- Category:Wikipedian Brights (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (restore|cache|UCFD)
Closed as delete even though there were twice as many "voting" for keep as delete and even though arguments for keep were unaddressed. No explanation was given in close for preferring the minority viewpoint. Ben Hocking (talk|contribs) 18:35, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- xfD discussions are not votes. Corvus cornix 18:46, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Which is exactly why I put "voting" in scare quotes. My point is still valid. A minority viewpoint was decided on (definitely not consensus) without any explanation as to why. Also, many points went unaddressed. What do you think xfD discussions are that this does not matter? Ben Hocking (talk|contribs) 19:37, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I found the !vote by Doczilla (talk · contribs) most convincing, but in general there wasn't a strong consensus on any reason to delete, and the closer did not cite any of the arguments. When the !voting goes so strongly one way and the closure another, I think the admin should be responsible enough to give a fuller explanation. I'm not personlly really in favor of a self-identification (for the sake of) Wikipedian category, but policy seems to be hazy in this area. --Dhartung | Talk 20:04, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn There was no consensus to delete, and there were adequate arguments that the category was no different from similar categories. -- Evertype·✆ 20:25, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- This was an advocacy category designed to be placed in userspace. Advocacy on Wikipedia is severely deprecated, not the least because it's against our Neutral point of view policy. Irrespective of so-called "votes", it should have been deleted. If it's ever undeleted or recreated, it should be deleted on sight. This also applies to trash such as "socialist Wikipedians", "conservative Wikipedians", "Christian Wikipedians", "Buddhist Wikipedians" and the like. Such categories, associated templates and the like should not appear on Wikipedia. They are an abuse of this encyclopedia. --Tony Sidaway 23:08, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- That's an opinion, but those other categories have not been deleted. Are you going to propose them for deletion? -- Evertype·✆ 00:03, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, 2 of the 4 categories listed by Tony Sidaway have been deleted. – Black Falcon (Talk) 00:15, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- It's not so much an opinion as a summary of Wikipedia policy. Sadly where abuses of policy via userboxes, user categories and the like are concerned, policy often takes second place to placating the very people who abuse Wikipedia. This is not a satisfactory situation, but I'm unable to remedy it by myself. --Tony Sidaway 00:16, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- It is questionable whether that is a "summary of Wikipedia policy". The person proposing this category for deletion previously voted to keep "Christian Wikipedians", so it's not clear that even the nominator agrees with your interpretation of Wikipedia policy. I realize this might be interpreted as a "you can't have yours if I can't have mine", but that's not what it's about for me. (I'm not a Bright, for one thing.) If policy were clarified so that it was clear these user categories were against policy, I'd be voting to delete this category myself. However, as it the policy currently stands, it is much like the state of the death penalty in the US in the 1970s when the Supreme Court ruled it was capricious in its application. (And, no, I'm not equating deleting a user category with taking someone's life. It's only an analogy.) My point is that until the policy is cleared up, it does not seem right that a certain group of people are selectively applying that policy to user categories. (Note: Black Falcon has been consistent in his interpretation of this policy the same way you interpret it.) In summary, my complaints are three-fold: (1) this decision was made against the majority view-point without explanation. (2) arguments I (and presumably others) made for deletion were never addressed so closing it seemed premature at best. (3) the policy you speak of is unclear and being either capriciously applied or capriciously closed. Ben Hocking (talk|contribs) 13:10, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn, reluctantly, and with a deep sense of ennui. I poured some coffee into myself to stay awake whole reading the debate, and could not see a consensus to delete; there seemed to be good strong arguments on both sides and it looks to me like a clear "no consensus". But to be honest, I cannot for the life of me understand the heat and fury generated at UCFD by this sort of user-category, either by their passionate defenders or their vehement opponents. I can well understand the importance of deleting disruptive or offensive categories such as Category:Wikipedians seeking partners in a conspiracy to commit mass murder or Category:Wikipedians who despise people without green hair or Category:Wikipedian edit-warriors. However, the existence of Category:Christian Wikipedians and Category:Muslim Wikipedians has not led to hordes of religious people block-voting their way around discussions and re-fighting the battles of the crusades, Category:German Wikipedians has not triggered panic amongst the Polish Wikipedians and nor has Category:Irish Wikipedians led to a stampede for half of the Irish biographies being recategorised under the United States, as happened in real life. So I don't see why the same tolerance which has been wisely extended to those who want to group themselves by Erdős number cannot be extended to those who have been touched by his noodly appendage or to the people who deny any spiritual dimension. Likewise, if the categories are deleted, the involved folks can still find each other through the whatlinkshere on a template, so either way I can't see the whole thing matters as much as an invisible hill of beans. Plenty of the people on both sides of these heated debates are editors whose other contributions I respect greatly; is there some woesome climatic anomaly over at WP:UCFD that makes all these good folks create so many storms-in-teacups when they pop in there? Is there no way that UCFD or the underlying guidelines can be reformed to avoid so much energy and talent being wasted over non-issues? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:39, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- You are right. Category:Christian Wikipedians and Category:Muslim Wikipedians have not been deleted. Propose them for deletion, and expect a shìtstorm. Wikipedian Brights opposed the deletion as you have observed, and the deletion does not appear to reflect consensus. Why do Brights oppose this deletion? Because the Bright viewpoint is analogous to the religionist viewpoint. In for a penny, in for a pound. Delete all the categories or none. But the religionists do not deserve protection in such a context. (And if so, why?) -- Evertype·✆ 00:12, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm afraid that your "expect a shìtstorm" comment troubles me just as much as the bizarre vehemence of the deletionists, and not just because of the un-necessary crudeness of the language. "Shitstorms" over invisible hills of beans are a waste of everyone's time, and destructive to the goodwill which wikipedia needs to function. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:22, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse - Vote counts mean little when canvassing is involved as evidenced by the talk pages of several of those saying that this should be kept. --After Midnight 0001 00:09, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- What canvassing? Is it your view that people self-identifying in a category shouldn't be informed about that category's being up for Deletion? Most people don't follow the Deletion logs. Mostly just the witch-hunters and the axe-grinders. This Deletion fetish is one of the things that makes the Wikipedia suck. -- Evertype·✆ 00:12, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Please don't make personal attacks against entire groups of editors. - Crockspot 00:17, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Out of curiosity, are you referring to the "canvassing" accusation or the "witch-hunters" and "axe-grinders" accusation? (It's not clear from your indentation.) Neither are helpful, of course. Ben Hocking (talk|contribs) 14:45, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Benhocking, what could you possibly find inappropriate about my comment regarding canvassing? While this was closed on strength of arguments, it is worth noting for those who are arguing that this was incorrect based on the numbers of supporters to each side, that those numbers were skewed by canvassing. --After Midnight 0001 19:00, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Where was this canvassing? If it really was canvassing, then your comment was not inappropriate, and I am guilty of failing to assume good faith. I know that I wasn't canvassed, and I have seen the canvas argument used incorrectly all too frequently. If you show me where this canvassing happened, I will apologize for jumping to conclusions. (Regardless of whether it a valid conclusion or not, I'll admit that I jumped to a conclusion. Of course, absence of proof is not proof of absence.) Ben Hocking (talk|contribs) 19:09, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- As I said, it is on the talk pages of several of those saying it should be kept. Users were directed to join the discussion and comment. When this is done to large groups of category members, it is considered canvassing. --After Midnight 0001 20:06, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't suppose you have some way for me to verify that, do you? Perhaps if there was a category or something that would allow me to check out several of these user pages… ;) Ben Hocking (talk|contribs) 15:47, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Is there some reason that you are not able to look at the talk pages? Are you actually suggesting that I need to create Category:Users who have been canvassed for you?--After Midnight 0001 18:17, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The joke was that the easy way for me to verify your statement would be to go to the talk pages of members of Category:Wikipedian Brights. Of course, since that category doesn't exist… (Belatedly, it now occurs to me that I can look at the talk pages of those who responded on the UCFD.) So, here's a play-by-play of those who voted keep:
- User talk:Bigwyrm: Not told about it, as far as I can tell (1)
- User talk:Evertype: Not told about this particular UCFD, as far as I can tell (2)
- User talk:Brian1979: Not told about it, as far as I can tell (3)
- User talk:Diego: Not told about it, as far as I can tell (4)
- User talk:Jkspratt: Told about it, in a way indicative that all members of the cat are being told about it. (1)
- User talk:Mikenassau: Ditto. (2)
- User talk:Sketch051: Not told about it, as far as I can tell (5)
- User talk:Dan Pelleg: Told about it. (3)
- User talk:Fyslee: Not told about it, as far as I can tell (6)
- User talk:Heliotic: Never told anything. (7)
- User talk:S.dedalus: Told about it. (4)
- User talk:Benhocking (me): Not told about it. (8)
- So, I apologize, there was canvasing, which might have altered a very close (non-consensus, slight tendency towards keep) 8-6 vote into become a (still non-consensus, but verging even stronger towards keep) 12-6 vote. You'll also note that this canvassing was of (a) limited scale, (b) neutral message, and (c) open. However, it does fail, in my opinion, (d) the partisan test. Ben Hocking (talk|contribs) 18:35, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Looking at things further, it appears that there is something odd about User:Heliotic and User:Sketch051. Look at their contribs.... --After Midnight 0001 19:06, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Re: Ben Hocking. I haven't checked all of them, but at least one of the posts was most definitely not neutral: The category is up for deletion. You may wish to oppose. Also, the description of an 8-6 vote as "non-consensus, slight tendency toward keep" ignores the strength of arguments in favour of the raw distribution of 'keep's and 'delete's. An 8-6 'vote' can yield a strong consensus for a particular outcome if one side presents no real argument, and a 10-2 'vote' can fail to produce consensus if neither side presents a decisive argument. – Black Falcon (Talk) 19:21, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Re:After Midnight, you're right that "you may wish to oppose" is definitely not neutral. I was in quick-edit mode and got sloppy. As for things looking weird, there were a lot of weird things -- especially how several people's sigs didn't match their user names, but I chalked that up to coincidence. I'd rather not hypothesize on a pattern of contribs, as I know it is possible to jump to bad conclusions unless you're willing to go through quite a bit of evidence. (I have not yet looked at the contribs, so I don't know how strong the evidence is or isn't.) Re:Black Falcon: I agree completely, but it seemed to me that just as many arguments for keep were arguments about "no good reason to delete", I didn't see any solid arguments for delete that didn't either (a) apply to 90% of user categories and/or (b) actually be arguments about "no good reason to keep". If you would care to post a diff to a single argument that isn't either of these, I'd appreciate it. Also, I'll note that not even you actually voted to delete the category in question at this particular DRV. Interesting, no? In looking at the delete "votes" it seems I miscounted there as well. Ben Hocking (talk|contribs) 19:35, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse - AfD is argument driven, rather than a vote count. If ten people say keep, citing "per so and so", and "so and so" makes a poor argument, a few convincing "delete" arguments would (and should) override. - Crockspot 00:17, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn - No consensus seem to be the consensus. The delete discussion was poorly presented. The standards for Wikipedia user categories were not laid out by the nominator or even in the discussion, so no one really knew what to discuss. Instead, the discussion was focused on personal beliefs and other matters not relevant to whether the category met user category standards. Because of this, the discussion failed to determine whether Category:Wikipedian Brights met the user category standards. Wikipedia:User categories for discussion indicates that the standards for user categories are similar to those for Userboxes. User categories cannot include incivility, personal attacks, must not be inflammatory or divisive, and must not be for propaganda, advocacy, or recruitment of any kind, commercial, political, religious, or otherwise, opinion pieces on current affairs or politics, self-promotion, or advertising. If content is not appropriate on a user page, it is not appropriate as a user category. In addition to not focusing the discussion on divisiveness, advocacy or any of the other items listed, there was no discussion about whether use of Category:Wikipedian Brights complied with Wikipedia:User page. Weak discussions not focused on policy/guidelines should not result in delete. -- Jreferee t/c 12:27, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The standards for user categories are most definitely not similar to those for userboxes or other userpage content. I am not aware of a single instance when a user category deletion was accompanied by deletion of the template. The standard for the appropriateness of user categories is not whether the content is appropriate on a userpage (editors can say almost anything about themselves on their userpage), but whether the category adds any value beyond what might be provided by a userpage notice or a userbox. That is, does creating a grouping of editors on a given characteristic foster collaboration. A userbox stating "This user supports Candidate X" would not be touched, but user categories expressing the same sentiment are regularly deleted. Although this may not change your "overturn" recommendation, I think it's important to specially note this. – Black Falcon (Talk) 19:28, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Very weak overturn, only with the proviso that the category be removed from parent Category:Wikipedians by philosophy, leaving it only in Category:Nontheistic Wikipedians, a subcat of Category:Wikipedians by religion. Since almost every keep !vote cited the existence of Category:Christian Wikipedians, it is apparent that the supporters of this category consider it a religious category. Since the oft-cited Category:Christian Wikipedians is not a subcat of Category:Wikipedians by philosophy, I can only support a restoration of this category if it is not included as a subcat of the philosophy category. If it is not removed from the philosophy category, I endose deletion, and suggest salting it to prevent recreation. In any case, Category:Atheist Wikipedians or Category:Nontheistic Wikipedians already exist to express the sentiment, and there are no fewer than two userboxes specifically related to this movement (plus another which deifies Richard Dawkins, its most vocal proponent), so expressing support is quite easily accomplished without the user category. Horologium t-c 00:07, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse. Too many weak reasons to keep, like WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS, "no reason to delete", and "I'm a bright, so keep". --Kbdank71 15:43, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Let's address these one by one. (1) First of all, it doesn't matter how many weak reasons there are to keep, as long as there are strong reasons to keep and/or they outweigh the reasons to delete. (2) WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS is a weak reason, but it's relevant when people are arguing that policy clearly states this should be deleted. This is relevant because policy must not be clear if recent UCFDs for other categories that had the exact same reasons given were kept. (3) "no reason to delete" is valid if there are no reasons to delete and there are good reasons to keep (such as collaboration). (4) Who made the argument that "I'm a bright, so keep", or is this just a strawman? (5) As Horologium understands, this DRV isn't so much about whether or not the user category should be deleted as whether or not policy was appropriately followed. Ben Hocking (talk|contribs) 16:12, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, I don't have a problem as far as procedure being followed; After Midnight's close was easily justified on the strength of the arguments provided. However, my argument hinges not so much on procedural grounds as on categorization policy; this category was inappropriately placed in multiple categories from the instant it was created. Unlike many of the quasi-religious categories which were moved into Category:Wikipedians by philosophy from their homes elsewhere (often from Category:Wikipedians by religion), this one has always been in both the religion and the philosophy cats. It shouldn't be in both, and my one attempt to resolve the issue by removing it from the philosophy category was reverted by one of the most vocal supporters of retention. Horologium t-c 16:38, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I apologize for misrepresenting your position. However, I disagree that the close was easily justified on the strength of the arguments provided. The only reasons I saw given for delete was that there was (a) (humorously) there was "no reason to keep", frequently à la WP:NOT#MYSPACE (see Kbdank71's inverse comment to see why I find this funny), and (b) it could be divisive (meanwhile arguing that the fact that it merely could be helpful for collaboration was insufficient without proof that it actually was helpful for collaboration—note that I gave 10 ways that it could be helpful, and zero of those were challenged.) Ben Hocking (talk|contribs) 16:50, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- it doesn't matter how many weak reasons there are to keep, as long as there are strong reasons to keep and/or they outweigh the reasons to delete I don't believe they did outweigh the reasons to delete. --Kbdank71 18:57, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- What were the strong reasons to delete? (Please be sure that these are actual reasons to delete and not merely invalid reasons to keep. To keep it succinct and not clutter up this page, feel free to link to the diffs or mention them by datestamp if diff linking is too inconvenient.) Ben Hocking (talk|contribs) 19:05, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse closure. As suggested by the title and confirmed by the category description (before it was deleted, that is), this was an ideological self-identification category only, for which there is a precedent for deletion. Any attempt to argue that it could be useful for collaboration must assume that mere self-identification with an object or idea translates to encyclopedically-relevant interest in or knowledge of the object or idea. However, no evidence has been offered to support that claim and I am not aware of any such evidence. I am, however, aware of studies that raise serious doubts about the extent to which adherents of an ideology are actually informed/knowledgeable about it. One that comes to mind is "The Nature of Belief Systems in Mass Publics" (1964) by Philip Converse (a brief synopsis of the work is available in the linked article). I don't think that anyone suggesting deletion of the self-identification category is opposed to creating a Category:Wikipedians interested in the Brights movement as long as categorisation takes place on the basis of interest, rather than mere self-identification (that is, don't use userboxes that express identification to populate an "interest" category). – Black Falcon (Talk) 17:35, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- One of the two associated userboxes (((User:UBX/Bright))) is constructed as "this user is interested in the Brights movement". That userbox (and only that one) is appropriate to link to the "interested in" category you propose. The other one (((User:UBX/BrightBlue))) is a self-identification userbox that should not link to it. Horologium t-c 19:14, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse closure - Agreeing with what's already been said above. Especially, interest vs. identification "badging"; strength of arguements vs. "I want mine if you get yours", WP:HARMLESS, etc. - jc37 11:13, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The "strong" arguments you mention here are all actually "weak" arguments to keep (e.g., "interest vs. identification", "I want mine if you get yours", WP:HARMLESS). Pointing out "weak" arguments to keep does not equate to having "strong" arguments to delete, especially when other arguments to keep are neglected. The only reasons I've actually seen to delete (as opposed to arguments about how other reasons to keep are weak) are:
- (a) a particularly strict interpretation of policy that would delete more than 90% of all user categories. Considering that the policy in question is not new and neither are these categories, this suggests that what's new is the interpretation of the policy. Hence, this interpretation is just that—an interpretation.
- (b) precedence where previous deletes have occurred based off that new interpretation.
- Am I missing something? If so, what? Ben Hocking (talk|contribs) 01:57, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse closure this fosters no cooperation among Wikipedians - you've deleted the sexual minorites, now we're getting to less important categories. Carlossuarez46 22:21, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
|