- Category:Wikipedians who say CfD is broken (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)
The closing administrator seems to have cast his own vote, without any relevance to the discussion at hand. The closing administrator seems to improperly conflate votes to delete with votes to rename, arguing at his user talk page that a rename indicates that the category should not exist under its current name and is equivalent to delete. There was no consensus here for deletion. There was consensus to rename, and the closing administrator could have simply selected the most appropriate alternative name as long as he was casting a supervote. In reality, the disparate range of votes here makes this a no consensus. The choice to delete, the most disruptive possible option under the circumstances, is not only rather WP:POINTy, but unsupported by the votes actually cast in the discussion. Responding to a "general sink of petty snarking" by casting a snarky close for deletion only amplifies the problems with the close and the problems at CfD, with all discussion of alternative means of improving the CfD process has been deliberately tossed into the bit bucket. The decision was out of process and should be closed properly as a rname or no consensus. Alansohn (talk) 14:35, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn and relist I agree with Alansohn that the closing rationale sounds very much like the closing administrator has closed the discussion according to a personal analysis instead of the consensus. I cannot see any consensus for deletion in the discussion itself nor is there any other consensus, as such, it should be relisted to achieve a clear consensus to act on. Regards SoWhy 15:34, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn and relist The Xdamr's rationale is clearly a case of closing the discussion according to a personal analysis instead of according to the consensus. Carlaude:Talk 16:19, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn and relist- Consensus was not for delete in that debate, as far as I can tell. Umbralcorax (talk) 16:25, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn and relist. It is clear from the closer's rationale that xe's personal view was inappropriately given great weight in the closure. Given the discussion, which I have difficulty discerning a consensus from, there is a reasonable probability that, but for the error, the result would have been different. Relisting is appropriate in such circumstances. Tim Song (talk) 16:58, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I'm not sure how effective a relist would be. Most active people who care about user categories have already participated, and a large chunk of the community doesn't care enough about them to participate if it were relisted. I really can only see 1, maybe 2 more participants adding their opinion to the discussion, which probably wouldn't be enough to generate a more decisive consensus. I'd support a relist if everyone participating in this DRV who hasn't already given their opinion at the debate commited to doing so after relisting. As the closure didn't preclude creation of a similarly named category, and most participants agreed to a rename (in some form or another), I would suggest simply creating the category under a better name (preferably one suggested in the Cfd, or one similar to a suggested one). VegaDark (talk) 17:16, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Just an addition, I would strongly prefer a relist than an overturn to no consensus. My first preference, however, would be to overturn to rename, which I think is supported by the discussion. An overturn to no consensus doesn't accomplish anything, while a rename (in some shape or form) seemed to be acceptable to every participant. VegaDark (talk) 14:05, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename to what? No two people seemed to be in agreement on this question. --Xdamrtalk 16:34, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Had I closed the discussion, I probably would have chosen Category:Wikipedians working to improve CfD per Alansohn's suggestion. This is because those of us who were open to deletion weren't dead-set on any particular rename, and SmokeyJoe seemed to be open to several suggestions as well. Chick Bowen was the only one flat out supporting deletion, and their reasoning was that it was a wikipolitical category. The proposed renames seemed to (at least partly) satisfy this concern, and as a user who regularly supports deletion of many user categories, I can say with confidence that a rename is almost always better than doing nothing, so I could infer that Chick Bowen would prefer this rename in lieu of a no consensus closure (defaulting to keep, of course). Debresser's opinion would have been the only one in the debate not addressed by this closure, but you can't always please everyone. I would have noted that if people are dissatisfied with the new name and/or still support deletion, they would have been free to renominate. VegaDark (talk) 04:47, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I'll choose to support Category:Wikipedians working to improve CfD, ignoring concerns about the abbreviation, noting WP:CFD is a well known, standard shortcut, certainly to people aware of CfD. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:07, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Nothing to stop any of these being created, as was clearly stated in the closure... --Xdamrtalk 13:59, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Good point, the close does in fact state that. Of course, simply creating a less-divisive category name doesn't allow for the drama some people seem to relish. --Kbdank71 14:08, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- It was a bad close, and if not overturned, will be used a precedent for justifying future bad closes. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 20:25, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn and relisting is optional. The closer doesn't mention anything about the consensus of the debate they were closing, just gives their own opinion on deletion. If you feel so strongly, make a comment, don't close the discussion. Closers shouldn't be supervoters... it trivializes discussions. --Sancho Mandoval (talk) 17:53, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn and don't even bother relisting User categories, like user pages, have neither a function or disfunction of the goal of the project. In 99% of cases, they simply don't need to be discussed at all. SchmuckyTheCat (talk) 18:57, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn (rename or no consensus) as per comments at User_talk:Xdamr. No need to continue discussing the category, just let anyone rename if they must. The ironic humour here brought a brief chuckle, but is not really enjoyable, or productive. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 20:55, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn to no consensus. Closer substituted his own view, which should have been expressed as a !vote, for an assessment of the discussion. Stifle (talk) 21:00, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Just create the wanted category under a new name and put this to bed. Such a move was not precluded by the close or by the discussion, and doing so would be the equivalent of relisting and closing again as a rename. This doesn't require a DRV. There's a mountain. Here's a molehill. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:15, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn to no consensus per Stifle. Hobit (talk) 01:42, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn : consensus hasn't been clearly established Rirunmot 02:12, 26 October 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rirunmot (talk • contribs)
- Endorse - idiotic category which served no collaborative purpose, just a pointy one. Should have been speedied and be done with it. Tarc (talk) 14:27, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- If you think it is pointy, can you say in what way it disrupts? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 19:55, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Perhaps that could be answered after the nominator answers the same question w.r.t. his invocation of WP:POINT in the nominating statement above. Good Ol’factory (talk) 07:04, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn to no consensus per my highly detailed rationale posted to the closer's talkpage on 23rd October. In view of the snowy nature of this DRV, his response is the most ironic part of this richly ironic CfD/DRV.
I would, however, add that neither CfD nor DRV are good places for this discussion--CfD because the category was inherently critical of it (leading to a conflict of interest) and DRV because the members of the category were, without exception, DRV regulars, which inherently leads to a conflict of interest in the opposite direction. In this case DRV will win, being the metaphorical "senior court", but I think the deletion camp could legitimately raise the matter in some alternative place in the hope of a more neutral view.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 14:54, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Alternatively, one could say that the topsy turvy land of CfD, self-consistent as it is, is disconnected from the wider community? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:22, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- If the so-called "wider community" (read: you) disagree(s) with the results coming out of CfD, then the "wider community" should feel impelled to contribute to improve things. To put up, you need to participate at CfD. I hardly ever see you comment there, which I think is telling. Everyone likes complaining; few are willing to do substantive work to improve it. Of course, it's much easier to create divisive user categories. Good Ol’factory (talk) 07:12, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- If I were you, Good Olfactory, I would let SmokeyJoe be the judge of what SmokeyJoe needs to do.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 17:05, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't think you are, but I suppose you could be (snap)—SP investigation, please.... I didn't mean to suggest that anyone needs to do anything—but I am suggesting that if someone disagrees with the ways things are going in a certain area of WP, then it's logical (to me at least) that they would do work to improve that system rather than just complaining about it. To clarify my comment, SmokeyJoe as a user doesn't need to do anything. I just think users in general will find that if they want to learn and also assist the project, more good comes of participating in the actual processes rather than complaining about them or discussing them in the abstract. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:22, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I do hereby solemnly swear that I'm not a sock of you. ;)
As a general principle, if you don't mean to suggest that anyone needs to do anything, it's probably better not to use the words "you need to". That particular phrase is a conflict trigger. Nuff said. I understand that you'd prefer for us to participate in CfD rather than discussing it in the abstract, but you're dealing with a group of editors who feel differently. We wanted to talk about problems in the abstract before seeking resolution. But, someone deleted our discussion space, and the beautiful irony is that they did it against consensus, thereby very neatly proving our point. As for the rest of it, I've decided that I won't prop up a broken process by colluding in it and trying to fix it with sticking plaster. I think CfD needs structural reform based on intervention from outside.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 23:36, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- "if you don't mean to suggest that anyone needs to do anything, it's probably better not to use the words 'you need to'. Of course, this also must be read in context: "To put up, you need to participate at CfD." "Put up" being a reference, of course, to the felicitous phrase "put up or shut up". It was an aggressive rhetorical flourish of sorts, not to be taken as literally applying to JoeSmokey, but of being reflective of my opinion about how to best approach intra-WP problems perceived by an observer. It's like not voting or being otherwise politically active in a democracy: you can boycott, but it gives you little credibility in criticising the current state of the government. You can always hope for a revolution, but they are few and far between. Most real change happens through dedicated cooperative work from within. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:19, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- No, I don't like complaining. But yes, I see a problem, and I feel impelled to do something. There is frustation with being confronted by probelm-deniers. There is frustration at seeing that many have complained, to be told that they are the only one, or one of few. (Should I compile a list?) I have made some effort to contribute to CfD, but am still struggling to come to terms with its culture of adherrance to a complex "established consensus". Its normal practice is far from intuitive, and the documentation of normal practice is poor. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 20:18, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- You learn by "doing", not so much by complaining or even by constructively discussing in the abstract; I just don't see much "doing", that's all. But in this respect you are not much different than other complainers I have seen, which leads me to believe that some, at least, do "like" doing it, or at least prefer it. Instead, you could just start participating in discussions at CfD by saying what you think. There is no complex system you are required to adhere to. It's no different than any other discussion area of WP—you say what you think based on your opinion and past WP experience. But hey—to each his own. I'm just trying to be helpful. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:24, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn - probably close as "no consensus", possibly relist. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 12:02, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Relist per Vegadark. --Kbdank71 17:17, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse - Idiotic category, should indeed have been speedied. Garion96 (talk) 18:49, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Userpages are allowed to be idiotic. They aren't part of the project. So why should this be speedied? SchmuckyTheCat (talk)
- This is not a userpage. This is a user category. I don't think there's a dispensation that allows user categories to be idiotic to the same degree as user pages. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:34, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn to no consensus, or relist. Perfectly valid cat for supporting collaboration. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 00:31, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse - reasonable close. This was a pretty POINTy category, with no obvious collaborative purpose; categorising Wikipedians by opinion has long been discouraged. There may not have been a clear consensus to delete it, but I think the closing admin did the right thing in doing so anyway. Robofish (talk) 03:13, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep deleted as proof that CFD is, in fact, broken. --NE2 10:15, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|