|
Category:Fascist Wikipedians (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|UCfD)
Someone keeps deleting my Category of Fascist Wikipedians. I am a fascist and I should be allowed to have a category. Why is no one deleting the Capitalist Wikipedians category? Why is my category being singled out? Someone keeps doing a "speedy delete" on it. It is absurd that same category can be deleted over and over without discussion simply because it has been deleted once in the past supposedly. Billy Ego 03:09, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
- note: Based on a significant subset of commenters (both overturn and keep voters) below expressing the view that political-ideology categories should not be used at all (and, frankly, I agree with that assessment), upon closure of this debate I will nominate all such categories for deletion at UCFD. --Random832 14:42, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
- Comment: User recreated category at Category:Fascist Wikipedias – Qxz 03:06, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
-
- That was a mistake. I misspelled it there. Billy Ego 03:07, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
- It seems to be a recreation of deleted content. I would suggest that it be returned to a deleted state. (To be more clear, keep deleted. Feel free to complain taht the folks at CFD aren't deleting other obviously bad categories, or contest those closures here.) Christopher Parham (talk) 06:27, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
-
- Because it was deleted once before, that that is justification to continually delete it? What kind of logic is that? What do you mean when you say it is a "recreation of deleted content"? Why was it deleted in the first place? And how can the content possibly be the same? What was the content the first time it was deleted? The content now is my username. Did it exist before I created it? If so, my username wasn't there. What "content" are you talking about? It's a category, not an article. Billy Ego 06:41, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
- Comment - I speedy deleted this a few days ago as recreation of deleted material, per this UCFD discussion. Please read WP:CSD#G4. You are going to need a consensus here to allow recreation of the category before it should be made again. VegaDark 07:43, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
- Endorse deletion, as if it were not blindingly obvious. Guy (Help!) 10:37, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
- So why have Category:Communist Wikipedians? This is a political judgement that has no place in wikipedia. There could also be a Nazi Wikipedian cat if someone wanted it. Nobody is banned from editing here or describing themselves however they want to. David Spart 11:12, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
-
-
- I think we already nuked that, for the same reasons. Self-consciously offensive categories are divisive, inflammatory and have nothing to do with building an encyclopaedia. Guy (Help!) 13:15, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
- Overturn Billy Ego makes a valid point that has not been refuted. This is not even in the article space. It may be used for vandalsim but so what. Even a fascist like him deserves to be catergorised. David Spart 11:07, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
- Endorse Just sounds like flamebait to me. The Kinslayer 11:19, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
- I don't like it either, but that's not a valid reason. --Random832 14:19, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
- No. That is a completely different reason, and I'd thank you to not put words in my mouth in future. I am in fact indifferent to it, but think it should remain deleted as it has been proven to be mainly used for flamebaiting and other general disruption of wikipedia. To be honest, my mind boggles a bit at how you made an (apparantly) logical leap from concerns about flamebaiting to WP:IDON'TLIKEIT. The Kinslayer 16:22, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
- I guess in my head i automatically translated "sounds like flamebait" to "i don't like it because it could theoretically be used for flamebait" rather than "it has been used for flamebaiting, here's the evidence of this". Sorry about that misunderstanding. --Random832 18:49, 5 March 2007 (UTC) - I guess it was IDONTLIKEIT after all, since you provided no evidence even after my prompting. --Random832 19:59, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
- Endorse for obvious reasons. Metamagician3000 12:59, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
- Endorse only cuz I saw this whilst here for something else, this cat's a troll enabler if ever there was. Gwen Gale 13:32, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
- overturn and relist, original UFD had no consensus, ought to have defaulted to keep. No real basis for deleting this and allowing other political categories. --Random832 14:17, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
- Overturn because fascism is listed as an ideology and therefore they deserve a category if other ideologies have them. - Pious7 17:12, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
- Endorse, at best useless categorizing of users that doesn't help us build an encyclopedia, but really mostly flamebait. Kusma (討論) 17:33, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
- Endorse because unlike capitalists and communists, professing certain fascist and neo-nazi views and holocaust denial is a criminal offence in several european countries. --Mcginnly | Natter 18:07, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
- (I had posted Template:shrubbery here before, but decided it doesn't really fit the situation) The insinuation that fascism has anything to do with holocaust denial (or that, indeed, any of these problems with a nazi category would apply to a fascist category) is entirely unsubstantiated. --Random832 18:45, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
- So you think Wikipedia should conform to censorship laws of every country? Billy Ego 19:36, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
- Overturn. Fascism is a longstanding and well-documented political ideology which has historically had (and to a much lesser degree, presently has) large numbers of adherents. There are hundreds of legitimate fascist political parties. As long as we have Category:Wikipedians by politics, there is no good reason why Category:Fascist Wikipedians should not be part of it. We should not delete this category simply because individual editors find the ideology to be objectionable. All user categories in Category:Wikipedians by politics are useful because they allow users to voluntarily announce their political point of view (and the possible biases that result), and to find Wikipedians with common interests and views for the purposes of collaboration on articles. —Psychonaut 19:19, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
- Endorse closure I see a number of problems with this category. First there's the obvious flamebait concern. Secondly, this is a category that will likely stay very small and be populated by provocateurs and, well yeah, the occasional fascist. Sure, there's no bound on the number of ways we can categorize Wikipedians but what is really the added value here? Do we really need a category of fascist Wikipedians? of Wikipedians who plan to vote for Obama unless Giuliani wins the republican primary? Wikipedians interested in ketchup? Psychonaut's claim that "there are hundreds of legitimate fascist political parties" is dubious at best: I suppose it all depends on what one means by "legitimate" but very very few political parties today identify as "fascist" and all of them are beyond marginal. Pascal.Tesson 23:30, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
- If fascist parties are "marginal" and "very few" in number, and this is a justification for the category's deletion, then the same thing can probably be said of many other user categories, such as those for libertarians and Communists. —Psychonaut 12:55, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
*Endorse closure Yes, there may be actual facists, yes this amounts to content based discrimination and yes, the phrase " content based discrimination" is a euphemism for censorhip. That said, the disruptive potential of a such a category is so high and the usefulness is so obviously low that the decision of what to do should be obvious. Althouhg Wikipedia is not censored in terms of content, this is a cat for userpages so we can censor all we want if to do otherwise would likely lead to disruption of the project. JoshuaZ 23:36, 5 March 2007 (UTC) Changing to weak overturn After reading other comments and matters I'm not convinced that the presence of the category will be so disruptive as to disallow it. I'd rather have no political Wikipedian categories at all, but not is not the time to discuss that. JoshuaZ 20:20, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
-
- Who do you believe is going to disrupt the project as a result of having this category? Surely not the fascists themselves; if they were going to disrupt the project for political reasons then they would do so whether or not this category existed. I can only assume that you think that other editors would be wreaking the disruption, in which case I think you have a shamefully low opinion of your fellow encyclopædists. —Psychonaut 12:55, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
- Though it pains me, Overturn. "For the obvious reasons" isn't a reason. Maybe it's argumentum ad populum. Maybe it means, "What other folks said," or, "Because I hate fascists and other people do too." Maybe it means, "I'm uncomfortable discussing Facism." Maybe it means something else, but we can't know unless we say. I welcome those who said, "for the obvious reasons" to make those reasons obvious. Now make no mistake, I Hate Fascism. But if a user wants to identify as fascist he or she will identify as fascist. Yes, we're not bound by article policy in user-space, but those article policies exist for good reasons that don't change just because we're not editing the encyclopedia proper. WP:N exists to insure Wikipedia's trustworthiness as a neutral reporter of facts. How trustworthy is Wikipedia on maters of Fascism if it censors fascists? The deletion betrays and encourages bias. WP:N, WP:NOT and the other policies aren't empty rules, they're a mind-set, a philosophy, and a and matter of wiki-faith. -- Richard Daly 04:30, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
-
- Would you feel differently if the category were "Nazi Wikipedians" or "Racist Wikipedians" or "Wikipedians who support White Power" (I know that facism doesn't necessarily imply any of these, but I'm curious where, if anywhere you draw the line). JoshuaZ 04:47, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
- You're muddling the issue by bringing up categories (racism, white power) which aren't necessarily political. As for Nazi Wikipedians, though, I wouldn't argue any differently for them. Let the Nazis self-identify if that's what they want. The rest of us can keep an eye on them to make sure they don't push their POV on political topics. —Psychonaut 12:46, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
- How is supporting White Power not a political position, and why do you distinguish between political and non-political categories? JoshuaZ 17:52, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
- Personally, yes, I think we should be just as neutral in userspace as in articles no matter the subject. We're neutral in our articles on racism and white power and Nazism, and with good reasons: those are the same reasons we should be neutral in user space. Anything else is giving in to our bias just because we think "the rules don't apply here." Those rules have reasons, and the reasons still apply.
- Suppose some smart 15 year old kid comes to Wikipedia because she's questioning her parents' fascism. We owe it to her to be a neutral, reliable source on fascism, so she can make up her own mind, but that's not sufficient. We must also demonstrate our neutrality, and - as best as we are able - show no bias anywhere on the site, or else that 15 year old is going to take one look and decide we're full of it. --Richard Daly 22:51, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
- Endorse deletion Am I a fascist? Are you? How do you know? Was Essjay a fascist? There are screen names at Wikipedia, not people. Screen names don't have political philosophies. All "X Wikipedians" are illogical and ill conceived. Utgard Loki 14:48, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
- So nominate them for deletion en masse. Heck, there are a bunch of other categories you could delete on that rather extreme basis, too. Your argument is not a reason to delete the Fascist category and keep the others. --Random832 17:48, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
- If he did, I'd agree. There is also my favorite: the navel gazing aspect of it all. Wikipedians aren't notable for being Wikipedians. Attributes of them are even less interesting. Alleged attributes of screen names are way past useful, unless one's idea of Wikipedia is as a social networking site instead of an online encyclopedia. Geogre 03:59, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
- Er, what? Essjay had to quit because of what he did! If anything, that shows that it does matter who you are and how you represent yourself. Jimbo said that Wikipedia as a community - like all communities - is totally dependant on the trust users are willing to place in one another. If Wikipedia asks editors to "assume good faith" then it must have an honor system that actually expects its contributors to earn that good faith through honesty. I am not a screen name, I am a man. And when I sign my Wikipedia edits, I sign them with the same name I use to sign anything else. --Richard Daly 23:04, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
- That is a side issue. The point that I was making is that we are personae, not people. If you tell me that you use your legal name, if you tell me that you are a mayor of Chicago, I have no verification and should not seek any, because our community exists as projections. We require that they act in ways according to policy, but we can no more invoke your mayoral term (and what you did to the SDS in 1968) than we can your kicking the dog this morning. We only know what you do here and defer your identity through a series of actions. "You" are made up of all your words, as far as Wikipedia is concerned. The Essjay issue illustrates what happens when people foolishly allow the paper dolls to step off the page, when people believe that the sign of "Essjay" must have a referrent that is a person with all the attributes given by the name. There can be no "fascist Wikipedians," even if there are numerous fascists who are on Wikipedia, just as there can be no "communist Wikipedians" or "socialist Wikipedians" or "Jewish Wikipedians" or anything else, because "Wikipedian" already disallows any verifiability to the real world analog. Geogre 16:19, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
- Comment Don't know if youre simply allowed to comment, but to Billy Ego, you may find that there is rather a large body of persons who will oppose you based upon your views, irrespective of any argument you may make. Cloveoil 14:49, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
- Comment I'd like to point out that the Category does not meet the criteria for speedy deletion in the first place because the content is not the same from when it was first deleted in 2006, before I got here. The content is my username. Only the title of the category is the same. I feel I am being attacked and singled out and censored just because I'm a fascist. Where is the sense of community on Wikipedia? Billy Ego 20:53, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
- This does meet the criteria for speedy deletion, please read WP:CSD#G4. G4 - Recreation of deleted material. A copy, by any title, of a page that was deleted via Articles for deletion or another XfD process, provided that the copy is substantially identical to the deleted version and that any revisions made clearly do not address the reasons for which the page was deleted.. Lets see- Is it a copy of a page that was deleted via Articles for deletion or another XfD process? Yes, it was as I linked to above. Is it "substantially identical to the deleted version and that any revisions made clearly do not address the reasons for which the page was deleted."? Yes, absolutely. Members of a category changing does not constitute no longer being substantially identical. The category was intended for the same exact thing as the one that was deleted via UCFD, thus it also does not address the reason for which the page was deleted in the first place. I didn't speedy delete this category because I didn't like it, if that were the case I would speedy hundreds of other categories. This clearly met policy guidelines to speedy delete. VegaDark 21:09, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
- It's absurd what you're saying. You're saying that any category on Wikipedia can be deleted over and over again without a vote, without question, simply because it was deleted once in the past. You're wrong that the content is substantially identical. The only content that can be in a category are the items listed in the category. My username was not listed in the category the first time it was deleted. Therefore it's not identical at all. The only thing identical is the NAME of the category/article. Billy Ego 21:14, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
- You are missing a key factor here. It is true that any category on Wikipedia "can be deleted over and over again without a vote simply because it was deleted once in the past" only if if was deleted via an XfD discussion, which this was. It would be a waste of everyones time if that were not the case, as XfD debates would be meaningless since someone could just recreate the category and we would have to go through a new debate each time to delete it, wasting everyones time. When evaluating a category against this criteria, the category members don't matter. The category name, category description, and intent of the category are what matters. VegaDark 21:22, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
- You're wrong. It's not different whether it's an article or a category. An article with exactly the same name can be recreated and it isn't subject to speedy delete as long as the contents of the article are not identical. It's the same for a category. A category name can be recreated and not subject to speedy delete as long as the contents of that category are not identical. Billy Ego 21:26, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
- Almost no category would ever be speedy deletable if that were the case. You are more than free to ask any other admin if they think I am wrong. VegaDark 21:30, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
- That is the case. If someone wants to delete a category/article there has to be a vote first, unless the contents are substantially identical. It's not about the TITLE of category or article but about its CONTENT. Billy Ego 21:34, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
- Comment This is just insane. Wikipedia is all about freedom to say what you want. If people want to call themselves fascists who are we to stop them doing so? And what potential for vandalsim? Is there s Catergory:Nazis for the love of God - now that is potential for vandals. They can add that cat to any bio and shazam! instant libel! Bu this is for users. THINK ABOUT IT!. People are just annoyed about someone here being a fascist. Would people object to "racialist wikipedians" or "white power wikipedians"? Probably. Would people here object to "wikipedians who support black power? Me thinks not. Oliver Wendell Holmes and all that jazz people. David Spart 20:57, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
- Comment I'd like to point out that Fascism is distinct from any racist viewpoints. For me, it's a politico-economic philosophy. It doesn't have anything to do with race for me. Billy Ego 21:04, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
- Wikipedia is all about building an encyclopedia, nothing else. (It is in fact specifically not an experiment in free speech.) Things like user categories, user pages, even the wiki format are just a means to an end. They're tolerated only so long as they contribute to, or at least don't actively hinder, our base goal. If people want to call themselves fascists, they can do so somewhere else where it won't antagonize and distract those who are working toward our real goal. —Cryptic 00:04, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
- Endorse deletion, valid UCfD, category is divisive. Regretably so, but divisive nontheless. Billy Ego is also advised not to recreate categories while they are under discussion. --tjstrf talk 21:31, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
- I'm still learning all of this, but is there really a Wikipedia policy against divisive material? WP:NOT#Wikipedia_is_not_censored means that Wikipedia will contain all sorts of divisive things. We can't and shouldn't manufacture consensus by deleting every real-world thing that would divide us.--Richard Daly 23:15, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
- Comment. I'm not a moron. I can see that I'm being railroaded. The category was speedily deleted but wrongly speedily deleted. Just because an article has the same name as it did when there was a vote for deletion before, it doesn't mean it can be speedily deleted unless the contents of that article are the same. The contents of "Category:Fascist Wikipedias" is NOT the same as the first time it was ever deleted. The contents now is my username. So, what you are doing by speedily deleting it shifting the burden of obtaining a consensus away from those wanting to delete the category/article to those wanting to not delete the category/article. It's a scam and I can see right through it. Hopefully someone else can as well. It was wrongly speedily deleted in the first place. Billy Ego 22:03, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
- Reply As I said on your talk page, categories don't really have content. That exemption from the criteria is for cases where the article content has gone from being vandalism to a real article, or where it was previously an article on a non-subject and is now on a different and notable one of the same name. The fascist Wikipedians category was previously a category filled with Wikipedian fascists, and it still is. So the content has not changed in the slightest. --tjstrf talk 22:06, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
- That argument just doesn't stand because it's patently false. My username is different than the usernames of others. Therefore if my username is there other than someone else's then the content is different. Each time a new user creates the Fascist Wikipedians category after it has been deleted there must be a vote to delete it. It's not supposed to be speedily deleted, unless the contents are the same. That is, unless the same usernames are there. Billy Ego 22:10, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
- I give up. I'm convinced you're being purposefully dense now, since I've explained the policy to you several times. Please read Wikipedia:Wikilawyering, and realize that we, not being mindless function machines, can see right through it. --tjstrf talk 22:13, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
- So now you personally attack me. I'm not "dense." What is mindless is the peremptory deletion of a category over and over for all eternity just because it was voted to delete it ONCE in the past. That is totally unjustified. It's being done to shift the burden on those who do not want to delete it. It is mindless and worse still unethical. An article does not meet the criteria for speedy deletion simply because it has the same TITLE. Billy Ego 22:17, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
- Endorse deletion. I supported keeping this category, but I believe the category was fairly deleted. It is irrelevant that this user was not involved in the original discussion; the content was deemed unsuitable by the forum that decides these things, so it should go.--Mike Selinker 22:41, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
- What "content"? The only content is usernames. Billy Ego 22:46, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
- The content of "A category grouping fascist Wikipedians". --tjstrf talk 22:47, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
- So you're telling me that a small vote of only FOUR Wikipedians back in 2006 have decided the fate of this category for all eternity on Wikipedia? They have decided that the burden is now and forever on those that want to keep the article to obtain a consensus rather than on those that want to delete it, forever? Absolutely absurd. Billy Ego 22:52, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
- CfD's tend to not be a jump on the bandwagon type of discussion. So if there is a nomination and any support, most editors don't fell the need to add another 'me to' comment. So the number of comments is not a significant issue. The fact that there is no opposition is a better indication of what the strength of the support is. Vegaswikian 23:06, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
- Vegaswikian, you are very wrong to state that there was "no opposition." There were a number of well-reasoned arguments to keep the article, from multiple users. As Random832 pointed out far above, the original decision to delete was flawed, as consensus had quite clearly not been reached. -Pete 23:24, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
- The definition of "content" is irrelevant. The category by that name or any variant of that name was deemed unacceptable for the Wikipedians section. Consensus to recreate is required. I might support that if it came up again, but the actions of the closer to speedily delete it were correct.--Mike Selinker 23:56, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
- My comment was generic and the 'no opposition' was not intended as a statement of what happened in this discussion. The point I was trying to make is that, when there is no opposition you can assume that most editors support the action. When there is opposition, you can not make strong assumptions about the strength of that support, or lack of support, for the predominate position. Most CfD readers will not chime in when they believe that the outcome appears to be what they will support. Of course their silence can also be caused by other reasons. Clearly if there is a lack of consensus, or a weak consensus, the issue needs to continue to be discussed and if earlier discussions simply were not strong enough to swing consensus the other way, then future discussions, that add additional facts to support their position, need to be considered. Just don't try to read too much into the number of editors that contributed to the discussion. Vegaswikian 00:11, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks for clarifying, VW. I understand and agree with your general point, but in this case it doesn't apply; there were multiple arguments on both sides. It seems to me that the issue underlying all of this is, how to appeal an inaccurate determination of consensus? Billy does not need to seek to overturn consensus, since consensus was never reached to begin with. Thus, finding uncontroversial consensus now seems to be too high a bar. Rather, whatever admin looked at the original discussion and made the determination that there was agreement to delete appears to have been quite mistaken; that is the issue that should be examined. In my view, the fairness of Wikipedia's review policy is far more worthy of our attention than the inclusion or disinclusion of a single category. -Pete 02:18, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
- Overturn. I disagree with Billy Ego's politics (to the degree that I understand them), and I think that categories for Wikipedia editors are stupid in general. But none of the arguments I've seen here convince me that "fascist wikipedians" should be treated any different from "wikipedian musicians" or any other such nonsense. Some of the arguments are clearly motivated by political views, which is out of bounds in my view. Somewhere approaching 20 people have weighed in on the current discussion, which should be enough to take a fresh look at an issue that was initially made by four (I'm basing that on common sense, not a thorough understanding of WP policy.) -Pete 23:13, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
- To be clear, there were nine people in that discussion, not four. That's a fairly common number for a CFD discussion.--Mike Selinker 23:51, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
- Yes, I was mistakenly taking Billy's word for it - I think he may have meant that four people supported the deletion, but I haven't counted that carefully. -Pete 02:18, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
clarifying policy: I just read through the relevant policy, and want to clarify something that had confused me. The fact that an administrator determined that consensus had been reached is sufficient for VegaDark's speedy re-deletion of the category, above; but that determination is not officially considered relevant to the ultimate outcome of this discussion. This discussion is essentially an appeal of that determination.
Now that I understand it, the policy generally makes sense to me, but in this case, it seems to lead to an injustice, as Random832 has pointed out. The administrator's initial determination of consensus was clearly incorrect, and that administrator is currently on wikibreak, and unavailable for comment. Thus, the process leaves the category deleted, which to me seems a significant violation of the Wikipedia guideline of assuming good faith.
Finally, I feel that Utgard Loki's vote above should be disregarded, because a clear refutation of his/her reasoning was given, and no rebuttal ever came. -Pete 05:14, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
- As the closing admin, I've been asked to come and explain myself. I'm not sure why, since my determination of consensus has already been deemed "incorrect", but whatever. If I may draw your attention to my user page, which has a paragraph explaining my CFD closings. In part: consensus is not vote counting. If you come to me saying "but it was 7 keeps to 5 deletes!", I'll probably just ignore you, so don't try it. It won't sway me. Consensus is determining what to do based upon what the community wants, but also based upon what is best for the encyclopedia. Everyone on earth could vote "Keep" on Category:Jimbo is a poo-head, but the end result will be a delete So there you go. And while I'm here I'll endorse deletion; nobody "deserves" to have a category. This is an encyclopedia. Why are we arguing about user page content? --Kbdank71 05:48, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
-
- Kbdank, thank you for offering some insight into your process, especially while on break. Sorry if I offended by calling your determination "incorrect" - that's what it seemed to me, I was going off the dictionary definition of "consensus" and was unaware of any other. I agree that vote-counting is not the appropriate way to reach a determination of consensus. But I would think that the what is best for the encyclopedia and what is best for the community of editors would come into play. I believe that trust among peer editors and trust of the power structure are important parts of that. Why am I engaging in this discussion? Because I want to understand how Wikipedia responds when someone has been the victim of something that looks to me like "mob rule." Because I hope that Wikipedia is capable of dealing with situations like that, and I want to contribute to making it so. -Pete 06:20, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
-
- How are you counting 7 to be in that? [7] On closer examination I'm see 5 votes to delete and 4 votes to keep. One of the votes to keep is contained in a comment, so it isn't obvious. So 5 people have decided that forever on Wikipedia the burden of keeping the Fascist Wikipedians category lies on the one's who want to keep it instead of the ones that want to delete it? That ridiculous. To burden of obtaining a consensus for deletion is supposed to be on those that want to delete. Billy Ego 16:27, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
- I didn't. What I said was an example, as in "IF you come to me saying 'but is was 7 keeps to 5 deletes'..." If you wish, I'll rephrase it: "You just said 'but it was 5 deletes to 4 keeps', and I already said I don't count votes, because that's not what consensus is about." --Kbdank71 19:31, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
- So that minute group of individuals that voted in the past is able to decide the fate of this category forever? From then and on through all eternity because of their decision, the burden to obtain a consensus is on who wants to category to stay instead of on who wants to delete it? Do you realize how many individuals are on Wikipedia? How can you even entertain the thought that they represent the consensus of Wikipedia? Do you have any idea how many Wikipedians there are? Those few people are not statistically significant at all. Again, I'm not a moron. I can see through this scam. Billy Ego 19:39, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
- If that's not what consensus is about (incidentally, I agree. The delete votes were essentially IDONTLIKEIT - there was not a single policy-based argument for deletion in the entire debate. We allow user categories based on political views. Why is "fascist" different? To claim that it is different is an inflammatory politically-biased judgement (not yours, but that of several delete voters there, and several endorse voters here) that has absolutely no place on wikipedia.) then on what basis _did_ you decide to delete it? You've explained why you ignore vote counts, but not explained what reason you _did_ have for closing that debate in the way you did. --Random832 19:43, 8 March 2007 (UTC) In a nutshell: There is no general consensus to disallow political usercategories. There was no specific consensus to delete this category. What consensus did you base your decision on? --Random832 19:44, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
- Divisiveness in the case of user categories is a valid argument. Perhaps a better way of reviving this category would be by renaming it to "Wikipedians interested in Fascism" or something similar that can be argued to aid in collaboration rather than splitting people into camps? --tjstrf talk 20:26, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
- How is the category for Communist Wikipedians not divisive? Should that be renamed Users interested in Communism? Just because an ideology is unpopular does not mean it should be relegated to a special, safe place where it can't offend anyone. Algabal 20:32, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
- Overturn. If there is a category for Communist Wikipedians, there must be one for Fascists. I don't see how it can get any clearer. They are both major political ideologies, and we shouldn't let the ultra-sensitive prevent Wikipedia from acknowledging their existence. Algabal 19:40, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
-
- Comment A category for communists is much less of a flame-magnet as one for fascists, we all know this. If you ask me, both cats are useless and so are 99% of the user categories but that's not really the point here. The reason why we don't want this category is not because we don't like fascists on Wikipedia. It's because we know full well that it will permanently be abused, populated maliciously, vandalized and whatnot. It's for that very same reason that we want to avoid the creation of the category: Wikipedians who think that Osama Bin Laden is way cool. We are not forbidding anyone to be a fascist or to root for Bin Laden. We simply want to avoid the childish drama that these cats are bound to create. And the potential for that drama is much worse for a fascist Wikipedians category because of the profoundly negative connotation of the term. Pascal.Tesson 23:26, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
- If your overall concern, as you claim it is, is to avoid childish drama and flame-baiting, then all political categories should be removed. But until this is done, it is discrimination against Fascists (they do exist!) to not allow them to have their own category. Because, for some odd reason, the horror that is Communism does not attract as much trolling as Fascism, does not mean Fascism should be treated differently. Algabal 23:46, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
-
-
- Pascal, that is the first compelling argument I've heard in favor of deletion. If only somebody had put it so plainly at the beginning, we might have avoided this whole mess. Unfortunately, I speak only for myself; it may be too late to win over those who are more invested in this particular decision (namely, Billy and Algabal.) At this point, convincing them that they're not victims of some kind of discrimination will be a pretty monumental task, considering the silly arguments and stubborn resistance others have made them endure. At any rate, I may consider changing my vote. -Pete 23:51, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
- Comment/Suggestion It seems that a great number of the concerns raised by the folks endorsing deletion could be addressed if the text of the category was "Wikipedia users who identify themselves politically as Fascist". This clearly delineates that this is a political categorization, and not a "d00d, that admin is a total FASCIST for deleting my pokemons fanfic!" category. While I feel that categorizing users politically serves no use to the project, as long as capitalist and communist user categories exist, a restructured cat using text similar to what I suggest above would seem to be ok. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 21:58, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
-
- perhaps self-overturn your deletion to rename then, and do likewise for all the other categories here with similar naming issues? For example... Anarchist Wikipedians; Anti-communist Wikipedians; Anti-socialist Wikipedians; Antifeminist Wikipedians - Denny
- My deletion? - CHAIRBOY (☎) 00:56, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
-
- Nevermind that--sorry! I completely misread the deletion log I suspect or had a minute of total brain stupidity as to who actually deleted it... - Denny 01:01, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
-
- No worries, just trying to suggest a compromise that satisfies widely. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 01:07, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
- Ha ha ha the admin who deleted the cat endoreces his own determination no WP:COI there! David Spart 22:13, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
- Comment Please be civil. The administrator who performed a deletion is most certainly entitled to defend it here. Seraphimblade Talk to me Please review me! 22:40, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
- Especially since I specifically requested that he/she do so. Which he/she mentioned. -Pete 22:57, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
- Endorse conditionally ...if all the political Wikipedian categories are deleted. - Denny 22:47, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
- I think it is time to discuss the user categories in general. However this is not the place for that discussion. They are no longer included in the general category discussions, but have their own dedicated pages for CfD discussions. Vegaswikian 22:58, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
- From my experience there is a significant portion of users who think all the political user categories should go. If you nominated them all, I think it would have a decent chance of resulting in delete. VegaDark 23:24, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
- Weak overturn for the same reasons given by Random832 and others. - DNewhall 22:55, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
- Overturn After mulling it over, I've decided that the principle of fairness should prevail. Although fascism was discredited by Mussolini's alliance with Hitler, objectively Mussolini's crimes were not worse than those of communism, and we should not discriminate against that end of the political spectrum. Plus, the original discussion probably should have closed as no consensus. I wish, though, the nominator had been able to remain calmer. --Groggy Dice T | C 05:09, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
- Overturn No real reason for deletion, other than editors allowing personal beliefs to interfere with editing. Cloveoil 05:16, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
- Overturn Equally repulsive as the Category:Communist Wikipedians, so either all those cats go, or none go. Overturn for now. Vandalism is no a priori reason. Somehow Communist Wikipedians are not suspect to be vandalised on their user pages? That nonsense. Intangible2.0 09:21, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
- Endorse deletion. Such categories are unhelpful. ElinorD (talk) 14:59, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
|
