Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Cla68/Deliberation 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 discussion was Keep. I'm going to close this (possibly controversially) as pure housekeeping. The nominator has expressed regret about opening this MfD, and the comments to delete appear to be regarding the editor's general suitability to participate in the close (which is not an issue anymore) rather then the content of the page itself. However, I would encourage Cla68 to move the page to a subpage that doesn't give any impression that it is official. (non-admin closure) Crazynas^t 23:36, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

User:Cla68/Deliberation page

Totally out of process attempt by Cla68 to get himself co-opted to a community process for which his reputation does not qualify him. Hans Adler 12:25, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nominating this was a bad idea, see my comment below. Sorry for any confusion or unrest caused. Hans Adler 20:25, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: HJ Mitchell accepted my offer to help with closing the current WP:V RfC, which has remained open for almost a month. He accepted my suggestion that we deliberate on a page in my user space in the spirit of transparency and so editors can watch the progress of deliberations (same link). Other editors appear to support the intiative [1] [2]. Having said that, hopefully me and him can get back to work and get that RfC closed. Cla68 (talk) 12:43, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification: It is the RfC that has been open for almost a month, not Cla68's offer, which was certainly not discussed adequately. An editor who was topic banned from a different topic by Arbcom a bit over a year ago for, among other things, inappropriate use of sources and battlefield conduct, is hardly qualified to determine consensus on a large RfC on WP:V. This would be obvious even if Cla68 hadn't previously voted in a different RfC on the same sentence. (Who hasn't?)

At WP:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/WP:V RFC, 3 uninvolved admins [3] offered to close the RfC: HJ Mitchell, Black Kite, Newyorkbrad. This was then announced at WP:ANI#Wikipedia:Verifiability. Black Kite is known to have been unavailable and Newyorkbrad has also been off-wiki for a long time. Cla68's reputation is not comparable to that of the other two, and if HJ Mitchell (someone who I don't know much about) thinks co-opting him is a good idea, then nobody can expect the community to trust the outcome of anything decided by a committee consisting of the two of them, with the other two as nominal members. Hans Adler 13:15, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The closer should be an Admin? Not sure Cla qualifies. Leaky Caldron 15:54, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We usually prefer admins for this kind of job (e.g. closing AfDs) because theoretically they have proved they can be neutral. I don't think it's an absolute requirement, but an editor who failed his RfA in 2007 due to a BLP violation and is now agitating for Wikimedia UK to lose its charitable status for not enforcing BLP properly should be glad he is suffered here, keep a low profile, and certainly not volunteer for a position that requires honour. Hans Adler 15:58, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- and Cla68 should step back in recognition of the fact that if this RfC is closed in a way that is not widely perceived to be clean the dispute will continue to rage. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 16:19, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Closings of RfCs are too potentially contentious to be left to self-appointed non-administrators, in this case a controversial one. ScottyBerg (talk) 16:22, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the page because there is no valid reason to delete it. Objections to Cla68 taking part in deciding consensus on the "verifiability, not truth" issue should be conducted elsewhere. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 16:24, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. If closer's chose to have a similar page that's fine, but not one hosted in Cla68's space. Leaky Caldron 16:29, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- We have a long tradition of people using their own user space to reflect on and analyse Wikipedia goings on - a person's involvement in the actual issue has never been relevant. Here's a high profile current example: User:Monty845/ACE2011 which links to 18 others. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 17:36, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This page has nothing to do with user's reflections, musings or user's own analyse. It is a proposed working area for the closers of an RFC, including Cla68. He is not going to be involved (see AN discussion) so it makes more sense that if the closers require such a page (they may not) they put it in a more logical place. Your being too precious about keeping something that has no useful purpose and currently has no content. Leaky Caldron 18:37, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep We need to recognize two distinct issues:

Is it proper for Cla68 to play this prominent a role in the closing of a contentious RfC? (I offer no opinion on this issue, but note several concerns along this line)
Does this particular page violate the rules regarding what is properly allowed in user space pages?

The second issue is the issue presented here, and I haven't seen a policy based rationale for deletion. (I may be simply using more words to say the same thing as Silk Tork , but I came to my conclusion independently). --SPhilbrick T 16:47, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep No reason has been provided for why this should be deleted. Instead, the above discussion seems to be about whether or not Cla68 should participate in closing an RfC. The question in this discussion is whether this user-space article should be deleted, not whether Cla68 should participate in closing the RfC. No reason to delete = keep. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 16:49, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: no valid rationale for deletion has been presented. Buddy431 (talk) 16:58, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, I don't know why this issue has to be forced in such a manner, if the community doesn't wish to have this editor involved in the associated RFC determination process, then this page will be naturally taken care of. This is a poor substitute for discussion on Wikipedia talk:Verifiability. and I have no doubt Cla68 will handle this subpage appropriately and in accordance with consensus. Dreadstar ☥ 19:55, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. This is an unusual case, so we can't expect the deletion policy to say anything about it specifically. However, I should nevertheless have read WP:UP#NOT before nominating the page. Having done so now, I have come to the conclusion that the usual level of inappropriacy required for deletion is that of attacks against other editors, whereas mere attempts to game Wikipedia processes are apparently not covered. Therefore I should not have nominated this page and apologise for having done so. Given that there were a number of delete !votes, I am afraid I cannot withdraw the nomination, as I would otherwise do at this point. My main concern has been taken care of differently anyway. Hans Adler 20:25, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Thank User:Cla68 for attempting to make progress with this silly impasse. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:24, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I note nom's conclusion "that the usual level of inappropriacy required for deletion is that of attacks against other editors". --Klein zach 23:23, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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.