Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license.
Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat.
We can research this topic together.
*'''Speedy Keep''' I see no policy-based reason for deletion, and that is where the burden of proof lies, rather than with those who are !voting "keep". ] (]) 08:36, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
*'''Speedy Keep''' I see no policy-based reason for deletion, and that is where the burden of proof lies, rather than with those who are !voting "keep". ] (]) 08:36, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
<!-- Please add the newest nominations to the top -->
<!-- Please add the newest nominations to the top -->
*'''Keep'''. If the definition is good enough for a serving member of ArbCom, then it's fucking good enough for me. -- ] (]) 09:09, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
Comment The rename proposal is about two things: 1) Get rid of "of countries" - The of country is not giving anymore insight, there is no category "municipalities of countries" or "rivers of countries". 2) clarify the noun that describes what is listed. There are geographic entities called "Sub-Division", and Subdivision (disambiguation) shows that the word "subdivision" does also refer to non-geographic entities. So follow the top level Category:Country subdivisions in using the generic term "country subdivision", that always refers to geographic entities. ChemTerm (talk) 05:22, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
Nominator's rationale: I dont know policy on this, but it seems that the name for the category should be the current name of the team. either that, or we need 2 sets of categories for the 2 names. Mercurywoodrose (talk) 03:16, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
Nominator's rationale This category was created on the assumption that Washakie was not American enough to be put in Category:American Latter Day Saints since he originally lived in Idaho and Wyoming without recognizing the United States claim to controlling those lands. However, since he lived until 1900 he eventually recognized American control and is actually in Category:American Latter Day Saints. A quick survey of the articles involved shows that everyone involved was a United States national at some point in their lives. We do not have a general schema of Latter Day Saints by ethnicity, which this has clearly become, but only for Latter-day Saints by nationality. Thus I feel we should upmerge it.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:13, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
Nominator's rationale Yes, I know that this will change the meaning of the category, but it will restore the category to its original purpose. I created this category to have a Latter-day Saints by nationality category that I could put Jonathan Napela in. So the intention was to use this category for people who were Hawaiian by nationality. It has now been turned into an ethnic category, but that was never the intention. I feel we should try to restore it to its original nationality purpose, since that is an accepted way to subdivide Latter-day Saints, but we have really never agreed on a by ethnicity schema for such.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:05, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
Nominator's rationale: False descriptor - none of these users are described as not a wikipedian apart from Malleus - and that was detracted - as such this is a disruptive and derisive cat - Youreallycan00:15, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
Don't be sorry - I see only friends - the cat is disruptive and a violation of user guidelines though - Youreallycan00:18, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
Well, if I'm being disruptive then maybe I'm breaking the fourth pillar, and thus I'm not a Wikipedian. Or, it's not adding to the encyclopedia, in which case I'm disregarding the first and I'm not a Wikipedian. Or I'm declaring my solidarity, thereby violating NPOV, the second pillar, and thus I'm not a Wikipedian. Or you should ignore all rules, allowing me to be a Wikipedian in my non-neutral, policy-breaking, disruptive manner. That's the fifth pillar. Drmies (talk) 00:22, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
Comment I would argue that this is a reasonable self descriptor for anyone who wants to edit the encyclopedia that (almost) anyone can edit but doesn't want to belong to the 'club' of wikipedians. But I cannot because I'm a wikipedian who isn't a wikipedian and only wikipedians who are wikipedians should comment on wikipedian matters on wikipedians. Or something like that. I think. --regentspark (comment) 00:25, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
I gave one above. Improves editor solidarity, and as such editor retention, which furthers the goals of the encyclopedia. Erm, I mean, arf. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:34, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
And you're uninvolved? I doubt that, per Bgwhite's note below. Malleus hate me, but he does great work for the project. I'll stick up for him, and any uninvolved editor can see that his article-space contributions are a net positive for the encyclopedia. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:46, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
Speedy Keep I'm not a friend nor an admirer of Malleus. This is not a violation of user guidelines. This category is a valid form a political protest. As Youreallycan has expressed his strong dislike towards Malleus, they are not in a position to be anywhere neutral on this. I highly suggest you not respond to any comments as that will stoke the "disruptive and derisive" flames more than the category would. Bgwhite (talk) 00:35, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
LOL - I have supported Malleus - diff on request - this Cat is disruptive and decisive though - Youreallycan00:47, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
If I see it correctly, the user categorised himself as belonging in a category that categorises him as not being a wikipedian after he created the category that could categorise him as such. --Beetstra (public) (Dirk Beetstra on public computers) 08:27, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
Dennis - Users are not randomly allowed to cat themselves in any way- this is a low moment - think about it all of you .. this cat will have no value at all and no long term existence - Youreallycan00:53, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
I am allowed to discuss as much as I like - essays are ten a penny - the most disruptive thing is the category itself - Youreallycan01:04, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
I don;t need help - there is no policy that supports this disruption - this Cat is worthless in the long term - end of - in the short term it is valueless - Malleus isn't even restricted - moving on - get over it - Youreallycan01:12, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
You haven't provided any policy-based arguments why this category is disruptive. All you've done is scream loudly that it is, and heckle everyone who disagrees with you. ReykYO!01:30, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
A blind person can see the disruption this cat creates - I am not heckling I am responding and commenting - Youreallycan01:34, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
Sadly, as there are a few experienced contributors that I have a lot of respect for - they are involved and vote commenting with their sausages/silly hats on - Youreallycan01:59, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
Keep - in the current climate I am definitely not a Wikipedian, not as defined by a member of the arbitration committee. I came here to help write an encyclopaedia, not to buttress American right-wing sensibilities. That defines me at least as relevantly as categories indicating I belong to certain projects. If sanity returns, that will be the time to consider deleting the category. --Epipelagic (talk) 01:06, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
Rename - the category should be called either "Wikipedians who are not Wikipedians" or "Wikipedians who are not Wikipedian". I have no strong opinion as to which, although surely someone will come along to tell me which one our guidelines show to be correct. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:39, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
Delete I cannot support the creation of a category that, according to its currrent description text, would class even someone who inserts an image of child porn on the Main Page, as a "Wikipedian", simply by virtue of the fact they're editting here. If people are so upset by the notion that being a Wikipedian can reasonably be defined as someone who accepts and (at least tries to) abide by the 5 pillars, then surely they can find a little less divisive method of protest. Smear their monitors with their own feces perhaps. Or start a petition maybe, if it's an online medium that's required. If this category is allowed to remain, then I don't see why others cannot create Category:Wikipedians who have been stereotyped by Malleus Fatuorum or Category:Wikipedians who have been demeaned by Malleus Fatuorum of Category:Wikipedians who have had their intelligence questioned by Malleus Fatuorum. If this project has descended so far that even categories like that would be accepted as 'free speech' and damn the consequences, then it's no wonder so many people are leaving due to the unpleasant atmosphere (24% of all former contributors apparently, with current stats showing over 3,000 people make more than 100 edits a month). Tim98Seven (talk) 01:43, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
Anyone of them left because of Malleus? ... I thought so. And someone who posts only porn is a vandal and will be blocked indefinitely. You are free to create those other categories--I couldn't care less. Drmies (talk) 01:51, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
Keep on principle Though it was created to garner attention and to be disruptive, I suppose it is a legitimate category for users to place themselves in if they feel they aren't part of the community. Weak delete I don't know, I'm kind of torn. Now I'm leaning delete. GoPhightins!01:45, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
Keep - Obviously a disruptive category, and anyone who adds themselves to this category is not a member of the Misplaced Pages community per their own disruptive behavior. The inappropriateness of this category therefore makes it appropriate for an editor who adds themselves to this category to be listed in the category, serving as a type of self-validating reduction. It is imperative that we keep these loose cannons on watch, and if this category is deleted, I'd highly recommend at least creating Category:Non-Wikipedians that added "Category:Wikipedians who are not a Wikipedian" to their user page in order to keep track of these rogue rouge "Wikipedians". But in all seriousness, I don't see any evidence of this category being disruptive. If Misplaced Pages itself can be disruptive to Misplaced Pages in order to protest something unwanted, I don't think a category on a few user pages is going to destroy Misplaced Pages. - SudoGhost01:56, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
(edit conflict)That's nice Dennis, and I respect you too (like, a lot), but I am going to apply WP:IAR here. This is clearly stirring the pot and is only going to engender further ill will in the Malleus War, it was clearly not constructive and I am not changing my position. AutomaticStrikeout02:31, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
Assume good faith. I didn't create this for the purpose of disruption. Someone nominating this for deletion, that's disruptive. Drmies (talk) 02:42, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
(edit conflict) I don't believe you did create this; and additionally why, as soon as you try to lecture me on AGF are you saying that nominating it for deletion is disruptive? I suppose that this could be a potentially legitimate category and am kind of on the fence as you can see by my changed votes, but I think it's reprehensible to say that starting a discussion on Misplaced Pages is disruptive. GoPhightins!02:48, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
However, this discussion (as most in Malleusgate seem to have) has veered way off it's intended course. The bottom line is that, in my opinion, this category shouldn't be retained because it's disruptive. GoPhightins!02:50, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
It's a user category. Settle down. As for the deletion attempt itself--just look at the ridiculous argument proposed in the nomination and the nominator's subsequent comments. Drmies (talk) 02:52, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
Additional comment It's obvious, Drmies, that you learned absolutely nothing from Malleus not being called a Wikipedian, that all of us are Wikipedians despite contrasting ways of expressing it. It is wrong that he was declared "not a Wikipedian", but that is neither here nor there anymore, and emphasizing a gaff is immature beyond what I expect of an administrator. Now if you really wanted to do something, you could have just went back to work on that encyclopedia thing we are here to build, but no, now we have a solidarity category to divide the community and users who disagree with you are disruptive? You really have forgotten the mission of this website. Regards, — MoeEpsilon03:02, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
It wasn't a gaff. But thanks for the appeal to my conscience. If you had started this for nomination, with at least a half-way decent argument, that would have been different. Drmies (talk) 03:25, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
Delete we do not create categories to make some sort of point. The only reason to have categories is to aid in collaboration, which this category does not do.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:58, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
Comment: This category is an aid in collaboration. It is a way editors who are committed to proper collaboration can identify themselves, and thus distance themselves from other people here who are not committed to proper collaboration, but want instead to control and ban anyone who don't conform to their own agendas. --Epipelagic (talk) 08:07, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
Keep - we also do not delete categories to make a point. The point, per se, of WP:POINT is that we don't disrupt the encyclopedia to make a point. Nominating this cat for deletion is more disruptive than letting it be. There's no policy based rationale for deletion that I can conceive of. Keilana| 03:26, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
Keep because we allow users to categorize and group themselves pretty much however they want. This is just one of thousands of user categories toward that end. —Torchiestedits03:38, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
Keep because even lazy twats like me who haven't edited for ages should be allowed to categorise ourselves (and show our solidarity) however we like. I don't want to add to the various shitfights about this all over the 'pedia, because others have said all I would, and better - but I do want to show my disgust at what was said by an elected functionary. This cat fits the bill for me. Thanks. Begoon04:54, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
Delete We delete "My favorite color is red Wikipedians" categories and "Wikipedians who don't like but sometimes think it's okay or whatever" categories. Unless this can be shown to actually aid in collaboration, I don't understand why we would keep it. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 07:47, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
Speedy Keep I see no policy-based reason for deletion, and that is where the burden of proof lies, rather than with those who are !voting "keep". Joefromrandb (talk) 08:36, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
1 user likes this. Drmies (talk) 01:05, 24 October 2012 (UTC)