Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Jennavecia/Bathrobe Cabal

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 Keep. KnightLago (talk) 00:55, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User:Jennavecia/Bathrobe Cabal[edit]

User:Jennavecia/Bathrobe Cabal (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I cannot see how this plays any part in creating Wikipedia. It looks like WP:NOTSOCIAL to me - and it has just been cited as WP:OTHERSTUFF on WP:Teahouse/Questions#Navigation bar. It ddoesn't appear to have been used since 2011 anyway. ColinFine (talk) 15:53, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per WP:NOTSOCIAL. Has nothing to do with WP, really. Switching to Neutral, per Jennavecia. I still think the BC is nonsense, but it looks like I have to agree with your first couple of sentences. (Honestly, I think "Humorous pages that refer to Wikipedia in some way may be created in an appropriate namespace." somewhat contradicts the rest of WP:NOTSOCIAL, and is a loophole that could allow Wikipedia to look more and more like a social network.) I was reminded today why I don't get involved in AfDs much anymore also, with a lack of both seriousness and good-faith assuming here. That is all. --AmaryllisGardener talk 16:08, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I remember the Bathrobe Cabal from when it was active many years ago. If I recall correctly, it was a social page and featured many laughs but the members also worked together on articles; it's not as though it existed for the sake of existing. Given the page's history from long ago and because Jennavecia is an editor in good-standing, who has produced plenty of quality content rather than exclusively played around in userspace, I don't think this needs to be deleted. Acalamari 17:45, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    @Acalamari: Any proof of the BC working on articles together? All I can find is a bunch of nonsense. You need more than "if I recall correctly". --AmaryllisGardener talk 17:55, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Hogettes, Knitta Please, Maynard James Keenan, etc. --Jayron32 18:08, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Actual proof that it was connected to the BC? Don't just throw articles at me. --AmaryllisGardener talk 18:11, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Knitta Please top editors Jennevecia & The undertow. Hogettes top editors Jennevecia & myself. Maynard James Keenan top editors include several BRC members. Those were three that I remembered off-hand. The BRC coordinated and worked together on these three (and several more) articles to bring them up to GA or FA standard. As Acalamari notes, the group has gone defunct, but at the time we worked together primarily to help each other improve articles and work together. A bit of the goofy-stuff on the Cabal page was just some good-natured fun. We also coordinated several meet-ups and editing events over the years. Honestly, I don't feel the need to document every single article and editing event for some sort of "approval" by you, as though you singularly get to judge when a group of editors has done "enough" coordination and editing of articles to "prove" that they're allowed to associate on Wikipedia with each other. The fact that you believe you should get to make that decision is alarming. No-one should need to prove themselves to you before being allowed to work together... --Jayron32 18:24, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not demanding info so I can approve anything, I just like to see proof of what people say, that's all. I know that I can't just make a decision, and the fact that you think that I think that alarms me. I apologize if that's what I sounded like. They do need proof (to show everyone, not just me) to show that they're socializing for improving Wikipedia, and not here for the sole purpose of socialization, though. --AmaryllisGardener talk 18:46, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Acalamari. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:51, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above and also per WP:HISTORICAL. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 17:55, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    @Headbomb: Um, the BC was never close to any kind of policy, which is what WP:HISTORICAL seems to talk about. I'd hate to see what shape WP would be in if that were the case. SMH --AmaryllisGardener talk 18:02, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    The same principle applies to other areas. Inactive or historical pages are usually tagged as inactive or historical rather than deleted, assuming they have some content. Hut 8.5 19:59, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the policy cited to delete it (that the nominator mistakingly claims to have on their side). "Humorous pages that refer to Wikipedia in some way may be created in an appropriate namespace." The Bathrobe Cabal was created for and included editors who collaborated regularly on Wikipedia. It was a functional page that was used to plan Wikimeets, and while not currently edited, it continues to be viewed. It is not a distraction to the mainspace and does not disrupt editing. Thus, the hostility implied by the repeated questioning of the productivity of the member editors whose contributions clearly indicate a commitment (even if past rather than current) to building an encyclopedia through high-quality content, as opposed to wasting time dramamongering and dicking around in the administrative space, is an unfortunate reminder of why I retired so many years ago. But I digress. Lara 18:50, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:COMMUNITY. Pages like this provide light relief and a more friendly atmosphere, and so promote community spirit. As long as those involved don't spend disproportionate amounts of time on them they do very little harm, certainly far less than trying to get them deleted. The policy cited in the nomination explicitly says that humour pages can be acceptable. Hut 8.5 19:13, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Absolutely right. There's no doubt this kind of nomination consumes more bytes and generates more bad feeling than just leaving the light-hearted page as is. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:19, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Snowy Keep. These are likely pile-on keeps at this point. — xaosflux Talk 22:56, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Merge and Redirect
    If not snowy, steamy? — xaosflux Talk
    01:15, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep per the loophole for humorous pages in WP:NOTSOCIAL. (WP:COMMUNITY, while on point, is an essay, not a guideline or policy). This in spite of the inexplicable treatment of the one dissenting editor, who, while trying to gather information to decide whether to change his/her !vote, was first treated to a disrespectful and condescending comment disguised as a link to a non-existent policy page, then to accusations of calling editors' productivity into question when only evidence of a particular collaboration was being asked for, then to unfounded accusations of believing that only his/her own opinion was important, and finally to accusations of dramamongering, as if !voting and asking for information at AfD was somehow inappropriate and inflammatory. —Anne Delong (talk) 23:31, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Of course you are correct @Anne Delong:. I apologize to @AmaryllisGardener: for my snarky, insulting attitude, and to everyone else as well, who deserved better. I have no excuse and expect no forgiveness, but I apologize anyways because you all deserve better. --Jayron32 01:22, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    @Jayron32: Of course I forgive you. :) Regards, --AmaryllisGardener talk 01:26, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh, I'm sorry, @Anne Delong:. Someone was poking around in my user subpages and decided they didn't like something so nominated it for deletion citing the policy that explicitly permits it. Then another editor comes in demanding proof of collaboration, even though there's nothing anywhere that requires that. I guess my AGF is a bit rusty after retiring years ago precisely because of this sort of ridiculousness. Everyone would benefit from more time in mainspace and less time roaming around my userspace. Lara 14:11, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    @Jennavecia: The discussion of the BRC originated at the Teahouse (where I and ColinFine are hosts) here, where User:MirrorFreak wanted help with his "Dudes Lodge", which had no mention of Wikipedia, therefore truly failing WP:NOTSOCIAL I guess. He argued "The bathrobe cabal has absolutely nothing to with Wikipedia. So what's the problem with the Dudes Lodge." and so this AfD was started. I sincerely hope you come out of retirement here Jennavecia and start contributing again. I hate to see that users have retired, and I definitely don't like to see users saying behavior like mine is the reason they retired. If I was rude then I certainly did not intend to be. Regards, --AmaryllisGardener talk 15:08, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict) Jennavecia, I hadn't intended to prolong this AfD by commenting further, but since the page is in your space and you pinged me: Just to be clear, AmaryllisGardener wasn't "poking around" (although according to WP:OWN that would have been fine anyway - user sub pages don't belong to anyone), but as a Teahouse host was preparing a response to a new user at the Teahouse who held up the Cabal as a justification for creating his/her own social club in userspace. The request for information about the collaboration was a reply to a "Keep" !vote in which the collaboration was specifically cited as a reason to keep the page. Far from being ridiculous, this AfD, which it appears will be closed as "keep", will actually protect the page if its appropriateness is questioned in the future. It's too bad it couldn't have gone like this: Editor A nominates the page for deletion, citing WP:NOTSOCIAL. Editor B !votes to delete under the same policy. Admins and other experienced editors !vote "Keep", politely citing the appropriate exemption for humorous pages in userspace. Editor B reads this and immediately concedes the error and changes his/her !vote. No drama, no ruffled feathers, the AfD is quickly closed as Keep and we all get back to creating content. —Anne Delong (talk) 17:00, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for the thoughtful replies. @AmaryllisGardener: Unlikely that I'll come back in any serious capacity. I prefer gratitude for my prolific free labor > incessant pestering and drama, which is what it became in my final months. That said, @Anne Delong: my pages don't need to be protected via AFD, and that's not how things work anyway. The 2007 MFD didn't protect them from this, for example. And that's okay, because they're protected via the policy that was cited to delete them. Also, for future reference, when someone's userspace pages get nominated for deletion, they rarely respond with thank you cards or cookies. Such positive experiences on a regular basis at AFD would classically condition those nominators to continue silliness like this. Better to instead make it clear that there are better things to do so that, hopefully, classical conditioning works to coax more people into more productive activities that serve to benefit the project rather than waste time. Lara 15:13, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment from the OP. It appears I have upset you Lara: I'm sorry. I was not poking about in anybody's user space. Somebody pointed at a set of pages which appeared to me to have nothing to do with creating Wikipedia. It is evident that quite a few people have heard of the BC and knew what it did. I had never heard of it, had no idea what it did; but nothing I saw on the pages suggested that it had any part in creating Wikipedia content. But then I don't understand why people spend time mucking around with their signatures or user pages. I proposed the deletion in good faith, and am content to accept the consensus. --ColinFine (talk) 19:14, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as a friend of the Bathrobe Cabal who never joined because I won't take a photograph of myself in a bathrobe. Also, WP:ILIKEIT. — Huntster (t @ c) 23:49, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Userfy - no wait it's already in userspace I could sort of understand though not necessarily agree with this MFD if this was in WP space, and maybe there would be a case for moving it to userspace or marking it historical. But as it is already in userspace I don't understand why we are even considering its deletion. At some point in the future historians of the first decades of Wikipedia will come across many references to the bathrobe cabal. Lets not make their life more difficult by deleting it. Also I'm not sure this was an entirely humorous matter, at the time when this was going on we had quite a few admins who were under the age of majority, This reads to me as a humorous attempt to allow a group of adult admins to self identify, currently irrelevant as we are unlikely to have any admins who are currently under the age of 18, but things could change if we find a new way to engage with and recruit the youngest part of our audience. ϢereSpielChequers 10:49, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    That wasn't the rationale, but sure. Ironholds (talk) 21:31, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    So... hmm. @WereSpielChequers: I thought you were around a lot back in the days of the BRC's prime and knew we had underage members. One of our most prolific being @Coffee: who designed many of our graphics. I'm not sure how we've given the impression we were self-identifying as adults. If anything, we pushed a pretty sophomoric sense of humor! Haha. Lara 21:44, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi Lara, Looking back on my early Wikipedia space edits, the summer of 2008 was when I started going to meetups, voting in RFAs and generally getting involved in the community. So when the BRC was going on I would have been a very new editor and not sure of how one got an invitation to join such things. As for the adult bit, I should have spotted the Coffee issue, but I did see the clause added by this diff. ϢereSpielChequers 18:40, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Hmm. @WereSpielChequers: I remember you being around a lot. Maybe that was in JC's channel. Anyway, we never enforced that rule. I can think of at least one two other young members. It wasn't invitation only except at the very beginning, when it was admins only. After that, anyone could join via image submission. There are a lot more members than featured in the gallery. Not everyone wanted their pic published. Lara 21:22, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, obviously. GlassCobra 22:57, 3 October 2014 (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.


Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/User:Jennavecia/Bathrobe_Cabal&oldid=1089070211"