Wikipedia talk:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Catholic Church of Wikipedia

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Briswegas had just missed the deadline but this was a good response so I am including it here. Dwain

• Delete or rename. While I must admit that this is quite a clever parody, its connotations with the Roman Catholic Church are inappropriate and unacceptable. How would people react if there was a "Shi'a Mosque of Wikipedia" or an "Orthodox Synagagogue of Wikipedia"? The reaction would probably be somewhat different. If you want to keep this page, I suggest to at least rename it to WikiSect or something along those lines. Of course Wikipedia is meant to be a fun experience for all concerned, but this Church business is taking it just a bit too far. Brisvegas 10:49, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

I think it's peurile and misguided. It's fitting that it's been voted for deletion and it's telling that its principal proponent left in a tantrum. 213.205.198.229 13:11, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

• I think that the fact that people need to continue to discuss this article and attack its author well after the vote has been taken is sad. Voyager640 16:04, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

I agree. Should we delete these comments? Brisvegas 10:59, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Essjay was a very valuable member of the Wikipedia community. He was the administrator general of Esperanza, a mediator, and the director of the Counter-Vandalism Unit. He was elected WikiPope and always used his authority to strengthen the community, rewarding wiki-indulgences, for example. When the CCW became such a controversal issue and began tearing apart the community, he was too heartbroken to continue contributing. He didn't leave because the church was deleted. (In fact, the church survived.) Essjay left because he felt that he was no longer an asset to the community. The harshness of this debate, not the threat of deletion, is the reason behind our loss of one of Wikipedia's most active and friendliest users. --TantalumTelluride 18:49, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Just for clarification, Essjay was not elected to WikiPope. He always was WikiPope. And he had no special authority, so he couldn't use "his authority" to strengthen the community. Most people outside the CCW had no idea he was WikiPope. --LV ^{(Dark Mark)} 18:52, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

In other words, it's a cult.

Above unsigned comment by 213.205.201.234 -Voyager640 07:26, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Voldemort - he held a lot of posts besides wiki-pope, that wasn't the one Telluride referred to. And to the cult line - its a parody, when we believe in it for real and worship Jimbo in real life, then you may call it a cult. Redwolf24 (talk) Attention Washingtonians! 07:30, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Duh. I was there too. I know Essjay and his works well. You're not the only one who cares about Essjay. Why are we even discussing this matter further? --LV ^{(Dark Mark)} 15:48, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

I used the word elected very loosely. Essjay was apparently self-appointed as the first WikiPope. And then several other users "joined" his church and began helping him write satirical poems about Jimbo. Whether he was elected WikiPope or not, he always maintained neutrality on controversial issues. And when his own creation became the center of such controversy, he was too disappointed to continue. Neither Essjay nor any of the cardinals intended any harm by creating the CCW. If anyone would take the time to look at the list of cardinals and briefly review their contributions, he would quickly find that they are some of the friendliest and most neutral members of the English-language Wikipedia community. I've only been contributing to Wikipedia for about six weeks, and even I recognize and respect greatly the names of such valuable users as Redwolf24, Johann Wolfgang, Sam Korn, Acetic Acid, and Linuxbeak, among many others. What would Wikipedia be like if not for those listed on the list of officials in the CCW? Jimbo only knows! Wikipedia would probably be ruled by vandals. Or, even worse, it wouldn't be worth the vandals' time! You don't have to like the church; but no one can deny that its members, as a whole, are some of the most trusted and reputable contributors to Wikipedia. In fact, the CCW might very well be the secret identity of the infamous Wikipedia Cabal! --TantalumTelluride 06:29, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

• There's something disturbing about the fact that we're still debating this. Can someone please close this discussion too? Voyager640 00:58, 6 December 2005 (UTC)