- Category:Living anarchists (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)
In general "Living xyz" categories are useless however most people who are important enough to anarchist thought to have a page are dead. It serves a real purpose to be able to locate people who can actually comment on current affairs. The last discussion was also closed by a sock puppet account. 66.21.143.7 (talk) 04:11, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. There was a clear consensus to delete. I'm convinced to relist. This is not solely for the reason that the closer was a sock: I don't think it is prudent to undo administrative actions for the sole reason that they are performed by a sock. There is nothing to suggest improper motives here by the nominator or the (sock)closer. However, the sock's involvement, combined with the improper non-admin closure and subsequent deletion by the nominator were so far outside proper practice that we ought to render the close invalid. This is particularly given the thinness of the discussion at the CfD. --Mkativerata (talk) 19:39, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]- Comment There wasn't that much of a discussion on it, all that was said was "we don't create living xx categories" without much discussion of whether or not, in this specific case, one is actually useful and noncluttering (which is the only motivation I can think of to oppose the creation of the category). As far as my mentioning of the socket puppet, it was only to bring up the fact that we had two comments going back and forth exchanging generic statements and then the category was deleted by someone who obviously didn't care to follow any reasonable process. --66.21.143.78 (talk) 03:52, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relist because of involvement by the sockpuppet--better to dissuss it at CfD than here. DGG ( talk ) 08:01, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- comment As far as I can tell, none of the other users who commented in the discussion were sockpuppets, there were no procedural errors, the debate wasn't closed early and the closure was not against consensus. Why is more discussion needed? Thryduulf (talk) 11:46, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- comment More discussion would be productive because the category was treated as a usual case scenario, and usually, "Living xyz" categories are useless categorizations. However, "living anarchists" is different since most of the people important enough to anarchism to have a wikipedia page are dead. So "Living Anarchists" serves a valuable end-user purpose. "Dead Anarchists" would be an example of the kind of category that I think the consensus was originally decided on. The discussion seems (to me at least) editors going through "the motions" of a deletion. --66.21.143.78 (talk) 15:43, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete – as the cfd was a unanimous delete it is difficult to fault the close. (And it is the case that we don't divide any people categories into living/dead. Anarchists in particular should object to being organised in any way.) Occuli (talk) 15:49, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relist for further discussion at CfD. I see three problems here. First, the discussion was closed by a non-admin, Erik9, even though the close would require administrator action. This runs directly counter to the advice at WP:NAC#Inappropriate closures. Second, Erik9 turned out to be a sockpuppet of banned user, John254. Wikipedia banning policy says that this renders his actions invalid: "Users are only site-banned as a last resort, usually for extreme or very persistent problems that have not been resolved by lesser sanctions and that often resulted in considerable disruption or stress to other users. A ban is not merely a request to avoid editing 'unless they behave'." Third and finally, the actual deletion was performed by Good Ol'factory, the CfD nominator, who certainly was not uninvolved. Even if the debate could not have been closed any other way, these three issues make the deletion seem rather improper.
As far as the debate goes, it consisted of Good Ol'factory's nomination (by the way, I agree with his reasoning) and two WP:PERNOM votes. Surely it cannot hurt to relist for a more thorough discussion. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 17:40, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I deleted it pursuant to the close, so by that time my status as nominator was irrelevant. Since the closer was a non-admin, he couldn't delete it. I'm not positive that the closer asked me to do it, but he may have. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:43, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relist closed by a banned sockpuppet and deleted by the nominator - don't really see that there's much more to say. Guest9999 (talk) 18:36, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- That it was the nominator who did the deletion is irrelevant, given that they did it after it had been determined after a proper discussion that consensus was to delete the image. Thryduulf (talk) 07:27, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Before deleting a page an admin should fully consider all the different factors involved. If there has been a deletion discussion then they should be able to objectively and neutrally consider its content. I assume that the nominator/deleter in question did not just blindly follow the close made by someone who had not been given the community's authority to make it without at least glancing at the discussion itself - something they could not have done with complete impartiality. Guest9999 (talk) 15:35, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The discussion was unanimous' - what possible bias could anybody impart on that? Also, the deletion happened 7 and a half hours after the discussion was closed. During that 7 hour period other discussions on the page were closed individually, producing lots of hits on watchlists. All the other users and administrators who viewed that page during those 7.5 hours had ample opportunity to dispute the close before the page was deleted. Nobody did so, by implication agreeing that a discussion that was unanimously in favour of deletion was correctly closed as "delete". Equally, it has taken over 10 months since the close, and just under 5 months since Erik9 was blocked (that anniversary is today) for anyone to raise this issue here. None of this is indicative of any great problem with the outcome of the deletion. Thryduulf (talk) 16:06, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Would you agree that there are probably good reasons behind the following general practises:
- Non-admins should not close discussions when admin tools are required to carry out the result.
- Sockpuppets of banned users should not close deletion discussions.
- Pages should not be deleted by the user who nominated them for deletion.
- Personally I think that there are and when a discussion goes against all three I think it is worth going to the relatively minor inconvenience of relisting it in order to retain the integrity of the process itself. Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy but I think that in this case the process was so abused and misused that now it has been brought up for review it cannot be endorsed however rational the outcome might seem. Guest9999 (talk) 16:56, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- In the case of unanimous and other blatantly obvious results (as for example this case), then no I don't agree. Judgement in cases where the result is not blatantly obvious either way should be left to administrators, but that isn't relevant to this case.
- Banned users should not be editing Wikipedia. However, when they do this does not mean that every edit they make is bad, and closing a discussion unanimously in favour of deletion as "delete" is hardly (a) controversial or (b) incorrect. The only extra thing that needs to be said about sockpuppets (leigtamte or otherwise and regardless of who the sockpuppeteer is) is that they must not be used to make more than one recommendation in a deletion discussion (which in this case they did not), nor should they be used to close a discussion in which another member of the family has commented (which in this case they did not). In this case therefore, it is not relevant that the user was banned - the decision was the only possible one. Remember that it was not known that Erik9 was a sockpuppet for another 5 months, so we cannot expect anyone around at the time to be aware he was banned.
- As for point 3, once a deletion discussion has been closed as delete, and a reasonable time has been allowed for others to do it or the closure to be reverted (I consider 7.5 hours more than reasonable in this regard), then it really doesn't matter who pushes the button. Thryduulf (talk) 18:28, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse. The discussion was unanimous to delete. Had I been around that day, I'd have closed it the same way. In fact, if people are upset because Erik9 closed it, I'd be happy to sign my name on the close. --Kbdank71 00:23, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I too would be happy to attach my name to that close, and the subsequent deletion, if it would make others happy. Thryduulf (talk) 07:27, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- And I. Endorse as the outcome was clear, indeed inevitable given the general reaction to "Category:Living foos". "Living foos" / "Dead foos" is not a category set that has historically found any support at CFD except in the rarest of cases, which would explain why the debate itself attracted little participation. So, what's to stop this? The criticisms of the process of closure are points of technicality rather than ones with actual merit here. The category would have been deleted correctly whoever closed the discussion and whoever thereafter pushed the button. Relisting would be a triumph for process over results. Wikipedia isn't a bureaucracy, after all. BencherliteTalk 08:26, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relist There are enough issues to make one believe that another discussion might be useful. Hobit (talk) 14:18, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The only issues are completely irrelevant ones - the discussion was unanimous, based on sound reasoning and could not have been closed any other way, regardless of who closed it. When a discussion is closed in favour of deleting the page under discussion, it really doesn't matter two hoots who pushes the button. Thryduulf (talk) 16:06, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm perhaps too big of a fan of policy, but I think Guest9999 has it right, when the process has been bent this badly it's worth the relatively small amount of time to do it right. Hobit (talk) 17:47, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm a big fan of policy too, but not to the extent of pointlessly rehashing something where the outcome is obvious. See my response above for the reasons why I feel that in this case that the wrong people doing the right thing is not really doesn't matter too much. Thryduulf (talk) 18:28, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Probably not, and if no one had raised the issue I'd favor just leaving it be. But someone does care and process was really quite broken, so in the interest of fairness I see no reason not to allow a new discussion. It's a reasonable request. Hobit (talk) 00:01, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse Process for process' sake is unhelpful. I would sign my name to that close if someone wished. NW (Talk) 10:48, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse. In the abstract, the discussion was closed properly, even though it was closed by a user who we wished hadn't closed it. Relisting would be empty formalism. It is quite normal for consensus to agree that categories that subdivide people into explicitly living and dead categories should be deleted, so I doubt consensus would change even if it were relisted. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:39, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
|
