I would like to lodge a formal complaint against User:Cavalier_One for reverting all of my recent edits, specifically regarding the following categories: Category:Dagger-shaped_Warships, Category:Dagger-shaped_warship_classes, Category:Super_Star_Destroyers, Category:Super_Star_Destroyer_variants.
After User:Omicron reverted some of my changes, I contacted him and we agreed to stop edits until the dispute process could be performed. I was creating a long, detailed reply justifying the changes at Category_talk:Dagger-shaped_warship_classes, and had left a note asking for patience while I compose the response.
However, only a few hours later, Administrator User:Cavalier_One deleted the two categories I made and undid my other changes. The justification given was "Wookieepedia does not categorise by the appearance of a subject".
I believe this has been done in violation of Wookieepedia:Deletion_policy, which states deletions must be put up to a vote. No vote was performed, and no discussion took place. I believe this was also done in violation of Wookieepedia:Dispute_resolution - the dispute process was not followed.
Finally, while the justification given was "Wookieepedia does not categorise by the appearance of a subject", I can not find this in the rules. In fact, the only rules I can find on categories is Wookieepedia:Layout_Guide#Category which does not support that claim. I also cannot find anything to this effect when searching Wookieepedia.
Categories are intended to make navigation easier. While there may or may not be categories currently on appearance, there has been no discussion I can find on their merit.
I am linking to a backup I made of my notes (thankfully, I left the window open on my computer at home, so I didn't lose all the notes that User:Cavalier_One carelessly deleted): User:BrentNewland/Dagger
I request that all these issues - what qualifies as a Super Star Destroyer, whether "Dagger-shaped warships" is an acceptable navigational and organizational category to have, and whether User:Cavalier_One's actions were acceptable and justified - be discussed and potentially put to a vote. BrentNewland (talk) 21:01, December 13, 2014 (UTC)
- Being familiar with this situation and witnessing it play out, I will certainly say that I am in 100% support of this category's deprecation and removal. I was actually planning on doing so myself, but Cav just happened to beat me to it. This shouldn't need any sort of formal community vote to determine whether we're going to employ what frankly is a ridiculous and unencyclopedic category, but should it come to that, Mr. Brent Newland, I can practically guarantee you won't win that one. Toprawa and Ralltiir (talk) 21:04, December 13, 2014 (UTC)
- Since this category was arbitrary, subjective, and unencyclopedic original research, I believe it falls under the purview of the "fanon" and "junk" clauses of the deletion policy that you're trying to lawyer us with. Had I noticed it first, I might have deleted it myself. Furthermore, your claim in your notes that your work was "maliciously" deleted could be construed as a personal attack, a blockable offense. Cav was correct, it can stay deleted, and you'll be better off not embarrassing yourself any further. -- Darth Culator (Talk) 23:22, December 13, 2014 (UTC)