Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 15:53, 24 October 2012

24 October 2012

Category:Wikipedians who are not a Wikipedian

Category:Wikipedians who are not a Wikipedian (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

The discussion was overwhelmingly tending to keep -- and in jumps an admin who thinks his views count for more than those of the rest of the community. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 09:41, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

I corrected his error. He probably didn't look at the page history, and didn't know that it was the topic of a community discussion. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 09:46, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

You didn't quite - it needs an admin to extract and restore the category description. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:50, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

For ease, here was my deletion rationale:

speedily deleted under ] "attack/disparage" (with a bit of] thrown in) I've no involvement in the current Malleus Fatuorum/Arbcom dispute. I can see many good people were outraged by stupid JClemens "not a Wikipedian" remark. But creating categories to attack an editor for a remark he made isn't how we do things. We AREWikipedians that means we discuss things together, and we use proper mature methods to do this. We don't tar and feather people (and I think that exactly the reason people rightly objected to JClemens' remark). We don't engage in puerile ] - we don't monumentalise the folly of others. Where would it end? Do we end up with "Category:Wikipedians who are fuckers" in protest at things Malleus has said? Please, step back and cool down everyone. When we have a dispute, and real Wikipedians try to use discussion and dispute resolution methods to, well, like "resolve" the dispute, not stunts and protests to ramp it up. Take this to deletion review if you must, but ask yourself how you are helping Misplaced Pages. Your valid point/protest has now been made."

The tagline to the category at the time of deletion was "In protest, referencing a comment by an ArbCom member"

The "discussion" was simply part of the same battleground, and not based on policy. Anyway, if DRV thinks I've done the wrong thing, then I give up.--Scott Mac 09:47, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

• Overturn. The Speedy Deletion was out-of-process for two reasons:
  1. The category had already been nominated for CSD:G10 and declined by User:LadyofShalott before it was taken to CfD.
  2. Speedy deletion is only for obviously uncontroversial cases, and this is clearly not one of them.

The deleting admin's reasoning was honorable, but his action was technically incorrect. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:48, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Do we now do "technically incorrect" > honorable and useful? Anyway, I don't think it was technically incorrect. But if you think undeletion helps here, whatever. --Scott Mac 09:52, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Boing, are you honestly arguing this _isn't_ an attack? Your argument here is about process (something I'm a huge fan of in fact), but not about the meat of the matter. Could you explain the purpose of the category if it's not just an attack page? Hobit (talk) 12:40, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

If I was arguing that it isn't an attack, I would have argued that it isn't an attack - but as I didn't, you should be able to work out for yourself that I'm not. My argument is that this was a "supervote" abuse of admin power against a clear majority of the !votes so far, in the midst of a furore over perceived abuse of power - and that was pretty much guaranteed to cause a shitstorm. The point is that it is not blatantly and uncontroversially an attack and therefore is not subject to CSD:G10, and the community should not have its power to decide for itself taken away. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:08, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Again, it singled out one person's (widely disparaged - and rightly retracted) remarks, and served to invite people to participate in memorialising them. If that's not an attack, and attempt to disparage or a battleground tactic, can you explain what purpose it served? I keep pressing this, but get only evasion. I'm not trying to "badger" you, but the answer to this is at the root of it. If there's were a valid policy-based alternative purpose for this being articulated, then speedy deletion would indeed be inappropriate. But is there? What is yours? The reason you gave at the CFD "*Keep. If the definition is good enough for a serving member of ArbCom, then it's fucking good enough for me" seemed to be further disparagement and not at all policy based. --Scott Mac 13:22, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

As I have pointed out several times, whether it is an attack is not the issue here - as it was clearly not uncontroversial, that is something that should be discussed and decided by the community on the CfD page, and by you personally with your speedy deletion. Your continuing to argue your personal opinion about the category is just reinforcing the point that you did not act as a disinterested admin, and I'm sorry that you don't seem to understand the limits of your powers as an admin. If you do not understand that point, I'm sorry, but I'm not going to try to explain it again. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:36, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

If you aren't willing to argue it's not an attack, you really shouldn't be using process to try to keep it around seems unwise (changed wording as it was much more confrontational than I'd meant). Much like a BLP violation, purely process-based arguments should be used very carefully with respect to things that are attacks. Thus my endorse. I don't mean to pick on you, I just know you are a really reasonable person so you're the best person to discuss this with IMO... I'll duck out of this discussion at this point and let you have the last word here if you want it. If you'd like to discuss further, feel free to do so on my talk page. Hobit (talk) 13:47, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Hobit, I would be happy to discuss the category in the deletion discussion, but I was denied that opportunity by an incorrect admin action. That action should be reversed, and the discussion that was closed should be allowed to resume - and the consensus should be judged by an admin who is capable of doing so neutrally. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:33, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

"Honorable and useful" is not a valid Speedy Deletion reason. Further, your responses indicate you are not acting as a disinterested admin here, and are effectively supervoting. As I said, I believe your actions were honorable, just incorrect, and I really think you should stop badgering now and just leave DRV to do its job. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:58, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

• Overturn - per Boing!'s points - Sitush (talk) 09:51, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
• Overturn - per the technically correct points made by Boing! (Also, in comment, I note that the cat was deleted on the grounds that it represented the actions of Wikipedians who are not "real Wikipedians", thus proving the usefulness and validity of the category in the first place.) Keristrasza (talk) 10:02, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
• Ignore all rules, keep it deleted and just stop. Go back to working on the encyclopedia, instead of worrying about this category created so Misplaced Pages has another martyr that divides the community on a hot button issue. What is the point in it being re-created? Potential collaboration of spiteful editors? You also do realize categories still work whether they are blue or red, right? So, instead of being adults and moving past what Jclemens said (despite how wrong you may think it was), we are going to resort to petty name-calling, creating categories for the sole purpose of harping on his comments, have Misplaced Pages disrupted first through categories for deletion, and now deletion review, only to be brought back to CFD later? Just stop, let it die, for the sake of the time users are going to be wasting on this stupidity. Regards, — Moe Epsilon 10:39, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

  Red and blue categories don't work the same - you can't have a category description if the category itself doesn't exist. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:07, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

  Because no one knows what this mysterious category is about, right? Regards, — Moe Epsilon 12:29, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

  Why is it that everybody I try to talk to these days seems to argue against what I haven't said? Oh, wait a minute - could it be because my statement was irrefutably correct? -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:33, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

  You implied that the category needed a description, which is the only difference between it being red and it being blue. My point is that everyone who has been sent the link to the category and everyone else who added themselves knows precisely what the category is about. Not only that, but the original "description" was that it was created "in protest." Does this need more explaining? Regards, — Moe Epsilon 12:38, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

  Bit of a snarky response there from me - I apologise. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:00, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

  The description could have been amended without deletion of the category. The CSD was overkill and an abuse of G10: it isn't as if the subject of the category was/is not being discussed elsewhere. I understand the rationale for using G10 but, well, it was just asking for trouble, wasn't it? Comment at CfD, by all means, but don't be heavy-handed when you are aware that there is a huge furore regarding the underlying issue. - Sitush (talk) 14:23, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

• Overturn Close by administrative fiat against overwhelming consensus to keep. Joefromrandb (talk) 10:44, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
• Overturn - per Boing!'s points. Send it back to CfD if then so inclined and let the discussion run to its end. --Beetstra (public) (Dirk Beetstra on public computers) 10:46, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
• Overturn - Mostly per Boing, with a note that the "attack"-iness of the category has been disputed by numerous editors at the CFD. As Boing said, clearly not uncontroversial. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:04, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
• Overturn - Per Boing and overwhelming consensus to keep. --Epipelagic (talk) 11:19, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
• Overturn - Incredible assumption of bad faith when ignoring the consensus. No where is Jclemens listed, nor in any way does this category require someone have an opinion of him in order to join, so the deletion rationale is inherently flawed. There is no "attack" in someone feeling disenfranchised even while they continue to participate, and this category doesn't differentiate the reason for the disenfranchisement. Too much assumption. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 12:02, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
  • As a matter of correcting fact, the category description at the time of deletion was "In protest, referencing a comment by an ArbCom member". Assume what you will from that.--Scott Mac 12:14, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
• Endorse It's a clear attack IMO, no if ands or buts. A very justified attack, but Scott is right here. I'm a huge fan of process, but let the ArbCom election be the process to address this, not sniping like this. Please folks, put down the stick. Hobit (talk) 12:36, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
• Endorse. Not often do I find myself in agreement with Scott MacDonald, but Hobit is exactly correct. With all due respect, Dennis Brown's ABF claim has zero basis in reality. As Scott pointed out, the description at the time of the deletion leaves no doubt that the (quite unwise) comment by Jclemens was the focus of this category. T. Canens (talk) 13:26, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
• Comment: What I'm looking at here is the definition of G10 from WP:CSD#G10: "Pages that disparage, threaten, intimidate or harass their subject or some other entity, and serve no other purpose." I don't think this was justified under that criterion. It's the "and serve no other purpose" bit that bothers me: the first thing I thought of was that this category was pro-Malleus, not contra-Jclemens. This does have another purpose: to show solidarity with another editor. I'm not !voting myself, because there's been entirely too much drama over this already; I didn't feel strongly enough about it to put myself in the cat to begin with, and I don't feel strongly enough about it now to vote overturn. But it does appear to me that the G10 is out-of-process (not so important), and given that the discussion was tending towards keep before, the sudden shift in burden of proof from deleters to keepers unfairly changed the dynamic of the discussion (more important). Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 13:39, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
• Endorse After all, a lot of the people calling for an overturn have made it clear that they aren't Wikipedians (you determine if I was being serious or not). Why should their opinion mean anything, especially while they are all acting like children? For those of you who have threatened to leave, do you actually have the guts to follow through and do it or are going to stay here and continue with your battleground-mentality disruptiveness? AutomaticStrikeout 13:41, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
• Overturn Being an admin doesn't gives you the right to do whatever you want. This decision was completely different from the consensus. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ 13:51, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes, it does. Otherwise, how do you explain Floq blocking an arbitrator for a personal opinion or Drmies giving Malleus a barnstar for making personal attacks? AutomaticStrikeout 13:53, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

I deleted this as an attack. I'm not arguing that was a consensus position, however, the "debate" on the CFD did not contain one policy-based reason not to view it as an attack. Typical of it was Boing!'s ""*Keep. If the definition is good enough for a serving member of ArbCom, then it's fucking good enough for me". That's not a valid argument on Misplaced Pages - and we don't count votes as consensus. Anyway, I wasn't summing up consensus on that "debate", I was speedy deleting an attack/disparage, because we always delete attack/disparage items. Had there been a serious, non-battleground, argument for keeping it going on, then I would not have speedy deleted it. Can someone give me a use for this that doesn't relate to attack, disparage or battleground? I've been asking that without reply. Oh, btw, I'd have deleted an anti-Malleus cat just as quickly.--Scott Mac 14:00, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Of course there were policy-based reasons at the CfD when you deleted. Most obviously, this was that contributors self-categorise on numerous bases and thus there is precedent. You should have raised your points at that CfD, not used a hammer in an out-of-process manner, imo. - Sitush (talk) 14:29, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Speedy deleting attack pages is not out of process. The question is, is it an attack or attempt to disparage - or does it serve some other purpose? No one, as yet, has suggested any other purpose.--Scott Mac 14:38, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

By the way, in case anyone hasn't understood why I used the word "fucking" in my comment, it was to ensure that I qualified for the category. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:39, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Solidarity and support of an editor, and sympathy for the perceived abuses inflicted on him, perhaps? This ain't a zero-sum game; supporting the one does not mean attacking the other. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 14:42, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes, indeed, This was mentioned at CfD prior to the CSD. - Sitush (talk) 14:44, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes, except it wasn't Category:Users who want to cuddle Malleus - it was users who want to keep banging on about a remark JClemen's made (and retracted). The rationale, was indeed, quite explicit.--Scott Mac 14:50, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

I for one have never wanted to cuddle Malleus. But I remain disgusted at both the direction that "request for clarification" took, so speedily, AND JClemens obscene remark. Yes it was retracted, partially and grudgingly, and far too late. pablo 14:56, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Scott, I provided policy based rationales for every action. I'm not a member of the category, I haven't gone on strike, I'm not "one of them", I'm just another administrator here who has been trying to bridge the two sides rather than point fingers. You might not agree with my rationale, but they are policy based, that editors are allowed to categorize themselves by religion, political philosophy, etc. My observations are not so easily dismissed. If it was affecting their article contributions (the reason we ARE here) then it would be arguable as a disruptive influence, but short of that, it is a form of censorship. This is a volunteer project, not their day jobs, and the intolerance for free expression by people who deeply care about the project is disturbing. The only disruption that has come out of the category was the deletion discussion and your hasty decision to speedy delete it. Had people left it alone, no drama would have come of it. The core of the current drama is an intolerance of a few in allowing editors to peacefully categorize themselves. I don't have to agree with their philosophy to respect their right to do this. Again, no disruption has come from this except by its detractors. This is no different than a category "People who think Misplaced Pages needs administrative change", except it isn't sugar coated. It also isn't an attack on any individual, no matter how poorly worded the original summary was, and no matter who was the "straw that broke the camel's back". The one comment isn't the only common concern expressed by the members of the cat. This smacks of censorship, and I find that offensive, much more so than a peaceful grouping of individuals that share a common concern over the direction Misplaced Pages is headed. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 14:55, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't think we're on the same planet. Peaceful?? There ought to be calm discussion about MF, and JClemens and arbcom - absolutely. No view gets censored. I don't even know what mine are. But what this was was a battleground tactic from people determined to ramp up the debate and the attendant vitriol, rather than to seek resolution of the disputes. The same was evidenced at the CFD. It may be, with hindsight, I should have ignored it (that's a valid point) but to say I caused drama when people were peacefully over there doing something undramatic and peaceful.....? Hey, ho. Oh, byw, how will restoring it serve to keep the peace either?--Scott Mac 15:05, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

• Comment Well, congratulations to Rob & Scott - what was a fairly peaceful protest is now a fully-fledged draaahhhhma publicised at even more venues. pablo 13:54, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
• Overturn and relist - I was the admin who initially declined the G10 nomination because I don't believe it is an attack. I think BoingSaidZebedee nailed it on the head that this was closed with an out-of-process supervote. The discussion should be allowed to continue. LadyofShalott 14:06, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
• Overturn and relist SM's out-of-process closure disrupted the community's discussion, which should continue. I created a similar category, for Category:Wikipedians who are a net negative as an influence on Misplaced Pages. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 15:12, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
  • That's useful, mature, conciliatory, and assists in building consensus and defusing heated community debates. Thanks.--Scott Mac 15:27, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
    • Scott, Sarcasm and name-calling don't advance conversations. Why do you keep saying that the JClemens-inspired category (or the new AGK-inspiration) increases heat or is a battlefield tactic? A show of solidarity (which strikes many as humorous) causes no threat to anything. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 15:50, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
• Comment. I'm not really concerned whether this category gets deleted, renamed, or not. Would like to point out, however, that this category meets a long-held sentiment of mine, à la Groucho's quip of not wishing to belong to a club that would have him as a member (proof of me having held this sentiment almost 4 years ago). Sure, I added myself to the category out of solidarity with Malleus Fatuorum, but that's not the only reason, and I might have added myself without knowing about the Arb-kerfluffle too. ---Sluzzelin talk 15:53, 24 October 2012 (UTC)