User talk:Jc37/Sandbox/Closure

I get your closure. However, it was overturned. I don't want to get into a WP:BEANS discussion, so I can't address half the reasons your close was flawed. But some points. WP:OC and WP:CLS are written with the main space in mind. Regarding the divisive issue of the category, divisiveness in user categories is more frowned upon when it's importing real world division into Wikipedia. This is an on wiki issue, so it gets treated somewhat differently. Fourth, the nom is a bad faith nom. Not a trolling nom, well, not especially, but it's a bad faith one. It asserts that all admins listed in the category are there under false pretences. That's not true, I'd vouch for a few who actually would go through the process. As to the debate, it's a clear no consensus. It's a Wikipedia issue, not an article space issue, so there's a lot of slack and allowance to be made on some levels. Fifth, it's a contentious issue. Whichever way it was closed, it would have ended up on DRV. Lastly, in what way does all of this help build the encyclopedia? It just seems to be more wiki-drama. Look, the close didn't have consensus per the DRV. I wouldn't take it to heart. Maybe if you had written all that as your close, you may have taken people with you. But you might not. There are beans reasons why this isn't in the Wikipedia space. Hiding T 16:37, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Beans in regards to me or others?

Whether OC or CLS were written with whatever space in mind, the three points I laid out apply to categories. One in specific is that nothing more than the name of the category member can be shown. And such clarification would help deal with concerns about this category.

I honestly am wondering if you missed the fact that I personally could care less about the topic one way or the other. So there's no reason to try to convince me of its benefits (or flaws, for that matter). My job as closer was to read what the commenters said, weigh that with general community guidelines and policies and previous concensus (if applicable), and close accordingly. You come very close to claiming that I made a POV closure, which I didn't do, and I strive to not do.

And whether or not the nom was "trolling", there were other Wikipedians who commented as well, and I personally wouldn't suggest that they all were "trolling".

Yes, there were other reasons and motivations for the discussion (Incidents and issues around User:Mercury, for example), but I think I was aware of those, and took them under consideration.

As I read the discussion, the key contention was whether this should be a category or not, since there was clear consensus that the "grouping" and system should exist.

If you care to, (which I'm not sure I do at this point), perhaps you should read through the discussion again, with that in mind. And note how many commenters presume that this is already in Wikipedia-space, or who feel that category space is necessary in order to make it "official", or who feel that a Wikipedia-space page of some kind should be created. There was a lot there if someone looks. But that they apparently won't see if they're only focused on "keep vs. delete".

And finally, the DRV was flawed to say the least. the nominator didn't explain my closure (it was framed as if it was merely a delete close). And reading the comments, it's clear that most of the commenters didn't bother even looking at what the close actually was. I'm still trying to decide what the next course of action is regarding this. I honestly could care less about the category, this is more about the abuse of process to push POV. And in my opinion, it should be curtailed. - jc37 20:29, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

I won't disagree about the DRV, but I'd caution letting it lie. Wikipedia works through consensus, and sometimes consensus forms in a way that may not be in keeping with process. What usually gets decided is that the consensus is more important than the process. The beans applies to other people. As to whether it was a POV close or not, in my opinion every close is a pov close. We close in accordance with policy, consensus and debate, but it's our interpretation of policy, consensus and debate, no matter how objective we aim to be or think we are. I think you recognise this because you indicate others may not have closed it the way you did. I don't really give a rat's toss about the category either, any more, but I did recognise that your close was unlikely to stick. It was somewhat radical, for starters, it moved away from the obvious consensus, you hadn't explained yourself fully as you have here and it isn't in keeping with the way the wider community moves. It also broke the GFDL, since all the edit histories were lost when the category was deleted. Although that's not something I care to argue one way or the other, I just mention it in passing. I don't think there's much value in debating this much further, you seem to be taking some of my points more personally or offensively than they were meant. Splash once gave me some advice on closing a deletion debate that feel somewhat relevant: When closing a debate that is borderline or one in which your discretion is used, a few sentences explaining why you did what you did is an effective way of making your decision stick, and demonstrating that you were, indeed, within your discretion. It also doesn't leave people wondering why you did what you did. It's both permissible, and encouraged. I think that's all I'm trying to say in a hundred times as many words. Hiding T 14:52, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

I was saying that you come close to suggesting that I have some POV about the specific category in question, not whether you felt that I have a certain perspective or interpretation of current Wikipedia policies or processes. But it was a side comment/observation, and not worth discussing further.

Also, I didn't pull the closure "out of thin air" (radical?). It was directly suggested in the discussion, and others indirectly referred to Wikipedia-space, as well as other things which were indicators of a Wikipedia-space page/list. This was partially why I asked if you read the closure. But in hindsight, I suppose I should have asked if you read the discussion to see why that closure was indicated.

That said, your points about closing comments/explanations are well taken. As you know from other discussions, I perhaps might be considered "verbose" at times : ) - Perhaps I should just ignore those who suggest that closures should be terse, short little comments, and explain as would be my normal preference. It seems I get the more "kudos" and/or agreement (essentially, more understanding) when I do so. (Though not always. I've been surprised in the past.) In this case, however, I didn't even get the opportunity to explain my closure, due to the speedy DRV close, but I suppose that's another topic.

And no. not taking this personally. Though your initial comment on my talk page (and even some of the above) left me speechless. Perhaps you should take your own advice about further explanation : )

(Oh wait, you are, and right here on this page too : )

And I hope you didn't miss my comment on your talk page (ended in "miasm"). Though in re-reading them, I perhaps had read more there than what was there (I don't know), but your two threaded comments on my talk page (especially the second) were well-appreciated by me. (There have also been comments by others which I have appreciated, but as some of this is yet unresolved, I hesitate to thank them for their comments yet.)

And I like the quote from Splash : )- jc37 10:12, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure we are reading the same debate. You've told me that listifying was brought up in the debate and comment that perhaps you should have asked me if I read it, which I tke a little offence to. yes, I've read it. I see as many people dismiss listifying as support it. As to being denied the chance to explain the closure, that's what you're supposed to do when you close. ;) I do intend to be encouraging, you're a very good admin, you put a lot of thought into what you do. Doesn't mean you can't err. Hiding T 16:12, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

No offence was intended, assuredly. It's just there were things which seemed/seem so obvious to me that your comments didn't seem to regard/address.

And thank you for the last comments, it's nice to hear. And... <pinches arm> Yup, human, can err. Just like every other Wikipedian, I presume : ) - jc37 10:21, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

I wish you had engaged me on your talk page before this went to DRV. But the DRV outcome was predictable. I think you misinterpreted the consensus about whether it should have been a category or a list. Did you review the previous CfDs on this category before you closed it? That might have helped too, this side issue did come up then too. I think some of the commenters also perhaps didn't make it clear that they'd given their views before. I know I did only fleetingly refer to that, because this is starting to turn into a perennial CfD. Honest mistake, and it's fixed now, the category is restored, so no point in agonising over it. Props for being willing to take on closing, many of us shy away from it. I hope you find that feedback helpful. ++Lar: t/c 21:26, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

If you'll look at my contributions for that time frame, I believe I was offline at the time. And the "whirlwind" DRV didn't even allow me to comment.

Thank you though for your comments, they are appreciated. - jc37 21:43, 17 December 2007 (UTC)