User:Xenophrenic/sandbox1

The result of the discussion was: rename to Category:Persecution by atheist states and repopulate. There is a clear majority in favor of deleting this category, but not a clear consensus to delete; however, even among editors preferring to keep the category, a substantial number are amenable to refining the category to specify that the relevant remit of the category is persecution by states that are officially atheist, rather than persecution by atheism as a movement or by individual atheists or subnational atheist groups. bd2412 T 16:51, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

Hi, bd2412 ~

I'm pinging you to notify you of my intent to file a Deletion Review of the above close decision you made. I greatly appreciate that you volunteered to close what is obviously a lengthy discussion, but I must ask you to overturn your decision. According to WP:DELREVD, I must: "Discuss the matter with the closing administrator and try to resolve it with him or her first." I note that you have already begun discussing the issue with another editor, ThePromenader, on your Talk page, but rather than resolve the matter, that discussion has only emphasized the problematic nature of the reasoning behind the close decision. Please review my concerns and let me know if you think we can remedy this instead of opening a formal review.

(1) The close decision was made out of process, based on vote counting instead of strength of argument.

As is evident in the initial close decision wording, and in the response to the follow-up request for explanation, the closer is operating under the misunderstanding that consensus is determined by vote counting:

Since consensus is usually interpreted to require around 2/3 of participants to support a particular outcome... --bd2412

that would require something more like 24 !votes to delete to overcome the weight of editors arguing that the category should be kept... --bd2412

A clear majority (more than 50% numerically)... --bd2412

... a substantial number are amenable to... --bd2412

There were 14 !votes for straight deletion (including the nominator), and 12 !votes to keep... --bd2412

Therefore, there were 22 !votes supporting the proposition that there should not be a category at the title under consideration, which is reasonably sufficient consensus... --bd2412

There is a clear majority in favor of deleting this category... --bd2412

Policy is clear, however, that there is no "2/3" vote requirement, or "require 24 votes", or other counting nonsense when determining consensus:

Wikipedia:Consensus: consensus is determined by the quality of arguments (not by a simple counted majority), polls should be regarded as structured discussions rather than voting. Responses indicating individual explanations of positions using Wikipedia policies and guidelines are given the highest weight.

Wikipedia:Deletion guidelines for administrators: Consensus is not determined by counting heads, but by looking at strength of argument, and underlying policy (if any).

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion: Consensus is not based on a tally of votes, but on reasonable, logical, policy-based arguments.

Wikipedia:Deletion policy: These processes are not decided through a head count, so participants are each encouraged to explain their opinion and refer to policy.

Wikipedia:Closing discussions: Consensus is not determined by counting heads, but neither is it determined by the closer's own views about what is the most appropriate policy. The closer is there to judge the consensus of the community, after discarding irrelevant arguments: those that flatly contradict established policy, those based on personal opinion only, those that are logically fallacious, and those that show no understanding of the matter of issue.

I assume you are already aware, "closers are expected and required to exercise their judgment to ensure the decision complies with the spirit of Wikipedia policy and with the project goal. A good closer will transparently explain how the decision was reached." Would you be so kind as to indicate which arguments, counterarguments and policies you relied upon during this close process?

(2) There was ZERO policy-based rationale given for the close decision.

The category was nominated for deletion because (among other problems) it violated WP:OCEGRS, and it was empty. The closing admin apparently agreed that the category should be deleted, but then inexplicably created a new category with the exact same problems. Google Scholar (and likewise JSTOR, EBSCO, GALE, etc.) searches show that "Persecution by atheists", "Persecution by atheist states", "Persecution by atheism", or any other attempted artificial construction conflating atheism with the actual cause of persecution, is not a recognized intersection. (Compare with hundreds and sometimes thousands of hits for "Persecution by Christians" or "Persecution by totalitarian regimes", or "Persecution by Muslims".)

(3) There was ZERO policy-based rationale or reasoning given by the closer for electing to create a new, equally problematic empty category named "Persecution by atheist states".

Instead of "Religious persecution under totalitarian regimes" (as suggested in the discussion) or "Religious persecution by secular governments" (as also suggested in the discussion)? If you point to head-count again, instead of common sense, policy or rational arguments, you are so going to get trouted.

I'm hopeful that this can be corrected before going to Deletion Review or ArbCom. Please let me know your thoughts, bd2412, here on this page or your Talk page if you prefer. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 17:39, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

@BD2412: Could you at least acknowledge that I've contacted you about this matter? That appears to be a requirement before I can proceed. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 14:08, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Sure, go ahead. bd2412 T 14:10, 14 August 2017 (UTC)