| Revision as of 19:09, 10 February 2011 editBlack Falcon (talk | contribs)83,746 edits →Category:Persons convicted of fraud: endorse own closure← Previous edit | Revision as of 19:13, 10 February 2011 edit undoBlack Falcon (talk | contribs)83,746 edits →Category:Persons convicted of fraud: reply to Off2riob: super-vote...Next edit → | ||
| Line 28: | Line 28: | ||
| *'''overturn to no-consensus''' There was no consensus about what to do with this. There was considerable feeling that a merge was appropriate, but no agreement on what way it should go. (I have my own opinion, but I cannot claim there was really consensus for it more than any of the other proposed solutions) What is now needed is some discussion for how to deal with this, at a workgroup or the talk page. Closed on the basis that the discussion had not yet been closed after even after an extra 7 days & that some conclusion was necessary, but if there is no consensus, either the discussion continues yet further at the xfd, or we keep the status quo at xfd and the discussion continues elsewhere, or later. That no consensus defaults to keeping the status quo is a basic principle of deletion processes., ''']''' (]) 17:00, 10 February 2011 (UTC) | *'''overturn to no-consensus''' There was no consensus about what to do with this. There was considerable feeling that a merge was appropriate, but no agreement on what way it should go. (I have my own opinion, but I cannot claim there was really consensus for it more than any of the other proposed solutions) What is now needed is some discussion for how to deal with this, at a workgroup or the talk page. Closed on the basis that the discussion had not yet been closed after even after an extra 7 days & that some conclusion was necessary, but if there is no consensus, either the discussion continues yet further at the xfd, or we keep the status quo at xfd and the discussion continues elsewhere, or later. That no consensus defaults to keeping the status quo is a basic principle of deletion processes., ''']''' (]) 17:00, 10 February 2011 (UTC) | ||
| ⚫ | *'''Endorse own closure''' – No-consensus should default to the status quo ante ''in this case only'' because a substantially identical category (]) already had been proposed three times—in 2005, 2008 and 2009—and failed to gain consensus each time. My reasoning for restoring the original situation was along the lines of reversing an undiscussed move or forking of an article. If three proposals to move or split an article end with no consensus to move or split it, and then someone (in good faith) moves or splits the article following mixed discussion, then it does not seem unreasonable to undo the move or split pending the formation of a consensus.<br />With regard to the distribution of votes, it is true that keeping ] in some form was supported 12–4. It is also true, however, that keeping ] in some form was supported c. 9–7. And, finally, having ''one category only'' instead of two was supported c. 10–6. Thus, there was a majority for keeping both categories ''and'', at the same time, for having only one category.<br />The fact is that a numbers-based approach ignores the substance of the arguments underlying the votes (]), and it was on the arguments that I attempted to base my decision. Numbers do not reveal, for instance, that one "keep" assumed that all people convicted of fraud are fraudsters (all X are Y) whereas another "keep" assumed that not all people convicted of fraud are fraudsters (not all X are Y). Numbers do not address the fact that certain assertions were supported by ] and others were not. And, finally, numbers do not tell us how to determine whether an article belongs in ] or ], or what to do with all of the subcategories of ], or how to take into account people who are identified in reliable sources as fraudsters but never were formally convicted, because on questions related to ''scope'' there is, again, no consensus.<br />Based on the discussion, I believe that the correct next step would be to nominate ] for renaming ''or'' splitting and to try, once again, to form a consensus. -- ''']''' <sup>(])</sup> 19:09, 10 February 2011 (UTC) | ||
| *'''Overturn''' as flawed implementation. In the deletion discussion, a fundamental premise of the conflict was "is cat:Fraudsters the same as cat:Persons Convicted of Fraud". The closure acknowledges a lack of consensus on this, however as implemented it presumes the premise is true. If they are the same, then reverting to a 'prior state' is just a matter of removing the newer category and reverting any articles that used it to the old one. However, if the premise is false, this action is actively deleting a unique category and miss-assigning articles to an improper category. This close, then, was more a !vote than an impartial decision (unintentionally so, I believe). A true 'no-consensus' close, to me, would have been to leave things as they were with two separate categories. Rather than reopening the whole discussion, I'd simply find another admin to take a stab at reconciling the multiple options (I suspect a merge or reverse merge of some sort will ultimately be it). --] (]) 18:18, 10 February 2011 (UTC) | *'''Overturn''' as flawed implementation. In the deletion discussion, a fundamental premise of the conflict was "is cat:Fraudsters the same as cat:Persons Convicted of Fraud". The closure acknowledges a lack of consensus on this, however as implemented it presumes the premise is true. If they are the same, then reverting to a 'prior state' is just a matter of removing the newer category and reverting any articles that used it to the old one. However, if the premise is false, this action is actively deleting a unique category and miss-assigning articles to an improper category. This close, then, was more a !vote than an impartial decision (unintentionally so, I believe). A true 'no-consensus' close, to me, would have been to leave things as they were with two separate categories. Rather than reopening the whole discussion, I'd simply find another admin to take a stab at reconciling the multiple options (I suspect a merge or reverse merge of some sort will ultimately be it). --] (]) 18:18, 10 February 2011 (UTC) | ||
| *'''Overturn'''' - Griswaldo went through the discussion and commented " Merge 4, Keep 8, Reverse merge 6. As we all know, reverse merge also entails keep. If you group them together you have 4 merge, 12 keep (since two people wrote both keep and reverse merge)" - I would say, there actually was something resembling a consensus to keep rather than delete and I agree with Inks comment about the closure appearing to be closer to an admin super ''vote'' than a weighing up of consensus. ] (]) 18:24, 10 February 2011 (UTC) | *'''Overturn'''' - Griswaldo went through the discussion and commented " Merge 4, Keep 8, Reverse merge 6. As we all know, reverse merge also entails keep. If you group them together you have 4 merge, 12 keep (since two people wrote both keep and reverse merge)" - I would say, there actually was something resembling a consensus to keep rather than delete and I agree with Inks comment about the closure appearing to be closer to an admin super ''vote'' than a weighing up of consensus. ] (]) 18:24, 10 February 2011 (UTC) | ||
| **Had I voted, I would have voted to keep ] and make ] a subcategory for those who were formally and verifiably convicted. So, had I intended my close to be a super-vote, I would have closed as "keep and make a subcategory of ]. -- ''']''' <sup>(])</sup> 19:13, 10 February 2011 (UTC) | |||
| ⚫ | *'''Endorse own closure''' – No-consensus should default to the status quo ante ''in this case only'' because a substantially identical category (]) already had been proposed three times—in 2005, 2008 and 2009—and failed to gain consensus each time. My reasoning for restoring the original situation was along the lines of reversing an undiscussed move or forking of an article. If three proposals to move or split an article end with no consensus to move or split it, and then someone (in good faith) moves or splits the article following mixed discussion, then it does not seem unreasonable to undo the move or split pending the formation of a consensus.<br />With regard to the distribution of votes, it is true that keeping ] in some form was supported 12–4. It is also true, however, that keeping ] in some form was supported c. 9–7. And, finally, having ''one category only'' instead of two was supported c. 10–6. Thus, there was a majority for keeping both categories ''and'', at the same time, for having only one category.<br />The fact is that a numbers-based approach ignores the substance of the arguments underlying the votes (]), and it was on the arguments that I attempted to base my decision. Numbers do not reveal, for instance, that one "keep" assumed that all people convicted of fraud are fraudsters (all X are Y) whereas another "keep" assumed that not all people convicted of fraud are fraudsters (not all X are Y). Numbers do not address the fact that certain assertions were supported by ] and others were not. And, finally, numbers do not tell us how to determine whether an article belongs in ] or ], or what to do with all of the subcategories of ], or how to take into account people who are identified in reliable sources as fraudsters but never were formally convicted, because on questions related to ''scope'' there is, again, no consensus.<br />Based on the discussion, I believe that the correct next step would be to nominate ] for renaming ''or'' splitting and to try, once again, to form a consensus. -- ''']''' <sup>(])</sup> 19:09, 10 February 2011 (UTC) | ||
| ====]==== | ====]==== | ||
Revision as of 19:13, 10 February 2011
< 2011 February 8 Deletion review archives: 2011 February 2011 February 10 >9 February 2011
Category:Persons convicted of fraud
Simply put, there was absolutely no consensus to delete.
Four suggested merging to Category:Fraudsters, eight said keep, and 6 suggested a reverse merge from Category:Fraudsters. Closing admin suggested that no-consensus should default to the position before the category was created, which is unsupported in policy.
(This category was originally created because I and others objected to categorising people as "fraudsters" simply on the basis of convictions for expenses fiddling.)
I have discussed this with the closer see User talk:Black Falcon#Fraudsters. He has declined to undo the closure, but at the same time he's indicated he's willing for someone uninvolved to review it and reverse if they disagree. That leaves as with an admin neither standing by nor reverting his closure.--Scott Mac 23:32, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
- Overturn deletion. Besides the fact that there was a consensus to keep the category there is absolutely no logical explanation for why a "no consensus" in this case should result in anything but the usual "keep". In the afore mentioned discussion linked to by Scott, I explained in more detail (to the closing admin) why I believe that is the case.Griswaldo (talk) 00:54, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
- Overturn I would really appreciate a good explanation of what exactly the closing admin was thinking. This only reinforces my perception that CfD is under-watched and tends to have particularly bizarre outcomes on far too regular a basis. Jclemens (talk) 08:17, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
- Overturn (no consensus defaults to keep). Where there are possible significant real world concerns, the participants consider that aspect. There was not a consensus that there are significant real world concerns requiring deletion. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:13, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
- Endorse, with a side order of "is this the right venue?"
I certainly believe that "no consensus" in a deletion discussion should default to keep, and I've said so very vocally on a number of occasions, but I don't think the discussion we're considering was, precisely, a deletion discussion at all. Despite the header, the discussion was actually about whether to rename a category. As such it should have been treated not as a deletion discussion but as an editorial discussion that was closed by an administrator. Per policy, where the administrator finds no consensus in such a discussion, "restore status quo ante" is absolutely the right outcome. I find Black Falcon's reasoning impeccable and wholly agree with it.—S Marshall T/C 16:52, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
- While some people were suggesting that the "fraudsters" category be renamed/merged, and I'd certainly have been happy with that outcome - others were suggesting that both be kept (and that's fine my me). The point is that the discussion was all over the place, and the status-quo was for both categories to exist (not for a deletion or merger that has no support) and there to be a later discussion on merging this (which I agree does need a consensus, and is an editorial judgement). Upholding the status-quo did not demand deleting anything.--Scott Mac 17:07, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
- As a point of fact, the discussion was NOT about renaming a category. The discussion was about a new category that had been created, and the nominator suggested deleting it and merging all contents into another category. Black Falcon also repeated this misrepresentation of the situation in his explanations of why he did what he did. There was no proposed rename. Some commentators suggested a reverse merge, which might be like a rename of Category:Fraudsters, but keeping vs. deleting the category being discussed here had nothing to do with "renaming" anything. Can we please get this straight. Thanks.Griswaldo (talk) 17:46, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
- While some people were suggesting that the "fraudsters" category be renamed/merged, and I'd certainly have been happy with that outcome - others were suggesting that both be kept (and that's fine my me). The point is that the discussion was all over the place, and the status-quo was for both categories to exist (not for a deletion or merger that has no support) and there to be a later discussion on merging this (which I agree does need a consensus, and is an editorial judgement). Upholding the status-quo did not demand deleting anything.--Scott Mac 17:07, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
- Overturn Deletion A close needs to reflect the views of the participants in the actual XfD, not be a deus ex machina pulling an opinion out of the air. The close would have been an excellent and well-thought-out vote if it had been cast during the discussion, but it has no connection to the actual discussion that took place. There was no consensus for deletion, but there was also no justification for "no consensus". Alansohn (talk) 16:56, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
- overturn to no-consensus There was no consensus about what to do with this. There was considerable feeling that a merge was appropriate, but no agreement on what way it should go. (I have my own opinion, but I cannot claim there was really consensus for it more than any of the other proposed solutions) What is now needed is some discussion for how to deal with this, at a workgroup or the talk page. Closed on the basis that the discussion had not yet been closed after even after an extra 7 days & that some conclusion was necessary, but if there is no consensus, either the discussion continues yet further at the xfd, or we keep the status quo at xfd and the discussion continues elsewhere, or later. That no consensus defaults to keeping the status quo is a basic principle of deletion processes., DGG ( talk ) 17:00, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
- Overturn as flawed implementation. In the deletion discussion, a fundamental premise of the conflict was "is cat:Fraudsters the same as cat:Persons Convicted of Fraud". The closure acknowledges a lack of consensus on this, however as implemented it presumes the premise is true. If they are the same, then reverting to a 'prior state' is just a matter of removing the newer category and reverting any articles that used it to the old one. However, if the premise is false, this action is actively deleting a unique category and miss-assigning articles to an improper category. This close, then, was more a !vote than an impartial decision (unintentionally so, I believe). A true 'no-consensus' close, to me, would have been to leave things as they were with two separate categories. Rather than reopening the whole discussion, I'd simply find another admin to take a stab at reconciling the multiple options (I suspect a merge or reverse merge of some sort will ultimately be it). --InkSplotch (talk) 18:18, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
- Overturn' - Griswaldo went through the discussion and commented " Merge 4, Keep 8, Reverse merge 6. As we all know, reverse merge also entails keep. If you group them together you have 4 merge, 12 keep (since two people wrote both keep and reverse merge)" - I would say, there actually was something resembling a consensus to keep rather than delete and I agree with Inks comment about the closure appearing to be closer to an admin super vote than a weighing up of consensus. Off2riorob (talk) 18:24, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
- Had I voted, I would have voted to keep Category:Fraudsters and make Category:People convicted of fraud a subcategory for those who were formally and verifiably convicted. So, had I intended my close to be a super-vote, I would have closed as "keep and make a subcategory of Category:Fraudsters. -- Black Falcon 19:13, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
- Endorse own closure – No-consensus should default to the status quo ante in this case only because a substantially identical category (Category:People convicted of fraud) already had been proposed three times—in 2005, 2008 and 2009—and failed to gain consensus each time. My reasoning for restoring the original situation was along the lines of reversing an undiscussed move or forking of an article. If three proposals to move or split an article end with no consensus to move or split it, and then someone (in good faith) moves or splits the article following mixed discussion, then it does not seem unreasonable to undo the move or split pending the formation of a consensus.
With regard to the distribution of votes, it is true that keeping Category:Persons convicted of fraud in some form was supported 12–4. It is also true, however, that keeping Category:Fraudsters in some form was supported c. 9–7. And, finally, having one category only instead of two was supported c. 10–6. Thus, there was a majority for keeping both categories and, at the same time, for having only one category.
The fact is that a numbers-based approach ignores the substance of the arguments underlying the votes (consensus is not a vote-count), and it was on the arguments that I attempted to base my decision. Numbers do not reveal, for instance, that one "keep" assumed that all people convicted of fraud are fraudsters (all X are Y) whereas another "keep" assumed that not all people convicted of fraud are fraudsters (not all X are Y). Numbers do not address the fact that certain assertions were supported by reliable sources and others were not. And, finally, numbers do not tell us how to determine whether an article belongs in Category:Fraudsters or Category:Persons convicted of fraud, or what to do with all of the subcategories of Category:Fraudsters by nationality, or how to take into account people who are identified in reliable sources as fraudsters but never were formally convicted, because on questions related to scope there is, again, no consensus.
Based on the discussion, I believe that the correct next step would be to nominate Category:Fraudsters for renaming or splitting and to try, once again, to form a consensus. -- Black Falcon 19:09, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
Hamumu Software
Notable company, deleted for no reason. 192I (talk) 02:35, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
- No it isn't and no it wasn't.
Hamumu Software is a Californian organisation of about two or three employees that has won no awards and received no attention from independent reliable sources as defined by Misplaced Pages. It isn't notable. The reasons for deletion were well explained at the AfD discussion and noted by the administrators who deleted it subsequently, and they are quite normal reasons to delete material from Misplaced Pages.—S Marshall T/C 12:11, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
- Userspace draft time Previous AfD looks solid, but almost 4 years ago. It's possible to recreate a new article in mainspace, and I'd recommend that if an experienced editor who knows notability and sourcing expectations were to do it. If not, then drafting an article in userspace seems like the more appropriate response, just so the new article doesn't get dragged into AfD immediately based on a fixable problem. Of course, if notability is still not establishable, it should not be moved back to mainspace.... Jclemens (talk) 15:44, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
- Endorse. 192I should first get a little editing experience, and only then consider pushing for content that the community previously rejected. Show us that you are not a single purpose account, here solely to promote your own interest. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:17, 10 February 2011 (UTC)