- Category:Wikipedian Service Award Level 01 (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)
(N.B.: This request covers Category:Wikipedian Service Award Level 01 through Category:Wikipedian Service Award Level nn and related categories. These are the categories associated with the various service awards.)
Contested speedy. Here's the deal: on 25 October 2007, After Midnight deleted Category:Editors with service awards after a CfD discussion here. It was a reasonable close, not the kind of close that would usually come here to DRV, although in my opinion it was arguably a marginal close (the headcount was 6-3 in favor of deletion, but most of the discussion was back-and-forth between two editors, with neither editor clearly gaining the upper hand, and the closer didn't give any reason why he chose Delete.) My understanding is that the deletion included several related categories (I'm not sure of this). A reverse of this close would have obviated the need for this DRV, but User talk:After Midnight declined my recent request to reverse the close, partly on the grounds that he can't remember the particulars and isn't available right now for extensive reconstruction of the matter.
OK, in (I think) July of this year someone created a number of categories, such as Category:Wikipedian Service Award Level 01 and its sister categories, the numbers running from 01 up into the teens. I'm given to understand that these are essentially the same as Category:Editors with service awards and its related categories, and I guess this is so.
An editor (BlackFalcon) deleted Category:Wikipedian Service Award Level 01 et al under Criteria for Speedy Deletion (CSD) G4, recreation of deleted material. I contested this, and contested speedy deletions are often reversed, but not always, and this certainly applies to CSD G4's. BlackFalcon vouchsafed that he felt duty-bound to apply CSD G4 and couldn't honor my request. He's expected to perform his admin duties to advance the best interests of the Wikipedia as he sees them, so that's his prerogative.
However, this raised in my mind the question: does availability of a category to CSD G4 deletion ever expire?
The deletion review category states "Deletion Review may also be used if significant new information has come to light since a deletion and the information in the deleted article would be useful to write a new article."
However, categories don't contain information, so it's impossible to write a "new" version. So does this mean that a category, once deleted (even in a marginal close) can never be recreated? This seems overly rigid to, and raises a couple of questions:
- I note that nine people commented in the original 2007 CfD discussion. Of these, either four or five (depending on your criteria) are no longer active editors. Does this matter, I wonder. (What if it was nine of nine? To what extent are we bound forever to the opinions of people who are not Wikipedia editors (any longer)?)
- The original CfD was three years ago. Does this matter I wonder. (What if it had been five years ago? Eight? Ten?)
Another point: the "[S]ignificant new information has come to light" clause may be said to be met in that:
- The Service Awards seem more used now than in 2007, in my perception. I don't know if this is new information but it's a new condition.
- I don't have new information for the category, but I have new information for a new discussion if there is one, in form of refs pointing to material on motivation of volunteers. In the original 2007 discussion, no refs were used and no sources cited.
As another data point: the person conducting the G4 speedy, User:BlackFalcon, was also the primary advocate for deleting the categories in the original 2007 CfD. There's nothing actually wrong with that (I guess) and I don't think that BlackFalcon is acting in bad faith, but still... hmmm. This may be a technical point, since BlackFalcon could have asked another admin to do the deletion. But then, on the other hand, if he had done that, the other admin might have been more favorable to my contesting of the speedy.I (Herostratus) retract this point, since Black Falcon did consult with other admins.
In summary, I'd say that in most any case (except copyvio etc.) where there's a reasonable chance that an entity would survive an XfD (as there is here), then the entity shouldn't be speedied. In the case of a G4, fine, we can't reargue cases immediately. But I think three years is long enough. Herostratus (talk) 07:35, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment G4 for what is project based material does seem to have quite a few wrinkles, as the community evolves content policies don't seem to shift too much (be that a good or bad thing), whereas the project area seems much more fluid to me. In such case a reasonable consensus has changed (or may have) sort of argument seems to be possible. I don't see a particular time limit for G4 validity (some would attempt to game such a limit), but if we are beyond reasonable memory of the discussion (i.e. it hasn't been discussed in other forms recently) then I can't see any problem with further discussion be that at CFD or wherever, though I doubt DRV is the really the best place for it. --82.7.40.7 (talk) 09:23, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The G4 deletion is probably relevant the discussion at the bottom of the page at WT:DRV. I think that DRV participants are fundamentally not in agreement about G4. I think in this case it's all fairly clear: to use G4 on a category on the basis of a 3 year old CfD is to deny that consensus could have changed in the meantime. In theory, there should have been a discussion. In practice, I don't think there's any point. CfD is controlled by a small number of editors who care about categories; they have a clear vision of what should and what should not be allowed; and that vision won't have changed since 2007. Long experience tells me that CfD's decisions are never successfully challenged at DRV.—S Marshall T/C 10:33, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- But if there is a restore and a new CfD, I propose that I would publicize this a bit, say with a notice a the village pump or wherever. I think it'd be justified to ask for a bit more input than the usual CfD watchers. Herostratus (talk) 17:21, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Herostratus' summary of the background is mostly accurate, so I can add only a few more facts. The rest will be opinion or interpretation (of policies and consensus).
Per my interpretation of WP:CSD, there is no time limit for CSD G4. My opinion is that there should not be a time limit, except in two cases: when the recreated page is not "substantially identical" to the deleted page or when there is evidence that consensus has changed. The first criterion is, indeed, difficult to satisfy when dealing with categories, although there are certain situations where it applies: e.g., a category deleted for being underpopulated and recreated with more members.
The second criterion touches on the reason that CSD G4 should not have an expiration date—namely, that arguments do not expire. An argument made in 2007 is no more or less valid than one made in 2010 if overall consensus has not changed. If consensus has changed, then a new discussion is appropriate.
In the case of the Service Awards categories, neither criterion seems to apply. The scope of the category is the same as before (only the title was different) and there is no evidence that consensus on the matter has changed. The subpages of Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/User/Archive (including the topical index) contain hundreds of discussions since 2007 which reinforce the same principle: user categories are not intended to be used merely as bottom-of-the-page notices.
For what it's worth, I did ask two other admins about the speedy deletion, and both were of the opinion that CSD G4 applied. I do not think that the 2007 close was "marginal" (although, of course, I was involved in the discussion), and I do not think that it matters that some of the participants have retired. The people making the arguments may no longer be here, but the arguments themselves remain, and it is the arguments which should determine the outcome of a discussion.
So, I endorse my deletion under CSD G4, but am (of course) willing to reverse my actions if consensus requires it. -- Black Falcon (talk) 16:33, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- These are quite interesting questions in terms of policy precedent, to the point that I don't feel I can add anything more. However, I'm willing to support the re-deletion of these pages because I don't think that they're particularly useful. Finding all the sysops? Useful. Finding all the French speakers? Useful. Finding all the Firefox users? Borderline. Finding all those who
meet claim to meet arbitrary ranking metrics? Useless. HereToHelp (talk to me) 20:38, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- But both of you are (partly) discussing the merits of the case, and this is not the proper forum for that - leave it for the new CfD (if there is one). I will have plenty to say there, myself. But here we are discussing the principle of whether the speedy should be overturned. Herostratus (talk) 17:21, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Only insofar as it is in response to your assertion that the 2007 close was "marginal". It is not possible to consider the validity of a closure without giving some consideration to the nature of the arguments presented (policy-based versus WP:ILIKEIT, for instance). -- Black Falcon (talk) 17:53, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The 2007 close was based on a lack of consensus to delete. How could that be anything other than "marginal"? VMS Mosaic (talk) 23:52, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Could you clarify, please? The 2007 close ended with "delete all" as the outcome, i.e., there was consensus to delete. Are you, perhaps, referring to another discussion? Thanks, -- Black Falcon (talk) 23:58, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I simply reviewed the discussion and saw a very obvious lack of consensus to delete. What is there to clarify? How is it even possible to believe there was a consensus to delete? The close was clearly made by someone who had his own agenda. VMS Mosaic (talk) 14:45, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- In the 2007 discussion, no side got the clear upper hand in terms of strength of argument, in my opinion. And if the closer was closing on strength of argument, he didn't say so. And the numbers were 6-3 delete. That's 67%, but its not like an 18-9 67%. At 6-3, flip one "vote" and you've got a 5-4 tie. And if the closer was closing on numbers, he didn't say so. In my opinion, "No consensus to delete" would have been a better close, and the failure of the closer to provide any rationale makes the close somewhat iffy. And this is a valid data point. If the Delete "vote" had been 19-5 or 7-1, or if the Delete advocates had made some irrefutable points, or if the closer had said "closed as Delete, because [cogent reasons]", fine; we wouldn't be here. But none of that happened. Herostratus (talk) 17:21, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- As I noted below, I think that the "strength of argument" is at the heart of the issue, and this is (not surprisingly) one point on which neither one of us can be entirely impartial. In my opinion, there was unambiguous consensus to delete based on strength of arguments and participation.
I don't think that the hypothetical "flip" tells the story that well, since the same could just as easily be said for the reverse (7–2, or 78%). In any case, the "flip" scenario is a hypothetical only and is too ... quantitative (i.e., it does not consider the strength of arguments and previous consensus on user categories). -- Black Falcon (talk) 17:49, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Please assume good faith, or at least don't assume bad faith (just to be clear: my comment is in response to your assertion that the closer "clearly ... had his own agenda"). As for the other point: it is very easy for me to believe that there was a consensus to delete. I need only to consider the strength of arguments in that particular discussion (yes, I realize that this lies at the heart of the disagreement) and the identical outcomes of many other similar user category discussions which took place before and after that one (see here and here for partial lists). -- Black Falcon (talk) 17:38, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- No criticism at all of the deletion citing G4. Recreations are what G4 is for. But we shouldn't have run the DRV for every contested G4, they should be easily challenged, and the best forum would be at CfD. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:29, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Deletion review has received less and less appeals over the past few months, so I see no problems with the occasional contesting of a G4 at DRV. By your argument, any contested G4 will, whether the circumstances have changed, have to go through another bureaucratic XfD. Because I see no indication that the original arguments for deletion no longer apply, I oppose restoration. Cunard (talk) 00:28, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I think this debate shouldn't be at DRV to the extent that there is no serious contention that either: (1) the G4-deleting admin did anything remotely wrong; or (2) there was anything wrong with the XfD. I see Herostratus' nomination here as a continuation (not review) of the original XfD, and think it would be better placed at CfD.
- By "restore", I mean "temporarily restore for the purpose of discussion" so that non-admins can see any, or the lack of any, novel content. I'd also like, in principle, to be able to see any recently removed memberships, in case there is some relevant new use, not anticipated in the original XfD.
- As a member of Category:Wikipedians who say CfD needs more diverse participants, I encourage you to spend more time at CfD. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:01, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Restore, optional list at CfD. Consensus can change. For most articles, or images, or categories, it is fairly easy to tell if the consensus for the type of content and the type of problem may possibly have changed. For some, especially those relating to some aspect of Wikipedia organization or mechanics, there may be no reasonable precedent to look for--the relevant issue may never since have arisen. We need some way of addressing these, and a new XfD is the best way. Whether it should require agreement here first is hard to say--it will prevent discussing unlikely pages at XfD, at the cost of discussing them here. DGG ( talk ) 15:41, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree that consensus can change, but is there any reason in this case to believe that it has? User category discussions since 2007 (see the topical index) have fairly consistently supported the principle that user categories are not intended merely as bottom-of-the-page userbox replacements. If a recreation of a page deleted per a deletion discussion must, in the absence of an indication that consensus has changed, undergo another deletion discussion to re-determine consensus, then where does that leave CSD G4? Thank you, -- Black Falcon (talk) 17:57, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse original close and subsequent G4 deletions. The original close was reasonable, and the G4 deletions were fully within policy. Consensus can change, so I wouldn't mind if this discussion were more geared towards if consensus has changed or not, but in terms of actual process, it was sound here. As for if consensus has changed or not, I think the arguments for keeping and deleting are the same as they were in the first discussion. Grouping users by what service award category they have does not benefit the encyclopedia, and deletion of the categories certainly doesn't prevent usage of the userboxes, which is all anyone really needs. User categories are for grouping users to facilitate collaboration, no such use can be found in these categories, so there is no reason to believe consensus has changed. VegaDark (talk) 21:14, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn No evidence that speedy deletion is justified. If there is a valid concern that these categories should not exist then the appropriate step is to take this to CfD. Alansohn (talk) 22:22, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Care to elaborate? I would have to work to see how WP:CSD#G4 doesn't apply to this scenario. To say "no evidence that speedy deletion is justified" is to completely ignore the wording of G4. Let's go through the criteria line by line and see how anyone could possibly think G4 doesn't apply in this scenario.
- A sufficiently identical and unimproved copy (check), having any title (check), of a page deleted via a deletion discussion. (check) This excludes pages that are not substantially identical to the deleted version (this was substantially identical, so does not meet this exception), pages to which the reason for the deletion no longer applies (the original arguments for deletion still apply, so doesn't meet this exception), and content moved to user space for explicit improvement (but not simply to circumvent Wikipedia's deletion policy) (doesn't meet this exception). This criterion also excludes content undeleted via deletion review (doesn't meet this exception), or which was deleted via proposed deletion or speedy deletion (although in that case the previous speedy criterion, or other speedy criteria, may apply). (doesn't meet this exception) (italics for original wording, my comments in bold).
- There is no conceivable argument in my view that a G4 speedy deletion was not procedurally proper in this case. Now, if we are trying to argue that consensus has changed, that's something completely different. We can endorse the speedy deletion as within process and still say that the categories should be brought to cfd again to determine if consensus has changed (the proper venue for this discussion is here at DRV, so even if Black Falcon wanted to restore these categories, the procedurally proper course of action would still be to delete them per G4 and bring the discussion here to see if consensus has changed. But to charge Black Falcon with an improper G4 deletion here because "no evidence that speedy deletion is justified" is flat out absurd. VegaDark (talk) 00:48, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse closure and the G4 deletion The closer correctly divined the consensus at the 2007 debate as delete. I see neither new arguments offered nor a change in the circumstances to invalidate the 2007 debate. (I do not consider more editors using the service awards as satisfying the "[S]ignificant new information has come to light"; this argument has no bearing on the rationale for deletion: Such categories "inevitably creat[e] a false sense of hierarchy".) Therefore, this is a valid application of G4. Cunard (talk) 00:33, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Argh, again with the merits of the case. You "see [no] new arguments offered" because this is a DRV, not a CfD and we are not supposed to present new arguments here. I could offer new arguments, but this is not the venue. Give me the venue, and I will. Herostratus (talk) 17:46, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I would like to see specific evidence that consensus here has, has not, or might have changed. I browsed WP:Categories for discussion/User/Archive/Topical index#Wikipedia, but I didn't see anything particularly relevant. Flatscan (talk) 05:01, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse. If consensus changes, it would be evident through a community discussion prior to the recreation of any category or its listing at DRV after its deletion under G4. Restoring these categories now would set a terrible precedent—bring any category to DRV after an arbitrary amount of time claiming consensus can or did change, without any evidence other than the category's recreation. — ξxplicit 01:30, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- But what would be the venue for a community discussion to recreate a deleted category? Is there one? An RfC, I guess. If an entity is deleted, is it legit to open an RfC discussing its recreation? Some people might look askance at that, I think, as an end-run around the deletion process? Perhaps I should have opened an RfC instead of this DRV, I don't know. Anyway, I didn't. As to the consensus changing, I don't know... for one thing, more people use service awards than in 2007, if that matters. For another thing, the category was re-created in (I think) July, and nobody complained until now, and you could say that, by now, that creates an existing state of affairs per fait accompli. For example: if I place an image in article, and stays there for some time, this creates an implied consensus that the image should be in the article, and if there is then a discussion about removing it with no agreement either way, the image stays (I ran into this very thing recently, and I think this is written down somewhere, but I couldn't find it in WP:CONSENSUS). I mean, suppose the category had been re-created and existed unnoticed for five years, would that create by default an implicit consensus that it should exist? Yes it would. Can you G4 speedy an entity that has existed for five years? Of course not. I don't know if five months is long enough to create an "existing state of affairs", but I don't know that it isn't either, and since we are talking about speedy-delete here - bang, no discussion, entity destroyed, shut up and go home - I think we should err on the side of caution. Herostratus (talk) 06:28, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I have always been under the impression that DRV is the proper venue for discussing if consensus has changed as well as the usual scope of DRV in looking purely at the deletion process. That is, come here and say "I don't object to the original deletion or the subsequent speedy deletion. They were procedurally sound. However, I would submit that consensus has changed since the first discussion, so I would ask that this be permitted for re-creation. (followed by reasons why consensus has changed)." I doubt any admin would speedy close such a nomination. I've seen similar things at DRV before of this nature as, like you say, there is no other venue that seems proper to discuss bringing back something that has been deleted procedurally soundly. As for your other points, very few users police user categories. If a select few users became inactive or stopped dealing with user categories, I could easily see something that has been deleted and recreated survive for years without being noticed. This category slipped through the cracks of the few users patrolling for a few months, I don't think that should give it a free pass to circumvent G4 deletion. I would disagree with your assertion that we could "of course not" G4 previously deleted content that has existed for 5 years. An article that lots of users have edited, sure, but some obscure user category that only has 1 member in it I wouldn't hesitate to G4 after 5 years so long as the original arguments for deletion still apply and there is no reason to believe consensus has changed. As per above, G4 doesn't have a time limit, although admins should of course use their best judgment as to when to actually apply it (and the length of time since being recreated is certainly a factor to consider). VegaDark (talk) 06:59, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- @Herostratus: Not an RFC (I'm just using RFC for lack of a more relevant venue) to recreate a deleted category, but an RFC to: a) reassess the relevant CFD discussion and its merits; b) reflect on the guideline for user categories, and whether or not the deleted categories are, as Black Falcon points out, nothing more than bottom-of-the-page notices. As the guideline states, "the purpose of user categories is to aid in facilitating coordination and collaboration between users for the improvement and development of the encyclopedia." On a side note, aren't service awards mostly self-awarded anyway? The RFC could have taken place at WT:SA, with a relevant notice left at WT:CAT. That's my opinion on how to get those gears grinding, though there's no set precedent on how to handle a situation like this. Categories are often recreated and go unnoticed because the few users who patrol new categories, and the fact that categories are often titled quite differently, so it's that much more difficult to track them down. Can you G4 speedy an entity that has existed for five years? Of course not. That depends and should be applied on a case-by-case basis. Articles can be recreated after an AFD and meet G4 if it an identical copy and doesn't address the issue which led to its deletion in the first place. If the article is essentially the same except for a slight change in the wording, even if it went unnoticed for five years, it wouldn't meet G4? I wouldn't how how to not apply G4 in such a case. As recreation of deleted categories will more than likely serve an identical, if not the exact same purpose as before, it falls directly into the wording of G4 exactly as it's written. G4 has no time limit, nor do I see a compelling reason to impose one solely for categories. — ξxplicit 09:00, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- @VegaDark: That doesn't sound like a "consensus has changed, allow recreation and relist if necessary", but more of a "well, it's been a while since it was deleted, allow recreation and relist it to see if consensus has changed". From reading the restore/overturn arguments, I see zero evidence that consensus has changed, and those arguments seem to fall directly into my latter example. — ξxplicit 09:00, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree that the discussion so far reflects your latter example, I was merely stating that such a use of DRV would in theory be procedurally proper should there be arguments presented that consensus has changed. VegaDark (talk) 18:03, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Still unclear how this consensus-change would be shown, but how about this: at the time the categories where cleared out for the speedy delete, how many users were in the category? I don't know, but I suspect it was several score or even several hundred (a close approximation could easily be gotten but counting the number of transclusions of the service award template). Granted that these users placed themselves in the categories by transcluding the template, and some or even most may have been unaware that they were thereby adding themselves to a category. But some weren't unaware. And each of these instances of an editor adding themselves to the categories being debated here may be seen an instance of that editor "voting with his feet" so to speak in support of the existence of the categories. Herostratus (talk) 03:39, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Because there is no indication that consensus has changed per Wikipedia policy, the original discussion is still valid. That the discussion is three years old is no reason to invalidate the policy-based arguments advanced there. Cunard (talk) 00:28, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I strongly disagree that there was consensus in the first place. I saw no valid policy arguments for the original delete. In fact, after a second review of the arguments, I don't see any policy arguments for the delete other than the one very weak invalid attempt to use WP:MYSPACE which does not appear to apply at all. Exactly what policy arguments do you see there? VMS Mosaic (talk) 17:09, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I think it would be more accurate to say "policy-, guideline-, and precedent-based" rather than just "policy-based", but here is a partial summary of the arguments:
- Arguments to delete: "creates a false sense of hierarchy"; "does not foster encyclopedic collaboration"; categorizing by number of edits and time served is "arbitrary and uninformative".
- Arguments to keep: "the awards are merely a statement, or appreciation, of time spent and experience at Wikipedia" (the discussion concerns the categories, not the awards, and user categories are not intended to be used merely as bottom-of-the-page "statements"); "nominator (and the Delete !voters) seem to be against the service awards as a whole, and not merely the categories" (not accurate and also irrelevant, as the user categories are not an indivisible part of the userboxes); "statistical interest" (??? ... in any case, the same information is available via Special:WhatLinksHere); "if you don't like it, don't participate" (pages on Wikipedia do not belong just to the people who use them; "harmless, ... useful or interesting" (WP:HARMLESS, WP:USEFUL, WP:INTERESTING ... assertion != argument).
- In order to develop a better idea of the validity and applicability of each of these arguments to user categories, I encourage you to please look through the user category discussion archives or the topical index. -- Black Falcon (talk) 20:02, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I checked your referenced guidelines against (WP:OC/U and WP:USERCAT) and saw nothing supporting deletion. Instead I saw support in both for keep; please see the first appropriate type "Categories which group users by participation in Wikipedia" which specifically states "This includes any grouping of users by participation in a formal WikiProject". The service awards are specifically defined as part of the formal WikiProject Wikipedia Awards (WP:WPWPA).
- I also checked the topical index and saw nothing which appears to be relevant to this category. If you know of something there related to a Wikiproject participation category, please point it out. VMS Mosaic (talk) 22:47, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I think there may have been a misunderstanding here. The deleted categories were not for editors involved with the Service Awards project (which would be a useful category, in my opinion), but rather grouped editors by what award(s) they had given to themselves. The relevant section within the topical index would be the section for categories which grouped Wikipedians by award; very few WikiProject participation categories ever have been nominated for deletion, and usually only when the project became defunct or was never started. -- Black Falcon (talk) 23:38, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Restore per VMS Mosaic. BlackFalcon should have sought discussion a other than acting on a three year old discussion. Mootros (talk) 23:21, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- So if you had it your way, people could have a field day recreating every page that has ever been deleted via xfd so long as the discussion was more than 3 years old, and none of them should be deleted per G4, correct? I'm really thankful that the G4 criterion says no such thing. VegaDark (talk) 00:26, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Concur with VegaDark. Allowing categories deleted three years ago to have immunity from G4, even when no changes in the circumstances have occurred, creates a horrible precedent. Cunard (talk) 00:28, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
|
