273 featured credits and thank goodness I'm not nominated Durova^Charge! 16:44, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Sorry to have forgotten you, Durova. Fixed. Peter Damian (talk) 17:06, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
  • This is far more than a list. Its a lobbying group. Mr.Z-man 16:48, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
    • Irony alert. Durova^Charge! 16:56, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
      • No apologies needed. I probably qualify for the Daughters of the American Revolution also, but take an odd pride in refusing to join. Groucho Marx said it best: "PLEASE ACCEPT MY RESIGNATION. I DON'T WANT TO BELONG TO ANY CLUB THAT WILL ACCEPT PEOPLE LIKE ME AS A MEMBER"[2] Durova^Charge! 17:34, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
• WP:AWN Isn't this a bit early to be nomming a proposal for deletion? Anyway, see here. I think the best idea would be to morph it into Iridescent's idea for an WP:Article writers' noticeboard, which to be honest sounds like a good idea and is, uh, overdue, considering that's the main reason this site even exists. "Writing articles". rootology (C)(T) 16:46, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
  • I don't see any indication that this was intended as a proposal. Mr.Z-man 16:49, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
    • Me neither, but I think it's a good idea and probably more likely to succeed long term than this one. rootology (C)(T) 16:56, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
      • Sorry, I meant I didn't see any indication that the Established Editors Association was a proposal. I support the noticeboard. Mr.Z-man 16:58, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
        • I'm working on a draft noticeboard at User:Juliancolton/AWN. Feel free to help out. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 17:15, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
• Keep. I agree with Nev and Geogre. This MfD continues a well-oiled practice by admins of stomping on anything that even vaguely looks as though it might question whether all admins are always behaving according to policy. To start with, can the nominator please specify exactly which items in the deletion policy are at issue? Tony (talk) 16:47, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
• Comment - Mailer Diablo's closing statement from the Esperanza MfD seems like it needs to be reiterated here: This is a warning to all editors that existing projects must be open and transparent to all editors at all times, not to be overly hierarchical lest they are to meet a similiar fate as Esperanza. Note 'open and transparent to all editors at all times', which this club would most assuredly not be. //roux   16:52, 13 June 2009 (UTC) after ec, note to Tony1: despite your usual hyperbole and ranting against admins, you'll note that Shappy is not an admin, and indeed most of the admins who have voted here have said to keep. Just thought it was worth pointing that out, as it's generally a good idea to get your facts straight. //roux   16:52, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
• Delete and I'm not an admin. We've got enough "cliques" and "cabals" here without creating some sort of official one. Keep since it's current in user space. If and when it goes live to mainspace, I'll go with delete. - ALLST✰R▼^echo _{wuz here @} 17:06, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
  • A one-party state is bad, ergo a two-party state would be twice as bad?Peter Damian (talk) 17:08, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

• What state? Chillum 17:16, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
• No, it's not additive. It divides the evil by two so only half as bad: at least you get a choice between (although it may be between a rock and a hard place). Ohconfucius (talk) 02:51, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

• Abstain. A vote to delete a subpage of discussion at a Userpage is essentially a "Shut up!". Not attractive.--Wetman (talk) 17:16, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
• Keep What's wrong with the "personal subpage"? We have many cabals grouped by ridiculous reasons. I see no reason for it to be deleted. The page just reflects a personal view.--Caspian blue 17:17, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
• Delete This smacks of elitism. No editor should be more special than any other and community trust isn't as formulaic as "been here 2 years/has an established identity". Assigning privileges to editors who meet this will be disastrous for an egalitarian community such as Wikipedia. An editor doesn't have to be a part of a special club to have his editing history fairly apprehended by ArbCom or blocking Admins, this just seems like an extra bargaining chip when none is needed. ThemFromSpace 17:30, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

• So… are you saying we mustn’t even allow others to discuss these dangerous notions if it “smacks” in a way you disapprove of? Greg L (talk) 17:35, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

• I don't like the arbitrary two year cut off either. But that's an issue that should be discussed and revised according to consensus. If agreement on the group can't be worked out and it's determined that it isn't workable or isn't helpful, it can be deleted. But I don't think it's wise to nip news ideas in the bud in order to prevent them from being discussed and considered. ChildofMidnight (talk) 17:52, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
• Can we drop this awfull pretense that this is currently just a proposal for discussion. There are already active nominations, where apparently if 20 people accept, this show gets on the road and the Union gets down to looking out for its members interests. If people aren't allowed to say GTFO at this stage, then when can we? I am already getting worried about being Wiki-kneecapped for even saying this.... MickMacNee (talk) 17:57, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

• Keep. I see this as unproblematic. It's not a question of certain editors thinking themselves "better" than others. It's that people who focus on writing have different interests from those who do mostly admin work (which has its own IRC channel), or vandalism fighting (which I believe has its own wikiproject), or wikignoming (which used to). SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 17:50, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Except that all of those things are theoretically open to any editor. This is not; it's a fraternity where you have to be voted in by the people already in it. The analogy would be making RFA voting done by admins only. //roux   17:55, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
• Keep Per SlimVirgin and others. To declare an interest, I have been nominated, but (like all the others so far it seems) have not decided whether to let my name go forward. Johnbod (talk) 17:57, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
• Strong Delete, since everyone is claiming "I don't like it," I'll bring some essays and policies. The page, to start, is overtly bureaucratic. This project will inevitably lead to meat puppetry at Arbitration Cases, Mediation, and other places. Also, if the users who are chosen are already "respected" by the community, why is this necessary? Why are they creating a closed structure to doing something, while it's already in effect? This almost seems like a virtual cabal developing; all editors are (number two) equal (from IP to established editors) here on Wikipedia. No vested contributors. (for those who state there are many cabals on Wikipedia, this one asserts that it's not in humor; it's going into effect and he's developing it right now) ^blurred_peace ☮ 17:59, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

• At least everyone nominated has had the sense to not accept their nominations to such a group. I for one would be disturbed to be associated with it. Chillum 18:01, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

• Keep- it's in user space, and it's relevant to Wikipedia. So in general we should afford people wide latitude. If it turns into an actual problem of some kind, we can deal with it after that happens. People should be smart enough to realize that "I disagree with this" is not a good reason for deletion. Yes, cliques are often a problem, but this is a problem Wikipedia already has. If there's to be cliquishness here, I'd far rather have it here where anyone can see it. Moving this type of thing from some chat room onto the Wiki can only be a good thing. Friday (talk) 18:05, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

• Regardless of the merits of deletion I don't see anyone using "I disagree with this" as an argument. I see "It's stated goals are in violation of our civility, canvassing, and consensus policies", but not "I disagree with this". Chillum 18:19, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

• keep and allow to fail. Not one of the invitees has been unwise enough to accept nomination (as I see Chillum has noticed, even if few others have) so far and I rather doubt that any will William M. Connolley (talk) 18:12, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Correct. For the show to go on the road, 20 of the nominees has to accept nomination. Peter Damian (talk) 18:15, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
• Delete, do we really need more dramabombs? Although I must admit that allowing it to fail sounds quite tempting, if only for the de facto precedent it would set. --Aqwis (talk) 18:15, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
• Keep. At least for the time being. For the record, I don't think its a good idea (although I do understand the sentiment). However, it is currently in user space, not project, and is still an idea that is forming. Give a chance for development, discussion, and dialogue. If it is proposed to move to project space, then I see a different discussion here. Athanasius • Quicumque vult 18:19, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
• Delete Definitely not a good idea, per Roux. I'm 51st on WP:EDITS and the whole project hates me, so does that make me an established editor? (kidding) Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 18:23, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
• Ignore it, I can't think of anybody who would want to join this, so an association with no members is just an interesting skylight into the ideas of its creator. If it becomes problematic in the future we can revisit the issue. Tim Vickers (talk) 18:33, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
• Keep I don't necessarily agree with the premise of the proposal, but I invite those advocating deletion to assume good faith and allow time for the idea to develop. As of yet, it is not violating any of Wikipedia's core policies (that I know of) and does not infringe on any Wikipedian's rights. Therefore, there is no hurry to squash this when it hasn't fully formed yet. More worryingly, I see parallels between this MfD and that which tried to squash the AdminReview process. Dabomb87 (talk) 18:46, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
• Keep - cabals of one sort or another are fairly common, particularly in userspace. I personally object to this one, and seriously think if it is to survive it would be best if it were restructured dramatically, but those aren't grounds for deletion. John Carter (talk) 18:52, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Have you got any examples of these "fairly common" pages? MickMacNee (talk) 19:28, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
• Strongest possible speedy keep: The only rationale I am able to see behind this entire MFD is I don't like it. Peter has the right to make proposals on his own subpages; attempting to delete this smacks of censorship and harassment. It doesn't matter whether you think this is a good idea--not thinking it's a good idea is not a reason for deletion of a proposal, period. People on Wikipedia have the right to associate with each other, and there's absolutely nothing wrong whatsoever with attempting to make that association a bit more formal. I would also like to point out that users traditionally have the right to do what they will with their userspace so long as they are not using it to violate clear policy, such as by spamming, attacking other editors, etc. This page is a proposal. Accept it or reject it, but don't delete it. TallNapoleon (talk) 19:07, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

  And I totally agree with Moni, who I just realized made my point much more clearly than I did. TallNapoleon (talk) 19:09, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

TallNapoleon, see my concerns and rationale a few steps above this one. There is a consensus in place already against the concept of this "user page," or more specifically, cabal. ^blurred_peace ☮ 19:14, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

• Consensus can change. It is talk. This doesn’t need to threaten you. If there is anything about their behavior that is improper, the group will rapidly be met with disfavor and the community will band together to reign in their excesses. In the mean time, this is just stirring the pot and threatening the status quo. Sometimes that is good. Greg L (talk) 19:33, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

• Of course consensus can change, but it is almost inevitable that meat puppetry will come about. We're all equals here, and I'm very doubtful that consensus on that will change (even Jimbo agrees on that subtle, often overlooked, truth). ^blurred_peace ☮ 19:36, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

• So Blurred, instead of arguing against the idea, you're going to try to silence those who are in favor of it, delete all discussion about it, and pretend it never existed? TallNapoleon (talk) 19:41, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
• Quoting you, Blurpeace: it is almost inevitable that meat puppetry will come about. Of course! It couldn’t possibly be as simple as an club of experience editors who want to collaborate on projects, *(it must be nefarious*). Your “this will inevitably lead to that” argument reminds me of Mississippi banning blacks and whites from marrying: ‘why, if you head down that road of letting people do what they want, pretty soon you will have people wanting to have sex with barnyard animals and children.’ I don’t buy it. Not in the least. Let ‘em talk. Like I said, if they are a bunch of awfully bad people, their bad activities will be reigned in PDQ. Right now, we have admins who, once elected, serve for life—like Supreme Court justices. Peter is just shaking up the power structures a bit. That’s often a good thing. Greg L (talk) 19:47, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, because it simple can't be that. I'd agree with you, but, sadly, your claims are not in line with the "Benefits" of membership. To quote the page itself: "Trust from the community, Support from other editors in content disputes, where consistent with the principles of the Association, Tangible support in cases of blocking or banning by other users, where there is consensus among established editors." If that isn't inevitability of meat puppetry for this "accepted" and "exclusive" group, then what is, Greg L? ^blurred_peace ☮ 19:53, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

How is that different from the "meatpuppetry" that goes on every day at ANI? --Malleus Fatuorum 19:55, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure of any meatpuppetry at ANI; if something is convincing, many will agree, will they not? To answer it more directly, this spans much farther than just "ANI," rather it concerns a flexible association of people, unified to one place. If you're at ArbCom, and these editors opinions are already respected, what is the need for this extra layer? Where does it serve a purpose to create a closed-originization of "established editors?" There comments at any Dispute resolution process would hold the same weight in and out of this cabal. ^blurred_peace ☮ 20:04, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

You may not be sure, but I am. That's all that matters. ;-) --Malleus Fatuorum 20:11, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

• Keep. As several others have already said, I'm unconvinced that it's really such a great idea, but I'm bloody certain that this MfD is an even worse one. --Malleus Fatuorum 19:38, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
• Comment The "organization" itself looks to be an incredibly bad idea, it's basically an attempt to form a cabal and a way of organizing meatpuppetry, apparently by someone convinced there is an "IRC cabal" of some sort. But if people really want to openly expose their meatpuppetry so the community can appropriately discount it in "votes" and such, may as well let them. Time enough to delete it later if the group actually becomes disruptive (and at that time we can sanction the troublemakers involved too). I too am encouraged that no one has seen fit to accept a "nomination" yet. Anomie⚔ 19:57, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
• Comment Quoting you, Anomie: The "organization" itself looks to be an incredibly bad idea… Just because you think it is a bad idea, is no excuse to delete a subpage in userspace. BTW, the picture I used in a post, above, is an image of a war-time poster, is a production of the United States Office of War Information (OWI) and was printed by the United States Government Printing Office. The OWI sought—and received—permission from Norman Rockwell to use all four of his Four Freedoms paintings in the war effort. Thus, this image of the war-time poster (not the painting alone) is in the public domain. Whoever posted the copyright notice for it was in error and it needs to be corrected. Please leave my post alone. Greg L (talk) 20:00, 13 June 2009 (UTC) P.S. Now corrected. Greg L (talk) 20:05, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

  I don't know if the first half of your comment is trying to reply to me or not; per WP:AGF, I'm going to assume it isn't. As for the image, just because the OWI got permission to use Rockwell's image doesn't mean Rockwell forfeited his copyright on the image. But this is certainly not the appropriate forum for this discussion; when you find the appropriate place, let me know. Anomie⚔ 20:10, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

  Oh good, you changed it. Now I can list it on WP:PUI. Anomie⚔ 20:11, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

• Rockwell did not forfeit his copyright to an image of his painting. The public did not forfeit its right to the public-domain use of the war poster. Greg L (talk) 20:17, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

• Oh, I see you have edited your comment (instead of replying, which would make the thread of conversation make sense) to indicate that you did intend to reply to me. I guess then I cannot assume good faith anymore: either you are deliberately misinterpreting my words to try to start some sort of argument, or you really need to work on your reading comprehension: I did not !vote delete, I just commented that it could be deleted later as WP:Esperanza was should that prove necessary. If anything, my comment was a weak "keep for now". In either case, I see no need to continue the conversation on that topic, and the other is better served at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/2009 June 13#File:Save Freedom of Speech.png. Anomie⚔ 20:34, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

• Oops sorry. Let the record reflect that in my 20:05, 13 June 2009 (UTC) post, I originally did not include your quote. I added it to make it clearer what I meant. It doesn’t matter that you haven’t voted, Anomie. You are making posts here that are intended to influence others and how they vote. Toward that end, I am exercising my right to point out that I disagree with your logic that what Peter is doing—which you say is a “bad idea”—is entirely beside the point. See my comment below. Greg L (talk) 21:02, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

• Comment Great latitude is allowed on user pages and according to Wikipedia policy, user pages are provided to “facilitate communication among participants in its project to build an encyclopedia.” The page is clearly within the scope of permitted activities. Greg L (talk) 20:33, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
• Keep It's in userspace. Unless it becomes a huge problem, it doesn't matter to me.  iMatthew :  Chat  21:09, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
• Keep I don't understand the nominator's agitation over this essay. Pastor Theo (talk) 21:14, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
  • But it's not an essay.... —Ed (Talk • Contribs) 22:05, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
• Keep if I'm welcome to join. Kaiwhakahaere (talk) 22:11, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
• Delete if I'm not welcome to join. Kaiwhakahaere (talk) 22:11, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

• Or the other way round, perhaps? William M. Connolley (talk) 22:16, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

• Goody. That means I get four votes.Kaiwhakahaere (talk) 22:31, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

• Delete - precedent was set with Esperanza's MFD; Roux stated my argument better than I can. So, let's stop a dramafest before it rears its ugly head. —Ed (Talk • Contribs) 22:13, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
• Keep Per Kaiwhakahaere Unomi (talk) 22:26, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
• Delete Per Kaiwhakahaere Unomi (talk) 22:26, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

• Is that whether Kaiwhakahaere's allowed to join or you are? ;-) Nev1 (talk) 22:28, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

• Keep as no argument for deletion is discernible above. -- Hoary (talk) 22:50, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
• Delete The establishment of cliques, special groups, fraternities, etc. is contrary to WP policy. History has shown them to be foci of wikidrama at best, CANVASS tents and worse possibly. From the page at issue: "This may include the negotiation of blocks or bans, representation at arbitration, and support in content issues where the core neutrality policies of Wikipedia are at stake." has but a short step to !voting en masse on RfAs etc. And "Support from other editors in content disputes, where consistent with the principles of the Association. " strikes me as being directly contrary to the principles of consensus. If other members "support" a member in a content dispute, how are they then distinguishable from inproper solicitation of "friends" (which definitely does occur)? Delete now, avoid the almost assured problems. Collect (talk) 23:20, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
• Keep, it's in userspace, isn't attacking anyone, and is just an idea. Users should be and indeed are entitled to have space to collect their views, thoughts and essays. What's the big deal? --Jza84 |  Talk  23:25, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
  • This isn't a thought, view, or essay. It'd be more of a cabal then anything... —Ed (Talk • Contribs) 23:51, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
    • It isn't anything except a proposal yet though is it? --Malleus Fatuorum 23:53, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
      • (edit conflict)No, it isn't a proposal. A proposal would be seeking community approval before starting. This is only dependent on 20 (out of currently 55) nominated people accepting their nomination. The wishes of the community, except for how they may influence people to accept or decline their nominations, are not considered. Mr.Z-man 01:05, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Quoting you, Collect: The establishment of cliques, special groups, fraternities, etc. is contrary to WP policy. Yet, acording to Wikipedia policy, user pages are provided to “facilitate communication among participants in its project to build an encyclopedia.” So, when does “facilitating communication” become “cliques” and “special groups”? When their goals don’t align exactly with yours? When others claim Peter and his group are “subversive and bad”?

    I am deeply troubled by the fact that there are editors here, who don’t merely want to point out the risks and shortcomings of what Peter is doing, but instead think it perfectly appropriate just to delete his page. It seems mean-spirited and completely unwarranted. It amounts to “Shut him up! Shut him UP! I know what is best for Wikipedia and will decide what is appropriate for other well-meaning editors acting in good faith to discuss!” Pure and simple and I reject arguments to the contrary since they all seem to amount to hiding behind the apron strings of wikilawyering to avoid this obvious truth.

    No one here has cornered the market on virtue and truth. The debate here is whether or not to delete a subpage in someone else’s userspace which is for the purposes of communicating and coordinating towards common goals. It hurts no one. Let ‘em talk (I shouldn’t have had to write those last three words). Greg L (talk) 00:57, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

    • I would have no problem if all they wanted to do was talk amongst themselves. Its things like "support from other editors in content disputes" and "block voting in RfA" that I and others have problems with. Mr.Z-man 01:05, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
• Keep and what a dumb nomination! Have we come to this now, where discussion and debate is strangled in utero? If the nominator wanted to discuss the merits of the proposal, wouldn't it have been more appropriate for them to argue against it on the page in question, which seems to have a Discussion section? What exactly are the grounds for deletion of this user page? It might, possibly, in time, have some ill effects or shudder, it will create cliques? Cliques tend to be self forming anyway. I really think we need to get out of this high-handed, authoritarian mindset and let people do what they like unless there's really compelling reasons why not. Where's the harm? Suggests Peter changes the name to Wikipedia:Wikiproject Established editors support group or tea and sympathy or whatever - or are we deleting wikiprojects now to as being cliquey self organising associations of editors?--Joopercoopers (talk) 01:05, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

  the merits of the proposal - Please point me to where its indicated that community consensus will have any effect on whether this group forms. I haven't been able to find it.

  which seems to have a Discussion - Discussion ≠ proposal.

  What exactly are the grounds for deletion of this user page? - Its encouraging people to form a self-selected group to support each other in disputes, fight against blocks of members, and block vote in RFAs. It basically encourages on-wiki canvassing and is designed to manipulate Wikipedia processes for their own gains.

  Where's the harm? - See above.

  cliquey self organising associations - Self-organizing is good, almost every project is self-organizing. But this project is self-selecting, which is problematic, for every other project, anyone is allowed to join or is appointed via a public, community-oriented process. Mr.Z-man 01:16, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

  Process claptrap and hyperbole. If a group of editors want to get together and lobby for change in some way, to look after their interests, particularly if they think those interests have not been served by another group, it makes sense there's a bar to membership to keep the crazies out. I know professionalism is a dirty word in some circles, but it makes sense to me. That professionalism; to "Uphold the reputation of the association" together with the respect for policy, seems to make your insinuations about block voting RFAs rather hyperbolic. Try some deep breathing, and try and accept the idea that others with differing opinions to you might possibly be able to coexist in the same project.--Joopercoopers (talk) 01:53, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

• Bravo, Joopercoopers. Very well said. Greg L (talk) 02:08, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
• I'm not insinuating anything. I'm merely referring to one of the possible actions of the group as stated by its founder. The interests of a small group of people should not be important. The interests of the project as a whole and the community should be what matter. I don't care what their opinions are. I don't know what it is I said that made you think I do. Regardless of whether or not I agree with their personal opinions, I disagree with their methods of organization and the way the union is set up to force their opinions on the rest of the project. Mr.Z-man 03:13, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

• Delete as for any other ad hoc group that seeks to limit its membership. And the proposed purpose Editors who have been blocked on the grounds of incivility and ... making a positive contribution to the content of the encyclopedia, will be defended, and efforts will be made to have them unblocked. is dead contrary to established WP policy. Presumably I was (correctly) not nominated because of my frequently expressed view that what the NPA policy needs most is much stronger enforcement. (or , AGF, it might mean that the purpose is to put peer pressure on such editors to reform, in which case I apologize for my skepticism). The Content noticeboard makes a lot more sense DGG (talk) 01:14, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

• Ooh, well… Maybe we finally have a point of fact over which we can decide this issue instead of quoting “Mom and apple pie” reasons where one group tries to seize the moral high ground for all that is good and holy. DDG advocates to delete, citing as for any other ad hoc group that seeks to limit its membership. So, is there already well established Wikipedia policy outlawing “groups” or “ad hoc groups” or “selective groups” (requiring that members have been Wikipedians for a certain period), and what not? You know… some sort of policy, like where they say “in Tiananmen Square, groups of two to three people may ‘talk’ but organized groups are contrary to the orderly running of the collective and undermine group harmony”? Do tell. For if what Peter is trying to do—forming a “group with membership requirements” (*sound of audience gasp*)—is prima facia against established rules, then I might change my vote. Seriously. No joke. Greg L (talk) 01:31, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

• Speedy close as no consensus per WP:SNOW, as in, it doesn't stand a chance in hell of being closed as keep or delete without the resulting AN, ANI, RFC, WT:RFA and FU2 threads. Let it either die on it's own merits and be archived into the dusty wasteland of userspace, or let it breathe. Not a "drama-reducing" idea to go ahead and nom it for deletion, but also not helpful to latch onto the nominator as if some sort of anti-WikiChrist either. Speedy no consensus anyone? Keeper | 76 01:40, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

1. Snowball. It is not “miscellany” and it isn’t even in articlespace. More to your point, it doesn’t have a prayer of passing. Let’s get outa here. Greg L (talk) 01:46, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

• Keep - it's in userspace, and it's aims are consistent with building an encyclopaedia. That's true whether people think it's a good idea or a bad idea. Guettarda (talk) 01:43, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
• Uberest ultimate strongest omg "Meh". Leave it be & speedy close per keeps. –xeno^talk 02:28, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
• Keep per last 3 comments. Is this deletion a knee-jerk by jumpy admins? I totally oppose this attempt at harmonisation. No way is this going to be deleted based on the foregoing !votes, so close it and be end with the drama. What is more, this project in userspace appears not to violate and policies which would warrant its deletion. Ohconfucius (talk) 03:07, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
• Keep per (surprise!) Tony, & contradicting (surprise again!) DGG. I just saw the invite on my Talk page 15 minutes ago, & haven't made up my mind about this group yet. (I actually can see some advantages to this, but I'm not certain that this is the best solution to the problems it addresses.) However, instead of being given a few days to consider its value (some of us actually have obligations outside of Wikipedia, which means established contributors can take as long as a couple of days to learn of developments, we're asked to knife the baby in the cradle. Let's give this a month before deciding to terminate with extreme prejudice. -- llywrch (talk) 03:12, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
• Keep - I've been watching this from the sidelines with mild interest/amusement. In many ways this club sounds like a bad idea, but its proposal has (re)opened the door for interesting discussion. Let the discussion play out on Peter Damian's page, then take another step (AfD, archive, or nothing), if warranted, down the road when some kind of closure has been reached. On that note, I'd move to close this AfD as soon as possible so that discussion about this club and the issues surrounding it can be contained on one page, and not split between the page and this AfD. Otebig (talk) 03:55, 14 June 2009 (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.