The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was No consensus. As has been the case in the past, there is no clear consensus on what to do with these categories at this time. Late in the disucussion, some alternatives began to get discussed that may warrant further discussion, and Category talk:Wikipedians by politics appears to be an approriate venue. This master category affects a ton of users, and links to any straw polls, or other options brought up in the future discussion should be properly linked to from village pump and/or other community related areas. — xaosflux Talk 03:35, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Category:Wikipedians by politics and all subcategories[edit]

See also: Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2006_June_29#Category:Advocates_of_traditional_British_counties_to_Category:Wikipedians_who_advocate_traditional_British_counties.

* Note To random admin wandering by. We're stil ltrying to reach consensus, do not close this CFD yet. -- Drini 17:32, 29 June 2006 (UTC), Looks like we are ready to close, per nominator (see bottom of page) -- Samuel Wantman 06:15, 1 July 2006 (UTC) -That's your opinion. I think there is still enough debate about this. Larix 22:29, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No encyclopedic value, possible votestacking use Hipocrite - «Talk» 18:42, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note - when I get access to AWB, I will mark all of the categories individually.

Note: This is not a discussions about userboxes. No userboxes will deleted whatever the outcome of this. This is about the categories -- Drini 20:39, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This category was kept twice as a result of two earlier Cfd debates. January 4 2006 and December 18 2005 --Facto 20:55, 19 June 2006 (UTC) NOTE On december, these categories were closed as KEEP while on January they were closed as No consensus. It's been over 6 months since then, it's valid to CFD again to gauge consensus. -- Drini 13:53, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

YES! This is not about the userboxes, the useroxes are fine, just a mean for people to state their beliefs. The categories however are an organizational tool and user categories by beliefs pose huge risks. For instance, today an user was spamming for support using some christianity user-category. -- Drini 23:22, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Since this is not a vote, I invite you to elaborate further, maybe on the counterpoints raised to waltman's ones? -- Drini 23:24, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Umm, I never even hinted at a userbox or any combination of userboxen being sufficient evidence for such a belief. In fact, I specifically made the point that not all "difficult contributors" are acting in badfaith. That was indeed crucial to my assertion. Also, your assertion that this category deletion and bias disclosure are complimentary is what I am disputing. I know that you claim that to be so—that's why I'm saying that you are wrong. Let me get this straight: You claim that 1)GTBacchus thinks that bias disclosure is a "good thing"; 2) GTBacchus thinks that the categories should be deleted; 3)Therefore, bias disclosure and this cat deletion are compatible. I'm sorry, but that argument form seems pretty specious to me. Dick Clark 16:38, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry if I misunderstood you. When you said "Openness about your POV (in user space)... can often help editors understand whether a difficult contributor is acting in bad faith or is just being unintentionally obtuse." So, it sounds like you're saying that there's something someone can say in their userspace that would enable us to conclude that they're a bad-faith editor. I see nothing to be gained from thinking that way, but perhaps I'm misunderstanding you. If so, I'm sorry about that; it wasn't intentional.
As for the disclosure of bias and category deletion being compatible or not, I guess they wouldn't be if user categories were the only way, or even the best way, to disclose bias, but they're not. I'm strongly in favor of disclosure of bias in appropriate ways, and strongly opposed to doing it in inappropriate ways. I hope that clarifies my point; I apologize for any confusion. -GTBacchus(talk) 16:45, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Firstly, a warning will be posted on all user categories and subcategories (not only political ones) explaining briefly what internal spamming is, that it violets WP:SPAM and that it is a blockable offence. I believe this will significantly reduce the ignorance-based vote stacking and will make vote stacking much rarer.
  2. Secondly, an on going discussion should start to create clear guidelines and objectives of user categories defining what's right and what's wrong.
  3. Violators of such guidelines, or of existing Wikipedia policy, especially vote stackers, will be blocked.
  4. A few months after this motion is put into pracitce its results will be assesed and IF it turns out vote stacking was not reduced significantly then a new proposal for deletion will take place. Only this time it will be different from now since members (like me) might get the feeling that there is indeed no other "softer" solution possible and that this proposal really deals with a serious problem and is not just a way to try and do away with individuality and pluralism on Wikipeida.
The benefits of this solution are:
  1. It will make the objective of deletion (if it will be decided to repropose it in a few months) much clearer and thus the deletion,if put in practice, will be better accepted and people will not be encouraged to form outside potential vote stacking places, a problem mentioned by many people here, which will make vote stacking harder to track and monitor and may evetually increase the problem instead of reducing it.
  2. It may allow the benefits of user categories, mentioned by many users int this dicussion, and reduce their disadvatages.
  3. Members "voting" against deletion (like me) may change their view after the results of this solution be assesd, or if my solution will be succesful in reducing vote stacking significantly, members currently spporting the deletion may change their views. Thus this motion will help achieve consensus and make this issue less devisive.
  4. The current proposal, without the neccessary assesment suggested, will be considered by many as a collective punishment and an unneccessary draconian measure, and it will ultimately create bad faith between members in the community, many of whom worked hard on making these lists without intending harm, and will probably feel oppressed by their outright and aggresive deletion.
So, this is my proposal, and I suggest that it will be put in practice and that in the meantime we keep all user categories, block all spammers according to Wikipeida's policies and reasses the situation in a few months, after analyzing this solution's outcomes Tal :) 07:44, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Tal, I would dispute your starting assumption, that the main problem is vote-stacking. It isn't. The main problem is the Wikipedia has gotten into the habit of categorizing ourseves in a way that's separate from the articles we work on. That's a bad habit and we're trying to break it. The solution is for people to network via articles, projects, and portals, which will allow for just as much community as user categories, and in a way that is fundamenatally related and not at odds with our basic goal of writing an encyclopedia. Your proposal seems to be based on the idea that user categorization by belief is basically an ok thing, with only the problem of vote-stacking. The problem is the user categorization by belief is basically misguided. -GTBacchus(talk) 07:52, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Any takers? -- Samuel Wantman 01:38, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Samuel, hi. I think this suggestion has some merit, but there are some problems. Like, what is an article related to Conservativism? As far as I can tell, you're suggesting that we can make the transition smoother by simply reworking these categories into interest categories rather than position taking ones. I think that's a laudable idea, but I don't see a simple mapping from one set of categories to the other.
You'll notice I began my argument to delete these categories by saying that I think this is premature. I agree that we ought to go ahead and encourage the building of networks along encylcopedic lines, i.e., relating to how we write the encyclopedia. In particular, I think it would be great for more people to set up and join WikiProjects, Portals, and Issue-based noticeboards. That's a slightly larger jump from where we are than just switching to interest based categories, but I think it's where we want to end up. Simply moving from "user who believes X" to "user interested in X" is ok, as far as it goes, but it doesn't really get us where we need to be, and it doesn't address the fact that there are lots of people who are really ready to identify as Big-endians, and "vote" Big-endian if a vote comes up, but who don't actually work on Big-endian related articles.
In other words, I definitely agree with emphasizing Portals, Projects and Noticeboards, but I don't see a direct mapping from where we are to there. -GTBacchus(talk) 01:54, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
OK, Here is a map. First we put tags on all the categories affected and explain why and how they are going to be renamed. There would be a time period (two weeks?) before the rename actually happens. In the interim, all the new categories would have to be created. Empty message boards could also be created, like this one. Then we leave messages on every user page linked to one of these categories. We explain that users what is happening and that they are still free to express themselves and their opinions on their userpage and talk pages, while emphasizing the importance of NPOV editing. Users would also be invited to join the appropriate wikiproject and/or noticeboard. This would probably also fit well with the German userbox policy. After two weeks, people would be moved from the old category to the new ones. People would remove themselves from any category they don't want to stay in. This entire proposal would need to be well publicized and discussed before starting. As for the people who are really ready to identify as Big-endians, and "vote" Big-endian if a vote comes up, but who don't actually work on Big-endian related articles, these are not the people we are trying to accomodate. These are the people we want to educate.
Also, Perhaps the conservative category is better named Category:Wikipedians working on articles about Conservative politics. -- Samuel Wantman 02:26, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I think we're going in a good direction, but I don't like the idea of setting up a bunch of empty, "template" political WikiProjects or noticeboards. Those should arise organically in response to a need. Who's going to know what to do with a bunch of new WikiProjects all of a sudden? That process should be gradual (and should have happened before these categories were brought to CfD). Regarding "articles about conservative politics"... name three. Do you think that people who identify as conservatives are people who really want to work on articles about the philosophy of conservativism? I suspect they're mostly people who hold a rough constellation of ideas that fall under the umbrella of "conservative" - free-market, small government, traditional morals, etc. They're calling themselves conservative in the context of those various issues, not in the context of conservativism in the abstract. Maybe I'm just generalizing really wrong here, but I don't see Category:Conservative Wikipedians translating very well into any particular interest category - more like a dozen or so of them, and individual conservatives would pick and choose which of those they really care about.
It's not a one-to-one mapping, because user categories weren't conceived with the encyclopedia in mind, and the categories that we ought to arrange ourselves into, are. -GTBacchus(talk) 02:36, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't have to be a one-to-one mapping. We can let people discuss the renaming on the talk page of each category. They'd all need to be submitted to CFD for discussion about the renaming, but most shouldn't be that controversial. I strongly believe that most people in the categories are not trying to push any agendas. Guidelines should make it clear that the categories should be renamed so that it is obvious that the categories would contain people on both sides of the ideology or subject matter. Another possibility is that we could move everyone into much broader categories, So conservatives, moderates, liberals, fascists and communists might end up with Category:Wikipedians working on articles about politics. People could make more specialized categories if needed, and they could be monitored for any implied bias. I don't see a problem with Category:Wikipedians working on articles about Communism, but would see a problem with Category :Wikipedians working on articles about exploitation of workers. The notice boards don't have to be created, but we can post information about how to make one and show a blank example. -- Samuel Wantman 06:18, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
How about something like this: We start a couple of these encyclopedic-style categories as examples. We set up some large infrastructure for them, with well defined limits, but lots of room for people to be creative. Then we let people populate this new category space, according to some guidelines that make it clear that categorization is done according to area of encyclopedic interest or work, and not according to beliefs or opinions. "Editor categories" will derive their legitimacy from having a clear set of articles associated to them that can be worked on in a coherent manner. We'll encourage people to set up, associated with a category, a Noticeboard, or a WikiProject, or even a Portal (and we'll provide good examples of each). This will give people structure they can use to network, express their individuality through participation in their chosen projects, and build a community that is part of the development of, and not ultimately antagonistic to, the encyclopedia we're working on. We could take some time to let people migrate into that new structure, and then, at a predetermined date, go ahead and start clearing out the old categories.
So... I think we're getting closer and closer to saying the same thing... what do you think? -GTBacchus(talk) 09:25, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think we are on the same page. I would add that we will decide to close this CFD as Keep for now, but when the new structure is in place and running migrate people into the new categories and eventually Delete all user interest categories. How do we get everyone else to sign on? -- Samuel Wantman 09:45, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I suspect this conversation is being watched, to some degree. Let's leave this CfD out in the wind for another day or so and see what people think of this compromise – I think our agreeing between the two of us is a good sign, but the tango we're talking about takes more than two... Maybe in the meanwhile, we can rough up some infrastructure for a good user categorization scheme. Any ideas how it should all hang together? -GTBacchus(talk) 09:55, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The way to do this is to start making it happen without doing anything that needs community consensus. This could be done by: 1) Creating new replacement categories and a mapping scheme. This should tie in with as many WikiProjects as possible. 2) Creating templates to place on all the old categories explaining why they are not desired, and why the new ones would be better. 3) Recruiting more community support and involvement. 4) Having discussions about modifying existing user boxes so they use the new categories. 5) Notifying the individuals in the categories of what we are doing and asking for voluntary compliance. So it sounds like we need a new WikiProject. Perhaps we can call it something like Wikipedia:WikiProject Wikipedians at work. -- Samuel Wantman 19:55, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I am starting a new WikiProject. Everyone is welcome to help out. I've decided to call it Wikipedia:WikiProject Wikipedians working (shortcut WP:WWW).--Samuel Wantman 07:17, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
(outdenting) I like the concept, but my primary concern would be refinement. If you have a 'Category:Wikipedians working on religion articles' eventually someone IS going to say to themself, 'I only work on articles about faith in the Flying Spaghetti Monster... I should create a sub-category for that to be more specific... and another one for those 'Invisible Pink Unicorn' cultists to be fair'. We could educate and patrol for these, but it would be an ongoing issue. Also, most people opposing deletion are doing so on 'individual expression' / 'free speech' grounds... which this proposal wouldn't really address. These are reasonable categories to have because they focus on what people actually do at Wikipedia without sub-dividing it by ideology. I think they are worthwhile in themselves, but unlikely to be a solution to the issue here. --CBD 10:44, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I suspect that even very narrow refinements of these user categories could be presented in an NPOV way. The test should be if the category description includes people from both sides of an issue. We can create guidelines that explains this better. Narrow refinements like working on articles abut the Invisible Pink Unicorn Cult would probably be acceptable if they actually call themselves a cult. Also, if challenged with deletion because a category looks like it may have been designed to push an agenda, a reasonable defense would be demonstrating that there are editors from both sides of the debate. -- Samuel Wantman 19:55, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the categories will derive their legitimacy solely from their relation to actual collections of articles that members work on, to whatever degree. As far as the granularity, I'd rather start with more detailed categories, like "This user works on Hinduism articles" than with coarse grained categories like "This user works on religion articles". The more well-defined the scope of the category and associated project, the better. -GTBacchus(talk) 20:00, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I also like this idea, instead of having to say you are affiliated with that group, you can simply say you are interested in articles about that group. It seems more appropriate and oddly, rehashing a previous example for keep, if a republican wanted to get an opposing view on an article, he would not have to go to the democrat group, he can simply ask a democrat interested in republican articles. It creates a less bias pool for work.--zero faults |sockpuppets| 11:54, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I do not understand why one needs a category to associate themselves with being a democrat or republican. The categories themselves are being abused, noone is saying you cannot say you are a republican, or that your userbox will be deleted to identify you as such, the categories themselves are being used to vote stack however. The original intent of such categories has been abused and manipulated. I would even go as far as to question some of the defenses here. Some people states they groups are good because a republican can look up a democrat through the category to seek an opposing view ... Has that happened in the 6+ months these categories have been in place? Lots of vote stacking has occured, I wonder if many of the defenses here of "what ifs" has actually happened or they are just utopic ideas of what these categories could have been. --zero faults |sockpuppets| 11:46, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have to agree with Samuel Wantman. I hate to think that this will cause some users to leave. I was thinking of "throwing in the towel" myself (I am somewhat new to Wikipedia). I went back to editing to get my mind off of this heated fight. Sure doesn't seem like a discussion right now. JungleCat 21:42, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think the way to address the concerns Samuel's expressing here is to directly work to provide affirmative means of association to replace and supersede the current user categories. If people really need to network according to personal belief, as opposed to encyclopedic interest, I would question the encyclopedic value of that type of networking. -GTBacchus(talk) 22:32, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I cannot shake the idea, and have seen very little evidence to the contrary, that the traditional Wikipedia admin tends to lean leftward. I have considered the fact that it seems clear that anything conservative is speedily deleted while other less-conservative notice boards and categories are left in place. Frankly, I have seen absurd bias paraded as NPOV in articles and those who worked to try to balance this by involving other users to be accused of spamming. Now I am told that using categories and userboxes to try to have some sort of voice of relevence in this sea of POV biased editors is not allowed, when I sometimes feel it is the only way to try to retain some sort of a shred of identity and community in a great sea of dissention. I have never used these categories to "vote stack". I have often thought about putting messages on other users pages to call for help against a strong leftist bias on some articles, but frankly, have been intimidated from doing so because I have seen users blasted by admins as being spammers and vote stackers for doing so. The idea that a conservative cannot be as NPOV as anyone else is ridiculous. The idea that identifying yourself as a conservative means you are POV-biased is ridiculous. The idea that not identifying your perspectives will increase NPOV article writing and editing is ridiculous. The idea of being a lone voice that will be taken seriously in a consensus debate is ridiculous. The idea that asking for additional assistance from those who view a perspective in a similar way is not by definition vote stacking. If it is decided by the powers that be that all people who freely disclose their POV cannot work in a neutral fashion, I feel the entire premise of Wikipedia is flawed, and I must exit it and anything like it, or find one that is more transparent and accepting of human qualities. DavidBailey 02:17, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
DavidBailey, I get this weird feeling in this discussion... it's like, if I were to say to my wife (suppose I'm married), "Honey, let's build a deck in the back yard," and she says "Why do you hate America so much?" I say to her, "I don't hate America, in fact, I love America, I just think we should build a deck in the back yard." Then she says, "I just don't understand why you deck-builders hate America so much." In particular, nobody has said that a conservative cannot be as NPOV as anyone else. If someone said that, please point them out. Nobody has said that identifying yourself as a conservative means you are POV-biased. If someone said that, please point them out. I think one or two people have said that not identifying your perspectives will increase NPOV editing, but those certainly aren't the strong or popular arguments; I think the idea that disclosure of bias is a bad idea is mad. As for being a lone voice in a consensus debate, I don't think those of us asking for deletion of these categories oppose bringing more eyes to a debate. The only issue you're identifying that I see as real is the idea that asking for assistance from those with a similar perspective is good or bad, and that's not even the central issue in this deletion discussion. If you think that anyone is suggesting that all people who freely disclose their POV cannot work in a neutral fashion, I'd like to know who that is. I really feel like you're asking me why I hate America so much, and I don't, and it's hard to shake the idea that you haven't read my arguments here, or that you choose to ignore them in favor of the ones that are easy to tear apart, namely the strawman arguments that hardly anybody's making. Can you say something in response to the reasonable arguments being made, or do you not think those exist? -GTBacchus(talk) 02:36, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
GT, I'm glad you feel that Wikipedia is so tolerant and accepting of all viewpoints and that the current system favors only those who support all of the Wikipedia policies, but my experience has been otherwise. I also know that you've shot down my views before and apparently feel the need to do so again with statements like "can you say something in response to the reasonable arguments being made, or do you not think those exist?" Since you think my views are all strawmen and so easily dismissable, feel free to do so. DavidBailey 03:42, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please, DavidBailey, I'm not trying to be rude. I apologize for any discourtesy I've shown you, please forgive me. I didn't call your views strawmen; I suggested that you were responding to strawmen in lieu of responding to what I feel are the good arguments being advanced. I don't know how to react when you say "The idea that a conservative cannot be as NPOV as anyone else is ridiculous." That statement is certainly true, and I don't see its relevance. Is that the reason being given for deletion of Category:Liberal Wikipedians, because that one's just as much up for deletion here, you know. I think the strong reasons people are giving for getting rid of these categories is that they promote factionalism, and that they're inferior to a better, more encyclopedic way to foster association. Despite this, most people arguing for keeping the categories are using arguments like "if the categories are used for vote-stacking, punish the perpetrators, not everyone" and "revealing bias is a good thing, not a bad thing". I fail to see how these arguments for keeping are at all addressing the arguments for deletion. They seem to be addressing some other arguments instead. Am I making sense here, or just managing to come across as some kind of dick? -GTBacchus(talk) 03:54, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going to have to not participate in these discussions until I can find the time to read the pages and pages of history (I've read many of them), and the many more pages of similar discussions having been had all across Wikipedia on related topics. Perhaps then I can pose relevant points to discussion. Perhaps I was venting because it seems that one way to encourage increased participation is to let users know, "hey, there are others like you that have similar interests and views." Since I have started over six months ago with Wikipedia, everything has seemed like an uphill battle. I have found seemingly few to express perspectives similar to mine on the scope and thrust of articles, and POV matters when it comes to what is important in an article and what isn't, even if you're attempting to be NPOV. Also, I'm tired of those many editors who seem to think that if they can out-vote you, they have a consensus that can ignore your perspective and views. (Yes, I've quoted the policies to them, what little good that does.) It seems to me that there are minorities on Wikipedia, and frankly, conservatives fall into this category. Encouraging more conservatives to join, interact, and participate should not cause existing admins to cringe, it should be reason to celebrate, if the goals of Wikipedia are truly NPOV. By forcing these categories, both liberal and conservative, to go away, you are forcing users to stumble across articles largely at random to find others with similar interests. Orienting themselves around specific interests instead of broader categories is a good way to ensure that fewer, not more, editors participate in a discussion. It is far more convenient (read "takes less time") and encouraging when users are allowed to group into communities in which they feel comfortable to collaborate, share ideas, and work together on articles. I reject the idea that more editors, not less, make a better article. This is especially true when it comes to controversial articles. However, everyone has to want to collaborate and those who just want to argue need to have administrative action taken against them. I have no problems with there being liberal categories (heavens knows they're out there now) and I think conservative categories should be given the opportunity to increase the amount of conservative participation. I think factionalism can be dealt with directly to the individuals that misuse Wikipedia. Perhaps there are too few admins and too many editors. Perhaps it would be useful to create a new admin category. That is someone who has an interest in a category that can crack the whip only within the category (IE- implement admin controls on the category to those who break the category rules of NPOV, cooperation, etc.) and even expell some from it who repeatedly violate Wikipedia rules. Whatever it takes, I feel strongly that these categories should be allowed to exist, side-by-side with notice boards, and perhaps, although I am less concerned with, user boxes. DavidBailey 02:07, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
NOTE On december, these categories were closed as KEEP while on January they were closed as No consensus. It's been over 6 months since then, it's valid to CFD again to gauge consensus. -- Drini 13:53, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's still radical to keep bringing them up for deletion, when they were kept twice. —  Stevie is the man!  Talk | Work 13:52, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Call for consensus[edit]

Would anyone object to closing this debate as "Keep for now and wait to see what happens"? -- Samuel Wantman 23:08, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with this phrasing and further suggest, like GT, to move this discussion to Category talk:Wikipedians by politics.However, I think it may be a good idea to agree on a certain minimum time frame during which no cfd will be proposed, as I explained somewhere above...
So, on second thought, maybe the closing should be ""Keep for now and wait to see what happens, for at least (10) months" (the exact period of time, of course, can be different than the one in the example).Tal :) 10:17, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. There is clear consensus among people who care about the encyclopedia enough to read and respond to the arguments of the other that this is a Delete result, and I do not support a strong proponent of one side of this discussion closing it to their side. Hipocrite - «Talk» 12:55, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I object to your implication that people like me, Lady Aleena, and others, some of whom wrote detailed arguments detailing their position, don't "care about the encyclopedia". I've read the arguments of those favouring deletion and already explained that I don't find them compelling, and I don't think I should have to supply a point-by-point rebuttal. It is clear to me from the length of the debate alone that this is a contentious issue with no consensus at this time. Deco 14:09, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I also object and rebuke this stubborn attitude that "people who care" are necessarily pro deletion. The lengh of this debate and the genuine efforts of many users here to reach compromise, rather than to compell a solution, proves they care A LOT. Also, it seems to me that although there is no complete consensus, te fact that many people who initaily supported deletion now tend to prefer comprimise (GTbacchus, stuffofinterest, and others), proves that we made significant progress. Additionally, it seems to me that the attitude that deletion is the only way and that any other way is not only wrong but proves that people don't care or want to cause harm, ignores and does ill justice to those users who spent so much time on trying to approach a solution through other methods, and also seems to ignore this whole discussion as being worthless. In other words, the fact that one ignores this discussion believing consensus is on his side whatever happens, doesn't mean that this is actually the case, and the fact that one makes such offensive statements instead of constructively trying to reach consesus and commenting on what people say, is both ineffective and rude.Tal :) 14:46, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I apologize to the 4 individuals who voted to keep the categories and also participated meaningfully in the discussion. You are overshadowed by the horde of people who voted to delete and participated meaningfully. Hipocrite - «Talk» 14:48, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I am not going to get into argument about "how much" people "voted" for each side, and I don't claim to know why you think the people arguing for deletion were more "meaningful" but I do know that the amount of people is irrelevant compared to the strength of the arguments. I think that many of the dominant people in this conversation reached a certain compromise, that may be acceptable to the community as a whole. The question is whether or not this solution is acceptable, and the answer can't just be "no" but should be explained.Tal :) 15:01, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Wow! I thought this wasn't a vote. BTW, am I one of the 4? It seems your comment here is more sarcastic than anything else. JungleCat 14:57, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No sarcasm at all. If I were the closing admin, I would disregard all of the keep voters who said we were trying to take away their ability to call themselves liberal wikipedians, or that we were going to take this decision to delete categories and say that no more discussion was needed, and that all userboxes were done. This is probably why I don't want to close anything, ever, but I certainly don't propose to allow partisans from one side of this discussion or the other to close the debate. The category migrators can get right on their migration - have you had any success yet? Perhaps you could start with your own project members? Hipocrite - «Talk» 15:06, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As the person who proposed and started the "migration" project, I have been waiting for the result of this CFD before putting much work into getting it going. The effort, while still worthwhile has much less urgency if this CFD closes as a "delete". That is why I am asking to close this debate. As soon as it does, everyone on this page can expect a personal invitation to join, and notice about this project will go out to the broader community. I find this CFD encouraging, because I find that people from both sides of the issue were willing to hear each other and find some commonality. I'm sorry to hear that Hipocrite does not see it that way. -- Samuel Wantman 20:19, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I object to the notion that those who voted "keep" for the reason you explained was somehow illegitimate just because you declare it so. It's not just about "liberal" Wikipedians... it's about all partisans and knowing the biases of contributors for the sake of transparency. Your reduction of this meaningful argument to nothing for the sake of some sort of expediency is nauseous to behold. It's anti-wikicratic and a denigration of what is really a powerful argument. Again, how dare you talk down to those of us who are making legitimate arguments! —  Stevie is the man!  Talk | Work 18:34, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I object to the idea that there is ever a requirement for anyone to go beyond explaining their vote. I, for instance, had no obligation to argue my point against others (ad nauseum) but only to make it ONCE. My vote is equal to all others who voted, and if it's not viewed that way, this whole process is a sham. —  Stevie is the man!  Talk | Work 18:27, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hipocrite, I'm finding some irony in your statements here. You say that most keep voters disregarded the delete arguments, but you're disregarding the arguments advanced against quick deletion. I haven't seen you reply to that, so how does that make you any different from the people who failed to reply to deletion arguments? Remember this isn't a vote, it's based on strenth of arguments. Right now the strongest unanswered arguments on the table are for slow deletion accompanied by migration and careful education, with lots of careful and attentive dialogue, just the way Jimbo's always suggested. I see no argument on the table for brashness or immediate deletion, certainly no refutation of the point that this would cause a rather large disruption, or any argument that the ends would justify those short-sighted means. -GTBacchus(talk) 20:50, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The arguments against quick deletion have not yet justified the existance of the categories. "Don't delete these because people will be angry you stopped them from damaging the encyclopedia and might leave" is an argument for deletion, not against it. Hipocrite - «Talk» 03:45, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
But look, if you can get it done, get it done. I've close it as keep. Hipocrite - «Talk» 03:50, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with keeping it now and seeking a similar system for identifying bias for transparency purposes. A total deletion without a replacement is unacceptable. Transparency of contributions is extremely important to the future vitality of the Wikipedia. I don't care too much about how transparency is achieved as long as it is achieved. —  Stevie is the man!  Talk | Work 18:39, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Would you support requiring people to state their biases? How do you achieve "transparency" when people don't just come out and tell you (honestly) where they're coming from? I'm interested in this transparency idea... -GTBacchus(talk) 22:39, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Two prerequisites of stating a bias are awareness and willingness. The latter is hard enough to come by. The former all too often if off the radar. Enculturation, among other factors, sees to that. Just ask a fish to tell you about how water affects it some time. Besides, a "requirement" is unenforceable. Rfrisbietalk 03:07, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I rather agree. I'm just trying to figure out where Stevie's coming from. Maybe he'll tell us. -GTBacchus(talk) 19:35, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, what we have now with this set of categories (whether liked or not) is a form of voluntary transparence. In my view, when enough people volunteer to do something, a kind of social encouragement for that naturally forms. I don't favor any requirements, as I believe that would scare away participants unnecessarily. It's also hard to ponder why anyone thought I meant it should be required when it was never required before. I support these categories because they encourage transparence. Transparence is a good thing, no? —  Stevie is the man!  Talk | Work 22:13, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Careful with the second guessing, Stevie. I didn't "think you meant" it should be required. I introduced a new question, to see what your answer would be. I wouldn't give you very good odds at guessing my intentions; better to stick with the literal words. You kind of neglected my second question. Going from "transparency = good", how is transparency acheived in cases where people choose not to state their relevant biases, or are those cases just less transparent and that's ok too, or what? Please don't suppose that I'm trying to pin you down to some corner; I'm actually trying to understand your perspective better. Any explanation you choose to share is appreciated. -GTBacchus(talk) 23:20, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
My second guessing was natural given what has happened on both sides of this debate (and yes, it has become a debate). Anyway, my answer to your question is... I don't know. The only point I had ever meant to make on this subject was that these categories provide one way of helping to achieve transparence. Perhaps later on, somebody will come up with another way of helping with that. I don't have any answers now (I never proposed to know any alternatives). But I will certainly stand up for an approach that already exists, and I insist that the damage from them is extremely low compared to their benefit. If these categories are vote stacking bait, then the Wikipedia is link spamming bait. We should go after the perpetrators, not the good citizens. —  Stevie is the man!  Talk | Work 04:11, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
More