- Category:Americans accused of spying for the Soviet Union (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (article|XfD|restore)
Consensus was to keep. Category is for people who were accused of spying, and neither confessed or were convicted. The alternative is to list people in category of spies, which is not legally correct. The argument for deletion was libel, but no more libelous than an other category anyone can find offensive. That is why we depend on reliable sources. Almost all the people in the category were deceased and libel doesn't apply to the dead. The most sound solution would have been to remove the two living people if there charges were vacated, not delete the category with 20 dead people in it. And certainly adding them to the spy category is not the solution. Once investigated or tried and found innocent we have Category:Wrongly accused spies for those like Wen Ho Lee. Deletion leaves a gap in the categories, so we end up losing them as spies for people looking for them by categories. The libel canard can be used equally well by any ethnic category or religious category that a person can be put in if it was incorrect and deemed offensive by a living person, even describing someone as the wrong political party could be potentially libelous, that is why networks apologize when they make that mistake. Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 02:21, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn to keep. The closing admin erred. RayTalk 04:08, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse deletion CFD is not a vote, as the closer noted, this is an "accusations" category, and accusations by whom? of whom? If I publicly denounce my cat at a Soviet spy, do she get an article so we can populate the category? Seriously, this is little different that people acquitted of something or other, which are routinely deleted as being libelous, and some people would equate being accused of spying for the USSR with child molestation and other types of accusations categories we cannot maintain with BLP because nothing, repeat NOTHING, in the title of the category limits this to dead people, people accused in some formal proceeding, etc.... Carlossuarez46 (talk) 05:44, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn and Keep per Consensus We're not refighting the CfD, we're looking at a close. The arguments were made that the category is defining and that for many of the individuals included the official accusations of spying for the former Soviet Union is their primary defining characteristic. We have to end the process of granting closing admins a supervote that allows consensus to be disregarded and one admin's biases to be substituted. If an argument that "I closed it contrary to consensus because I decided it's wrong" is to ever be accepted, it needs to be accompanied by a rather detailed justification rather than a blanket statement that "Arguments for deleting here are particularly compelling and most of the arguments for keeping here are particularly weak" which merely arrogates a right to overturn any consensus whatsoever. Alansohn (talk) 06:15, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Wait. Seriously? Yet another CfD close from Good Ol' being challenged on DRV? This smells of a witch-hunt.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 06:53, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Witch-hunt or no (I suspect not; maybe I just suck), I continue to think it could be useful if those wanting to challenge these closes actually say something to me prior to starting a DRV. Isn't DRV kind of supposed to be a "last resort"? This is the 3rd consecutive DRV that has been started about one of my closes where the nominator has not said anything to me prior to the DRV. For the ones that go to DRV, no one asks for a clarification, a reconsideration—nothing. There's a chance users might be able to save themselves and the community some time as well as some fairly aggro discussions. I won't bite, honest. Unless you're hunting witches. In which case, by all means carry on. Good Ol’factory (talk) 09:37, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, if it's not a witch-hunt, then there's a different problem: the community seems to disagree with your CfD closes. It's not at all usual that one single administrator is brought so often to DRV, and it's a bit worrying that each time, at DRV there's been significant support for overturn. But I wonder whether that's just because you close so many CfDs and this is, in fact, a representative sample?—S Marshall Talk/Cont 09:56, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Anyone is free to investigate my history of CfD closes and come to a conclusion. Every time there seems to be any ripples at all, things seem to end up here, without anyone even approaching me beforehand. It seems to be either "all" (DRV) or "none" (not a peep), so I would say if there's any "problem", it's nothing that probably couldn't be well on its way to resolution with better communication from concerned editors. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:10, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- A close that states "Arguments for deleting here are particularly compelling and most of the arguments for keeping here are particularly weak" is a generic excuse to grant yourself the power to close any CfD any way you want it to, in clear violation of Wikipedia policy. If you are generally concerned about a lack of communication, the problem starts with the tendency to override consensus, cast a supervote for your preferred option, and then offer a vague story about why any vote that matches your personal choice is the height of perfection and any vote to the contrary is by definition so utterly worthless as to be unworthy of consideration. Unfortunately, this is not the first time that this has occurred and DRVs have been opened by several different editors independently raising these issues. If you truly feel that you have not received adequate respect for your closes, why not try to take the first steps yourself by trying to exhibit a significantly greater sense of neutrality and distance when closing CfDs -- putting your rather clear personal biases to the side -- and provide far better explanations for why you are disregarding consensus when you do so, offering a modicum of respect for community consensus. Alansohn (talk) 03:58, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I've never said anything about a lack of respect for "my" closes. I'm unsure how focusing on what you see as my shortcomings is productive here. I'm suggesting things would go a lot smoother if there was increased communication prior to a DRV being started. But in the end, I don't really care if users do it or not—they can discuss to their heart's content without approaching me first, but then they have little standing to argue that my behaviour or the close was inappropriate, since they didn't even approach me to seek further details about it. Usually I find that editors who don't approach the closer first prefer to frame the DRV as "CfD #2". And no, I'm not going to pre-empt the questions by writing a dissertation for every close. You have to ask to get the dissertation. I note that you, Alansohn, are one of the only editors who has ever asked about a close prior to coming to DRV, and you did so after I had mentioned at another DRV that doing so is helpful. The only other ones (I believe) have been jc37 and Otto4711. But in the end, users can (and do) suit themselves. I'm just throwing out a suggestion that could possibly help things. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:46, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Very well, then. Overturn to no consensus, because there was none.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 00:16, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn to no consensus, as there was none. Stifle (talk) 08:05, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse, as the BLP/ethical argument was not sufficiently countered to convince me that the CfD shouldn't have ended in delete. Consider, for example, if it was instead "Americans accused of child abuse"; the mere mention alone creates neutrality and ethical problems if it is not a proven/generally accepted fact. Sceptre (talk) 11:09, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse -- This is a belated review from a discussion that began May 14th (almost 2 months ago), and closed May 24th (over 6 weeks ago), after an extended discussion. Its parent and siblings have been deleted. That is, this closure has been repeatedly confirmed; closures by different administrators. Evaluation of strong versus weak arguments is necessary and proper. Moreover, keeping would be against existing policy and guidelines, and closures shall never be against policy – no matter how many voices natter about how "defining" it is to be falsely accused. Smells like a witch-hunt to me, too!
--William Allen Simpson (talk) 14:23, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse – I agree with the above remarks of William Allen Simpson. 'Accused of' is too vague. Occuli (talk) 15:20, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn per Alanshon. What's the point of AfD if a closing administrator is going to ignore consensus (or arrogantly dismiss keep arguments as "weak")? We need to strictly enforce that deletion can only be achieved if there is consensus.SPNic (talk) 15:25, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse. Good judgment call. I specifically remember this cat being used as vehicle for retroactive Commie witch-hunting. --Calton | Talk 15:21, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- overturn Was no consensus. I don't see any compelling BLP problem since the category makes clear that it is for individuals who were accused but not convicted. As long as we have good sourcing for the statement there's no issue. JoshuaZ (talk) 16:01, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- You might just as well argued that it's neither a floor wax or dessert topping for the relevance your rebuttal has to do with the arguments -- including mine -- I'm reading. Rigid adherence to a standard without reference to its intent (or, in this case, to other reasons for not having this vehicle for retroactive commie-hunting) isn't on. --Calton | Talk 03:48, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment While the endorsers make much of the claimed BLP issue, the subject was raised and consensus was clear that there was no problem here. As always, we need to rely on descriptions in reliable and verifiable sources, and there are hundreds of sources that use the term to describe and define individuals as accused Soviet spies. The New York Times titled the 1990 obituary "Martha Dodd Stern Is Dead at 82; Author and an Accused Soviet Spy" (see here). The Wikipedia article for Alger Hiss describes him as having been "accused of being a Soviet spy" in the lead paragraph, and this book review discusses "evidence that the accused Soviet spy, Alger Hiss . . . had lied." This article from the Chicago Tribune discusses a deal for "accused Soviet spy Gennady Zakharov". this article from the Los Angeles Times discusses how "Former FBI agent Richard W. Miller testified Wednesday that he went to the beach in Malibu with accused Soviet spy Svetlana Ogorodnikova". There are legitimate concerns about BLP, but the ultimate solution is to rely on reliable and verifiable sources. It couldn't be any clearer that the hundreds of reliable sources from media nationwide in the US and around the world use the term to describe individuals, living and dead, who had been accused of spying for the former Soviet Union by government officials, were never tried or convicted, and for whom their status as accused spies is a defining -- if not their most defining -- characteristic as an individual. To lump then either as spies (which implies that there was a conviction) or to leave them uncategorized on this basis, serves no purpose other than to disrupt navigation across clearly similar articles using the category system. BLP was raised and addressed at CfD and consensus was that there was no issue. There is no place for a closing admin deliberately disregarding consensus by arbitrarily deeming his preferred position "particularly compelling" to ram through his personal preference on the discussion at hand. Alansohn (talk) 19:08, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I'd say that giving retroactive Commie witch hunters a loophole to exploit makes even less sense. You're free to ignore the BLP concerns, but that doesn't change why it's a bad idea. --Calton | Talk 03:48, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Raising issues of BLP does not create a magic bullet for deleting content. It appears that the "witch hunt" was raised about possible BLP issues and rejected. The question here is if the close was based on consensus, or the arbitrary supervote of the closing admin. Alansohn (talk) 05:20, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse deletion - admin clearly looked at both sides of the argument and correctly determined that the arguments against the category, including BLP concerns and the general disfavoring of categorizing by allegation, were stronger than the arguments in favor of keeping. This consensus was confirmed in additional CFDs found here and here. No new information has been offered here to indicate that anything has changed. Otto4711 (talk) 20:09, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I love the circular logic. The close is correct because the closing admin decided correctly, consensus be damned. Naturally, the alternative that the admin ignored consensus and abused policy by imposing his own supervote, which most accurately fits the case here, has been ignored. Do the reliable and verifiable sources that support this as a defining characteristic count for anything here, or is it still against policy to make use of such sources to establish definingness? Alansohn (talk) 20:16, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Closing something correctly, footstamping by WP:ILIKEIT voters aside, is pretty much the opposite of "circular logic", it seems to me. Though it's certainly less than clear whether the "circularity" you're seeing actually exists. --Calton | Talk 03:48, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn to no consensus per Alansohn; I do not see that this might have been closed as "delete" but by the closer's substituting his judgment for that of the community. Joe (talk) 23:00, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Two other CfDs, here and here, are related. Cheers. lifebaka++ 16:33, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment — There do seem to be a lot of editors who will turn up and defend the j'accuse categories, regardless of the merits. I think the category has too fungible a criteria for membership, unlike, say, Category:Americans in the Venona papers (though see the doubts raised in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Americans in the Venona papers), and it is the right course of action to delete it per WP:NPOV, but that the outcome of the debate was clearly no consensus: observe that many keep !voting participants in the AfD did note the problems with the category and suggested workarounds. Would an RfC aimed at establishing policy with respect to which spying lists and cats be a workable solution? The hope is that with such a policy, the AfDs will behave better in the future. — Charles Stewart (talk) 08:41, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse deletion. As I noted in this original CFD, the problems raised with this subcategory were not particular to it but rather common to the entire "Accused spies" parent category structure, and should have been discussed as a whole. Because that parent category structure has since been deleted, however, the deletion of this particular subcategory is moot and should not be separately discussed. This subcategory has no independent basis for existence from Category:Accused spies, and so its recreation should only be discussed through a comprehensive review of that broader deletion. On the merits of whether any "accused spies" categories should exist, policy and guidelines, including general categorization guidelines as well as more serious BLP and NPOV concerns, weigh against any categorization of mere accusations. Obviously the fact that such an accusation was made can be reliably sourced, and may be significant enough to be described within an article. But a category obviously cannot set forth who did the accusing, whether the accusations were repeated by others and/or sustained over time, or whether there was any basis for the accusation. As a category, this and all other "accused spies" categories, therefore, suffer from a ridiculously low inclusion threshold and are meaninglessly vague. They were properly deleted and should stay deleted. Postdlf (talk) 16:31, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- You have cast a wonderful vote, which might have been considered if it had been posted as a vote -- not a comment -- at CfD. The issue of possible BLP concerns was raised by you and others at CfD and clear consensus was that this was not an issue. The question of the propriety of ignoring actual consensus at the actual CfD, our job here at DRV, has been ignored. Neither you nor any closing admin are entitled to a supervote that disregards consensus and turns it into a mockery based on the arbitrary biases of any one admin. Alansohn (talk) 16:44, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm rather perplexed by your response for a number of reasons, partly because I didn't raise BLP concerns in this CFD. Regardless, I don't see the "clear consensus" in the CFD that you do regarding whether BLP was an issue, as only two people expressly discussed it. One person said that BLP probably wasn't an issue only because most of the included subjects were probably dead, which even if true would not affect its application to however few were still living. The other actually wanted the category substantially changed to omit "accused" so as to avoid libel concerns, presumably to focus on actual spies (however determined). Postdlf (talk) 18:10, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm all the more perplexed that BLP issues were raised and deemed not relevant, yet consensus was ignored. You obliquely raised issues regarding the word "accused", but you yourself appear to have neither indicated that there was a BLP policy violation requiring its deletion, nor did you actually vote, despite ample opportunity to do so. I know that admins want the opportunity to be judge, jury and executioner in other CfDs, but that hardly seems to be a valid justification to disregard the "clear consensus" you seem unable to see. User:Mazca, an uninterested party who would have voted to delete had he participated, aptly describes below how he "can't see a consensus to [delete] here no matter how hard I squint" yet you and fellow admin and CfD regular User:Good Olfactory have no such problem seeing a consensus to delete that just ain't there. If only this clear discrepancy between community consensus and the judgment of closing administrators were not so perplexing. Alansohn (talk) 18:56, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- No, I'm not very interested in your assessment of Good Olfactory's close or this specific CFD, because (as I thought my comments above made quite clear) I find it far more interesting and relevant that this entire "accused spies" category structure was subsequently deleted. See comments above of William Allen Simpson for links to those CFDs (one of which was unanimous, and the other of which was 5-1, for what it's worth). I don't think this CFD should have occurred in the first place without considering those parent and sibling categories as well (as my only comment at this CFD observed). But that doesn't matter because that consideration then did occur, and those near unanimous, system wide deletions of the "accused spies" categories helped to retroactively validated the result of this one, assuming arguendo that it was in need of validation. WP:DRV is fundamentally about whether deleted content should be recreated or discussed again, and I do not see any basis for recreating only this category as long as the system-wide deletions stand (which, as I said above, I believe they should because categorizing accusations is untenable under relevant policies and guidelines), regardless of whether Good Olfactory's close at that time of this one subcategory was a proper reading of consensus or policy. Postdlf (talk) 23:44, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn - on a personal opinion note, I completely agree with the outcome of the CfD, in that I absolutely feel consensus should have been to delete it. But I really can't see a consensus to do so here no matter how hard I squint - there was a distinct majority arguing to keep it, and as far as I can see, the keep arguments were generally fairly cogent and founded in reason, even though I disagree with them. I really think there was no consensus to delete here. ~ mazca talk 16:52, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, on further review I retract my argument to overturn. I maintain that this close was not a very good reading of consensus; but this CfD in particular did effectively validate the close, and ended in a unanimous consensus to delete the entire system of "accused spies" categories. Consensus apparently did change; so overturning this deletion does not appear to be appropriate. ~ mazca talk 08:27, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse (closer). Per above comments and original close. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:49, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse closure obviously, AfD is a discussion, not a vote. Questions about closures should be directed to the closer, not immediately brought to review. Good decision on part of closing admin. Drawn Some (talk) 05:13, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse closure, despite misgivings about the way it was closed — Per my comment before, and per the CfD Mazca cited, Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2009_June_11#Accused_spies. I note that that CfD did not receive as much participation as this one. An RfC at Category talk:Spies might be useful here. — Charles Stewart (talk) 09:16, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse deletion. The category actually had vagueness in the criteria and there is the BLP concerns mentioned. Niteshift36 (talk) 15:40, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse as there is nothing improper about weighing the strength of arguments vs. the number of arguments. A gaggle of users calling for "consensus" does not override BLP policy, which does not mesh well with "accused of..." categorization. Tarc (talk) 14:21, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn (keep). Arguments for deleting (No uniform standard...; Category has been [mis-]used ...; ...are disfavored...; ...we generally do not ...) were not compelling. Reasonable keep rationales by experienced wikipedians were not well answered. CfD is run by a groupthinking clique that doesn't recognise the opaqueness of their reasoning as a problem. The opaqueness keeps newcomers out, stabilising the status quo, and in the meantime wikipedia does not have a categorisation system that works well. Suggest the usual CfD closers take a break and see of other admins keep it working the same way. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:31, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Unfounded accusations about CFD participants constitute an abject failure to assume good faith and could be interpreted as personal attacks against regular CFD participants. Wild-eyed conspiracy theories do not constitute evidence that the closing admin misinterpreted the CFD, nor do they constitute new information that compels a re-examination of consensus. Otto4711 (talk) 07:07, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
-
- While some of the points are framed poorly, I can see why someone might say that. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:51, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I have no doubt that the questionable closes were done with the sincere belief that the closes were the right decision. Some questionable closes even were the right decision, but to my eyes, fit the description of clique behaviour, where there is little regard to explaining to outsiders/newcomers. I allege no conspiracy. Groupthink and clique behaviour can arise without the intent of any of the participant. It isn’t lightly that I say “overturn (keep)” where others are saying “endorse”. Clearly, there is a problem. This has been mentioned in previous DRVs, but to no effect, which I find extremely worrying. If you seriously think that the close of this CfD is unproblematic, then we have a problem. If you think that the close represents good practice of WP:Consensus, then I say that you have a problem with your perspective. I have a theory for the cause of the problem, and a validation test for the theory. If you find this personally insulting, then I am sorry, but I stand by what I see. There are some CfD regulars who are working hard to maintain a difficult system, but they have run themselves into a rut, and are now disconnected with the inexpert community. As I said, in direct contradiction to the closer, the deletion arguments were weak, and the keep arguments had valid points. Closing the debate like that, with keep arguments not answered, but labelled “particularly weak” is extremely insulting, even ostracising, to the non-mainstream participants. The radical close doesn’t even explain itself – it contains no useful information. It is not useful to know that the closer found arguments for deleting “particularly compelling”. It would have been nice to read why he found them compelling. Similarly, “most of the arguments for keeping here are particularly weak” insults and dismisses, but reveals nothing about why they are weak. My general CfD ruling-clique observations are not specific to particular admins, and the foundations of what I have said are not the point. The point is: Am I right, or wrong? If the current regular closers took a break, would other administrators continue to close discussions in the same way? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:41, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- It would have been nice to read why [the closer] found them compelling. Maybe someone should have asked me. No one did. That's what I've pointed out above—users are keen to jump into DRVs, but not so willing to do the background work of actually figuring out why things were closed the way they were. Closers don't (and shouldn't) write a dissertation for each close. You have to ask to get the dissertation. But once we arrive at DRV, since the nominator has seemed to assume that my reasons are immaterial, why should I exert the effrot to explain myself? Now that we're here, I generally let the community decide it. (Not to worry—I'm not insulted by your comments or observations, just mildly amused. I suggest if anyone believes there is a broad "problem" at CfD, then raise it somewhere relevant where it can be dealt with, like Wikipedia talk:Categories for discussion. Bringing it up in a specific DRV does little good and distracts from the overall point of this discussion. I've suggested this numerous times to certain users who like expressing themselves in specific CfDs and DRVs using sweeping generalities about the various processes, but not surprisingly nothing ever comes of it.) Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:42, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse per postdlf. --Kbdank71 09:59, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse deletion Closer acted correctly based on policy and strength of arguments. Determination in such discussions is emphatically NOT based on counting raw numbers. older ≠ wiser 12:39, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|