Scarab bug tracking software 

Yesterday I was reading through Comparison of issue tracking systems and followed the link Scarab.

This lead to a disambiguation page. The page listed:
An open source bugtracker software

This text and the links contained are extremely confusing. The disambiguation template clearly states that if an internal link (such as the one from the comparison) leads to this disambiguation page, you should change that incoming link it to point to the appropriate article. Since the article did not exist and since the item in the list for the application was confusing, I decided to create a Scarab Bug Tracking page.

To make things as seamless as possible, I quickly copied the text from the old item into the new article, intending to improve the article as soon as it was created. Before I could make my modifications, you changed the content to link back to the list or something similarly stupid. (I would go back and read exactly what you changed it to, but you deleted the page, so I can’t check the history)

After I reverted your changes and then made some minor changes to the content, I put the page up for move proposal to Scarab (software) to be more consistent with pages that are from disambiguation pages.

This morning I came back to the page to check if it had moved, but it was gone! I assumed that maybe it was just moved and that the old page no longer existed. I poked around the Move proposal list, and the disambiguation page that I had originally edited (Still in that state) and could no longer find the page.

As a person unfamiliar with all Wikipedia bullshit politics and confusing processes, it took me a while to figure out exactly what happened to the page I had created less than 24 hours ago. Finally I found it, the person who originally ruined my short article after less than ONE MINUTE of my edit, - you -, deleted it!

In your comments, you did not explain the reason for deletion, you only sited “A3”. To anyone but a Wikipedia user extremely familiar with deletion, this would be meaningless. An “article too short” would have been much better. After digging around a lot, I found that it was a reference to the third reason an _A_rticle could be deleted. Hence, the A3. You should AT LEAST link to that so people that aren’t familiar with Wikipedia jargon can figure out what that means without searching through piles and piles of horribly disorganized Wikipedia-politics-ridden pages.

Considering that the content I posted stated that it was a stub, the time it takes to delete an article, and the relative ‘freshness’ of the page, it makes you look like a deleting troll. If you thought that the page was clearly grounds for deletion, you should have put that inside the article or something and let it stand for a good 48 hours before finalizing the deletion.

I agree that Wikipedia should not be laden with content-free articles, but having cyclic links from the disambiguation page, to the bug tracking software page, and back is worse. If there is no article to link to, there should be no link.

The only things that you achieved by deleting the page is: made yourself stand out as a stereotypical Wikipedia troll/nazi/zealot, put off a Wikipedia contributor from continuing to improve the quality of Wikipedia, wasted a lot of my time to investigate what the hell happened to the page I created, and broke at least two internal links.

You violated the spirit of Wikipedia and smashed what little hope I still had for the Wikipedia community. Congratulations, asshole.

PS: You can clean up the mess you created and the one that I was trying to clean up before.