User:Kriegman/Yoism

- - '''Note: The following is a copy of Wikibofh's explanation of his decision that the VfD on Yoism was a consensus to delete and my responses to said explanation. To see a copy of the Yoism article that was deleted, click here'''

- - This page will briefly document my close Delete decision on this AfD I have chopped the debate down, and moved stuff around below. Significant information was removed. I'd recommend that you look at the original discussion if you want to see the whole story.


 * A Response to this sad state of affairs: And I'd recommend you look again at the discounted votes, below and my notes below them. Kriegman 03:16, 23 October 2005 (UTC)


 * I object to my vote being ignored. I've contributed important things to the Wikipedia revising  critically incorrect articles about Occam's Razor and Science, and their relationship.  I haven't done hundreds of edits, but I do contribute. OverZealousFan 03:19, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

I discounted all of the unregistered or low edit count votes. I counted Molotov as a delete, since he said delete. For that, you then have 6 to 1 (86% delete). If we remove Molotov it's 83% delete. If we move him to keep its 71% delete. Still a wiki consensus. Summary:
 * 86&
 * 83%
 * 71%

Now, I don't actually see an edit for Kriegman, and clearly, his vote is keep.

That changes us to:
 * 75%
 * 71%
 * 62%

I still believe that the consensus was delete. I recommend that if you disagree (and I can see how you might) that you go ahead and avail yourself of WP:VfU to try to determine what the greater admin consensus will be.

Eventually, I will delete this page. No reason to keep it forever in my userspace, but I will keep it long enough so that it can be referred to in VfU if that is your desire.

Respectfully,

Wikibofh 19:01, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

Delete

 * 1) Vanity. Only about 1 line of the article can be verified wikipedia is not a webhost Geni 20:34, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 2) Strong delete. Note to admin closing this one: be sure to discount sock votes, as they are lots. -- (drini's page| &#x260E; ) 04:44, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 3) Delete. A religious version of a micronation. None of the external links in the article work to verify claims. The "official" site states: "We've been hacked! Recently, Yoism has been getting a strong response from people all over the world." Right. Edwardian 21:51, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 4) Delete as non-notable. We don't have specific criteria for religions, I think we should, but existing for only ten years and having only 100 members would no doubt be below them. Wikipedia is not used for groups to establish themselves, it is for describing groups already sufficiently notable. -- Kjkolb 09:09, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 5) Delete nn, puppetfest. Xoloz 12:29, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 6) Delete but keep in some form also. Molotov(talk) [[Image:Flag of California.svg|25px]]  21:35, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Keep

 * 1) Keep Disinterested third-party here who stumbled across this article after seeing it linked to Timothy Leary and was very surprised to see it listed on AfD. I found it to be pretty well written and certainly informative and encyclopedic (verifiable, notable, etc.) I understand, per the nomination, that it was originally just a one-line article, but since then, it has been expanded significantly, a very nice side-effect of the AfD process. Please keep! --Presnell 18:23, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Discounted
The following votes were discounted as unsigned, non-registered, or extermely low edit counts (ie puppets)
 * 1) Do Not Delete.  You can find some of the links to "verify claims" at http://web.archive.org/web/20040923210323re_/yoism.org/  Thank Yo for the WayBackMachine.


 * This one was signed! By me!  Look again. Kriegman 03:03, 23 October 2005 (UTC)


 * 1) Do Not Delete. R. Hull
 * 2) Do Not Delete. Hi. I know that Yoism is still active. Their website was hacked. Their wiki entry should not be deleted. Thank you. B. Miller
 * 3) Do Not Delete. I know the people in charge of yoism.org, and so I know that the server was hacked around the beginning of October and is currently being restored.  Therefore deleting the page for the reasons suggested (e.g. that the links do not work) would be a bad decision.  ToddDeLuca 16:02, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 4) Do Not Delete24.60.21.122 18:19, 19 October 2005 (UTC).


 * This user is Rob Levy. He has 23 prior unrelated edits.  He is not a sock puppet.  If you wish, I can arrange for him to contact you.  That should be uneccessary because he made it abundantly clear who he was in the Vfd.Kriegman 03:03, 23 October 2005 (UTC)


 * 1) Do Not Delete. BernieDaSwede BernieDaSwede 18:27, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 2) Do Not Delete OverZealousFan 15:55, 16 October 2005 (UTC)


 * This user was involved in the first Vfd two years ago. Did you review that?  I believe he created the Yoism page and then engaged in a steady ongoing discussion as to its merits.  He has gone on to make a number of Wikipedia edits and has debated Wikipedia detractors in forums unrelated to Yoism.  He is a true believer in the Wikipedia.  Your decision to discount him is truly unfortunate as it highlights the elitism of hyper-editors:  Don't bother to vote if you haven't made thousands of edits.Kriegman 03:03, 23 October 2005 (UTC)


 * 1) Do Not Delete. I see no good reason for deletion. Yoism is a real phenomenon whose website is down temporarily.  It would be a shame to lose it in the wikipedia.  WikiMe 17:31, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 2) Delete I don't think the website being down matters at all. The yoism website is still not a source other than Dan Kriegman, its just another vehicle for him.  Why should Wikipedia be the sole supporter and host of this religious philosophy?  This has nothing to do with knowledge, just advertising and proselytizing.  Dan Kriegman needs to pay for his own commercial airtime.  (Kriegman's already told us he has incorporated and can legally receive moneys from supporters...) It seems to me any Yoism page on Wiki should be focused on the way the "group" is trying to expand, by exploiting the "open source" philosophy of Wikipedia *specifically* - this is the only thing we really know these "Yoans" are actually doing. PilgrimZ 21:21, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 3) Do Not Delete. The first commonet on the first vote here is from someone thinks this article should be deleted because Yoism sounds like it might be a "micronation". Yet the Wikipedia entry for micronation has over a dozen references to micronation entries in Wikipedia itself.  Even if Yoism were one (its not) this is no good reason to delete the entry. I have been following Yoism for over a year and the main Yoism website has been up all that time, and it has a very active following on its mailing list. 64.142.28.232 21:46, 16 October 2005 (UTC)


 * This user has one prior edit and---given how he has self-identified as a follower of Yoism---is unlikely to be a sockpuppet. Kriegman 03:03, 23 October 2005 (UTC)


 * 1) Do Not Delete - Igdrasa


 * This Australian user (with prior, unrelated edits) has a personal website. On that website he has a small number of links to web sites that he considers important.  One of them is the Wikipedia.  How unfortunate that you would tell him that his vote doesn't count.Kriegman 03:03, 23 October 2005 (UTC)


 * 1) Do Not Delete - I am not a Yoan -- and wouldn't be because of their hot-under-the-collar anti-monotheism -- but I find their idea fascinating and much of their work very creative. I think they are modelling something -- the co-creation of religious ideas and rituals -- that is useful for all of us to consider.  It is too bad that their site has been taken down temporarily.  While it was up, I spent several hours exploring it, and am discussing the collaborative formation of religions now with some other people, in other contexts.  The fact that Yoism arose out of the cooperative movement fascinates me.   I now use Wiki as my default source for looking up things (even before Google half the time), and I would be very disappointed if because something is new, it was dropped from the Wikipedia regardless of how substantive it is.  Wikipedia is not a stale record of the past, but a living representation of reality as it is emerging.  Please keep it that way.  -- Tom Atlee, Author of The Tao of Democracy


 * This user is obviously no sock puppet. You can easily contact him, if you wish.  I could ask him to contact you.  Why should such people be ignored?Kriegman 03:03, 23 October 2005 (UTC)


 * 1) Do Not Delete. I've edited a few wikipdedia articles from different IP addresses (mainly in the topic of Global Governance, Global Democracy, Global Citizens, etc), but admittedly have not been very involved (although, I probably will become more involved over time). I am a Yoan. The article on Yoism clearly promotes Yoism, but it is also an article in good faith reporting a newish phenomena re: a specific Open Source Religion. Yoism is real, the number of Yoans uncounted but an estimate of 1,000 or so seems plausible. It is an independently verified group (definitely not a micronation, definitely in existence beyond Dan Kriegman and the website). I understand the concerns Wikipedians have about the misuse of wikipedia, and I understand the requirements for no new research, NPOV, no micronations, etc. -- to be a resepcted and established source of information it is important to take these concerns very seriously. Wikipedia is under attack by academics and others for being too loose in its criteria of inclusion, yet the backlash effect of this attack is stressful and annoying on the open source culture. Articles exist because of interest in them, this is true on all topics, and they evolve over time by the participation of many people from around the world -- i.e., they improve continuously (this is what makes Wikipedia special--a bad article, of which there are many, is most often simply a new article remaining to be edited, other encycolpedia publish only edited version, so those who critique wikipedia on this point are simply ignorant of the process). Anyhow, imho, wikipedians should have more confidence in the validity of their project, its methods, and principles -- and it would betray all of these to delete the Yoism page. Orion Kriegman OrionK 18:19, 18 October 2005 (UTC)


 * This user has a clear investment in the Wikipedia and is involved in a group trying to develop more open democratic systems. He has made a number of unrelated edits.  Why in the world would his vote be ignored?Kriegman 03:03, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

A Note About This VfD
This is very sad.

I invested great effort in this to see if the Wikipedia could overcome what others call devastating limitations. Though I do NOT support Larry Sanger's call for deference to "experts," I'm afraid the Wikipedia---in its ostensible call for openness---has created a new elite class of "experts" and is essentially closing the open door for others.

When 6 or 7 hyper-editors averaging way more than 2,000 edits each, none of whom had the chance to have---and none of whom voiced a willingness to wait for---the opportunity to actually experience the phenomenon being judged, ride roughshod over 7 or 8 editor-users (all with a least one prior, unrelated edit, but far less than 2,000) all of whom have carefully reviewed the phenomenon in question, this is quite sad.

We have created a new elite class of experts who have power.

The rest of us can just go home. The experts are in charge.

Dan Kriegman 03:16, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

You "could be wrong"
You wrote:
 * "Honestly, I could be wrong. Take it to WP:VfU and make your case."

How am I to understnd that? There seem to be only two possibilities. Either:
 * You don't really believe that there is any realistic possibility that you could be found to be wrong and you are encouraging me to take this case to VfU, more or less knowing the outcome, or
 * You actually believe and are telling the truth as you "honestly" experience it, that you could be wrong.

If the former is true, I'd just be wasting a good deal more time.

However, if the latter is true, then you believe that in the community of administrators a different outcome is possible. Therefore, you are saying that the consensus you saw is not so clear. If there is question about consensus, the article is supposed to be allowed to stand.

So, if you mean what you appear to be saying:
 * You should reverse your decision, or
 * You should put it into the VfU process, or (and this last one is the option I suggested and believe is the most reasonable)
 * You should undelete the article, wait another week or so until our web site is functioning, and if after examination of the phenomenon you or another editor feels deletion is appropriate, it should then be put up for a VfD

Given what occurred
 * cursory dismissal by 6 hyper-experienced editors/admins who did not examine the phenomenon in question
 * in this VfD, we saw that the phenomenon in question was examined in some detail by 8 less experienced editors, 100% of whom found the article to be valid
 * if one reviews the history of the page, it is clear that there was an identical VfD for this page two years ago in which both hyper-experienced and less experienced editors all examined the phenomenon and reached a consensus to keep
 * in the current VfD, the hyper-experienced editors and the reviewing administrator who had no direct experience of the phenomenon would not even consider the votes/opinions of the entire Wikipedia community of editors who actually examined the phenomenon (currently and two years ago) to the minimal degree of even waiting until the phenomenon was again available for examination (which should have been a total of a couple of weeks, i.e., my suggestion that there be a two week delay of deletion of an article that has been in the Wikipedia for over two years was not even responded to by any of the hyper experienced editors)

I do not see any reason to believe that my placing it in VfU has any chance of getting any real open re-consideration of the validity of the article. It seems that only a serious call from among the "new elite" community of "experts" for a reexamination of this article and this process has any chance of success.

And by using such appelations I am not even being a little sarcastic: I believe the Wikipedia has a real problem. The problem is not what Sanger called a failure to defer to experts. Rather, it is the creation of a new class of experts that all must defer to. Though this new class of experts are not homogenous and there is much disagreement among them, there are certain biases that are inevitable given the path to such high status. There is just no way that people who have become hyper-editors or administrators do not---despite their differences---on average have some features in common that will be associated with some biases.

As a psychologist who has studied groups and read vast quantities of research all of which are based on comparing a randomly selected (control) group with a non-randomly selected group with specific features (the experimental group), I know that whenever the control group has non-random selection, the research is contaminated (not always fatally, but contaminated nonetheless). The fact is that the non-randomness almost always introduces real, specific differences between the supposed control group and the general population.

This therefore must be true for administrators who have gone through a highly unusual selection process making them a highly unusual group. On the one hand, this is good as many of the features selected for are essential for Wikipedia administration (stamina, dedication, intelligence, ability to communicate, placing high value on objectivity, etc.). However, on the other hand, this must introduce certain biases that also play out with negative traits that are probably associated with the selection process.

For example, administrators (on average, as a group, i.e., not necessarily true for any individual) tend to want to be able to exercise authority, have an unusual amount of free time (and/or choose to spend a large part of their free time in front of a computer screen far more than the average person) and get a significant part of their identity from being Wikipedians (this is also a plus), are highly computer literate and technologically sophisticated, seem to have a relatively naive notion of how objective people can be and that they personally are (i.e., they tend to believe that it is possible for people to be fairly unbiased and that their personal actions are as unbiased as they feel them to be, which evolutionary theory [see self-deception] suggests is a rather naive view of how evolved organisms are likely to be), and since in their acceptance of a need for verification of everything in the Wikipedia (which is absolutely necessary), they seem to place high value on skepticism (which I do too), they seem to tend to be atheistic or hyper-skeptical of religious phenomena (even though, ironically, the vast majority of administrators would find nothing they disagree with in Yoism, IF they would look at it).

This last point is important. When something is called "religion," some people gravitate toward it and some turn away. Regardless of whether or not the administrators would agree with the content of Yoism (which is not the point for an article's inclusion), the tendency to turn away and to see no need to wait and engage in a closer examination of Yoism (which on the surface probably looks like some kooky new religion, many of which have appropriately been deleted from the Wikipedia) is likely to have contributed to the cursory examination of the issues that occurred in this VfD.

The point I am making is not based on the truth of this particular list of traits; this is the kind of question (What biasing characteristics are possessed by Wikipedia editors?) that is precisely the kind of thing that only research can accurately identify. The point is that some list of traits must be introduced by the non-random nature of selection of administrators. Some of those traits will be good and necessary. Some will not. The problem is that there is no sign that as a group, administrators are any more willing to relinquish the authority they have attained through massive effort than the experts that Wikpedia refuses to defer to. Thus, Sanger is barking up the wrong tree. The problem with the Wikipedia is not the refusal to defer to expertise, it is the failure to see that a new expertise, a new elite is being created, and this new elite has no more willingness to relinquish its power than any other group that has attained power. The failure is to not more fully acknowledge a need to struggle with and control the biasing impact that is inevitable when a necessary power group (i.e., the group of administrators, with its own biasing characteristics) emerges.

Elsewhere I wrote (edited for this context):


 * How the Wikipedia harnesses biased writers to produce accurate, relatively neutral articles.


 * I would suggest to those of you who hold the belief that evolved creatures can, for the most part, intentionally and consciously perceive and rise above their adaptive biases, that this is a naive view of human nature, even of the highly evolved group of folks known as Wikipedians. Editors who put some real effort into starting and/or really shaping an article have some deep (almost by definition, biased) interest in the topic.  Have you ever seen a scholar or scientist that didn't have a strong opinion about the debates in their field?  Those who really follow an article almost always have such "an agenda."  Indeed, while standard encyclopedias try to be "objective," they invite experts in the various fields to write their specialized articles.  These experts often have quite clear agendas and biases.  For example, Freud was devoting all his life energy toward promoting psychoanalysis when the Encyclopedia Britannica editor enlisted him to write their 1922 article on psychoanalysis. This is true to some degree for almost all the experts who write the articles for standard encyclopedias, or whom Sanger would have arbitrate the articles for the Wikipedia.


 * Rather than suggesting that self-interested bias can be avoided and/or overcome, we should acknowledge its inevitability. I realize that some if not most Wikipedians may already agree with this, and I do not mean to "preach to the converted."  Especially since many if not most of you have more experience than I, struggling with this problem of bias in the Wikipedia.


 * Rather, I am responding to a frequent argument I have seen, in which an editor looks for self-interested bias, finds it, and then uses that as a basis for a deletion of an edit or even of an entire article. That the Yoism article has a group of biased individuals involved was clearly part of the basis for overlooking the informed (by the ability to examine the phenomenon) votes against deletion and overvaluing the uninformed votes to delete by hyper-experienced users.  This question of bias lies behind the valid invocation of the sock/meat puppet rules.  In this case, however, these valid rules were invoked reflexively creating a problem: the assumption of sock puppetry when editors with few edits but with a good deal of direct knowledge of the phenomenon, some of whom have a vested interest in an article, were totally dismissed in favor of hyper-experienced editors with no direct knowledge of the subject.  In this section, I am suggesting that there is a much more powerful, valid protection that the Wikipedia has created against bias that makes it unnecessary to relexively invoke the sock/meat puppet rules.


 * In contrast to an assumption that bias can be minimized and that the presence of biasing self-interest (vanity, self-promotion, product or meme system promotion) can therefore validly lead to the assumption that an article is invalid because of the self-interest of the parties involved, it may be more productive to always assume self-interested bias, never to use such bias as a basis for an edit (or the assumption of sock puppetry, an assumption that actual research into the question showed was more often wrong than right, see Sock puppet), and instead to proceed to evaluate an edit/article on the established principles and rules. In this view, Wikipedia rules are not attempts to eliminate biased actions, as in this view that is an impossibility.  In this view, we reframe our understanding of the Wikipedia rules as attempts ''to engage competing biases in a balancing, open source process that tends to neutralize bias.  By using the Internet to invite a large number (all those available and interested) of (biased) parties to participate in the process and giving them equal authority to edit the text---something that has never existed in the collective human attempt to elucidate knowledge---we automatically eliminate the ability of one side to control the discourse.


 * In contrast to liberal notions about how fair, objective, and self-aware folks can be, I think that one of the most interesting things about the Wikipedia is how it functions to allow thoroughly biased parties to produce remarkably fair/accurate articles. For example, one article I have been following and contributing to is the 1948 Arab-Israeli War.  Partly, I have invested a good deal of energy in that article (and none of the dozens of other closely related, similar articles that tap into the same issues) precisely to study one example of how Wikipedia articles develop when almost all of the main participants have strong emotional ties to biased views of the subject.  I have been very impressed about how careful the main content contributors to this article are:  If you want your input to last for more than a few hours, you simply have to be very careful about your wording and your ability to back up what you say.  Note:  I am claiming that while this makes people try to appear unbiased, true neutrality is not only impossible, it is unnecessary.


 * While trying to appear unbiased is helpful (it aids in formulating more NPOV wording and diminishes antagonisms), it is only through the constant removal of bias/inaccuracy by the parties with the opposing bias, the introduction of that opposing bias and inaccuracy, its removal and introduction of opposing bias and inaccuracy, etc. . . . that the article seesaws back and forth and slowly evolves toward real accuracy and neutrality. It is like Dawkins's book Blind Watchmaker in which he explains how functional "designs" can come into being without a designer:  The Wikipedia has created a process through which relative neutrality can be produced without neutral editors.

Unfortunately, when the hyper-experienced editors tend to be on one side of a bias, there can be no balancing of the bias. Their votes trump all. This is what I understand was in operation in this VfD process. I see no sign that putting Yoism in for a VfU will have any effect unless there is a concerted effort within the hyper-experienced/expert community to take a look at themselves and their processes. Despite much effort in the VfD process to get this to occur, I had zero success; not a single hyper-experienced editor showed any sign of giving more than cursory consideration to the issues I raised. (Though you may have done so, it was not clear in your comments that seemed to give short shrift to the issues raised.) So, why expect a different outcome, or even a truly open discussion, in a VfU? Kriegman 16:10, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

The VfU
November 10

Yoism (undelete view)
I was the closing admin for this, and the main proponents would like to see my decision reviewed. Because they believe that there might be a bias if they bring it here, they requested I do so.


 * Here is the Afd:.
 * Here is my more detailed explanation of my process as I originally wrote it:
 * This discussion grew, and here is the current version.

The users in question that would like the review are:

Wikibofh 15:35, 10 November 2005 (UTC)


 * For the record, I stated "If you have a real question about the VfD that you would like to ask administrators to consider, that might be worthwhile. Kriegman 06:59, 3 November 2005 (UTC)" I do not see the VfD process as being truly open to looking at the issues I raised here, unless an administrator were to ask other administrators to take a look at this article and the process issues its deletion raised, i.e., I do not think that it makes a difference who puts the article in for review if it is seen as "at our request."  The first response by R. fiend (below) is what can be expected if there is no request by an administrator to consider the issues raised. Kriegman 16:15, 10 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Endorse. I count 2 legit keep votes and several times that number of deletes. Plus the whole argumentative bit tends to turn people off. -R. fiend 15:46, 10 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Yes, it's difficult and time consuming. But characterizing it as "argumentative" without responding to any of the issues raised is also problematic, no? Kriegman 16:15, 10 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Overturn for numerous reasons.
 * Main reason: the article went through a deletion process two years earlier and, after considerable debate, the article was reworked and a decision was reached to keep. There was no question raised about the article's existence for the next two years until someone tried a link to the external website that was temporarily down (it had been hacked a few weeks earlier).  The external link didn't work and it was temporarily redirected (while the site was being rebuilt on a new server) to a page with a message saying what was happening.  This brief message of a few paragraphs was taken to indicate that the phenomenon in question, Yoism, was a bogus micronation type phenomenon (unlike the decision reached two years earlier in which examination of the hacked website was a crucial part of the review process).  Thus the entire decision to place the article in VfD and the ultimate decision was due to a misinterpretation of data that was a replacement for important information that was temporarily unavailable and remained unavailable during the review process.  The site is now largely up and running, though certain important links are still not working (and I would not have put the article up for undeletion until they were working).


 * Other reasons are detailed here (in the section titled "On Socks & Puppetfests" in the second box at page bottom), here, and here.


 * Additional reason: Though I repeatedly noted the rigorous 501(c)(3) process Yoism had gone through (that documents its existence and legitimacy far better than many phenomenon on the Wikipedia), it was later pointed out to me that Yoism, Inc. was not just recognized as a legitimate non-profit enterprise by the IRS.  It was specifically recognized as a religion, i.e., a church, which is a far more restrictive category that gets extraordinarily close scrutiny by the IRS.  The evidence that Yoism is a real phenomenon is simply overwhelming (even if some people are underwhelmed by the phenomenon itself). Kriegman 17:15, 10 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Overturn I think it's quite important that Yoism has been officially recognized as a religion by the U.S. government. Add on top of that that there are multiple newspaper mentions, a significant physical presence in a few different locations, a significant web presence, the fact that in previous wikipedia reviews it was kept, etc...  All this seems to seems to indicate that Yoism is in fact a real phenomenon and not an ficticious invention or vanity page.  Also my vote was discarded in the previous count (merely because of my connection to Yoism), which I resent.  I'm not a wikipedia addict, but I have made significant improvements to wikipedia articles, especially correcting the Occam's Razor and Philosophy of Science articles which had critical errors. OverZealousFan 18:20, 10 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Overturn and relist. Do not count clear meatpuppets, but do make sure those editors who are voting have information on why the article was kept two years ago. -- SCZenz 18:30, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, I'm not following that statement. I don't see any nomination for deletion two years ago, so of course the article was kept. There's a big difference between saying that an article was decided not to be deleted and saying that an article has merely been around for a while. The latter is not any sort of justification for keeping. I'm sure thre are plenty of articles that should be deleted that have been around for a long time; they haven't earned squatters rights or anything. Votes are just as valid a year after creation as they are a minute after creation. -R. fiend 18:55, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
 * The original yoism article was removed to Bad jokes and other deleted nonsense and listed on VfD almost as soon as it was created (19:15, 22 July 2003 . . Maveric149 (Content moved to Bad jokes and other deleted nonsense. Page listed on Votes for deletion.) A debate then ensued and it was relisted. It was this exact debate that first brought wikipedia to my attention, so I remember it well. OrionK 20:45, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
 * In the "undelete view" link, see the entries dated July 22, 2003 through August 4, 2003. Kriegman 21:03, 10 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Endorse (keep deleted) for numerous reasons.
 * First of all, there must be reliable sources giving verifiable information about Yoism per Reliable sources and Verifiability If there are no reliable sources giving verifiable informaiton about Yoism, then all we are left with is original research or autobiographical information which inherently reflects a non-neutral POV (reference No original research, Autobiography, and Neutral point of view). Secondly, if there are reliable sources giving verifiable information about Yoism, it must be notable enough to be on Wikipedia (reference What Wikipedia is not).
 * Thus far, there are only two reliable sources giving verifiable information about Yoism: the Boston Globe article and the government documents. Per Neutral point of view, the Yoism website inherently presents POV and it not a reliable source of verifiable information. By providing uncorroborated information about itself, there is strong evidence to suggest that this is violating No original research and Autobiography. Per Autobiography, Daniel Kriegman, as the founder of Yoism and a primary source of information pertaining to Yoism (in Wikipedia and in the Boston Globe article), should not be heavily involved in editing the Yoism article as there is strong evidence to suggest that this is violating No original research and Neutral point of view. This also pertains to his articles on Open source religion, Intersubjective verifiability, Evolutionary psychoanalysis, and even Daniel Kriegman. Wikipedia is to reflect the body of knowledge external to Wikipedia and not to be used for self-promotion. --Edwardian 18:38, 10 November 2005 (UTC)


 * I admit I contributed to the article on myself as a "young" Wikipedian (and I MAY have started it, I actually don't recall; I didn't have a username back then), before I knew much about the culture here (much of which I have learned only recently); and the same is true of evolutionary psychoanalysis. Though I believe they still are valid articles, they do need others to edit them.  And now I would be more circumspect in starting or contributing to them.  The others (open source religion and intersubjective verifiability) are much less clear.  I think they are legitimate articles in their own right.  OSR will eventually have much less focus on Yoism (my obvious starting point) as others contribute to it; and the link to the issue of religion in the intersubjective verifiability article---which is about a major concept in the philosohy of science---is important as this might be the central difference between religion and science.  Yoism gets into the picture because, in fact, it was created to overcome this problem.  But Edwardian and I got into an unfortunate and unpleasant exchange in the VfD. Maybe we can avoid repeating that. Kriegman 21:32, 10 November 2005 (UTC)


 * The Yoism website has a point of view, but so do numerous websites and groups listed in wikipedia. The Yoism article was written with NPOV -- no one seems to be disputing that. The information about Yoism is corroborated by independent media, the official Yoism website, the US Gov't, the IRS, the state of MA, independent blogs, numerous individuals, and eye witness testimony. If Dan Kriegman is interested in open source religion, and is an expert in evolutionary psychoanalysis and intersubjective verifiability, why shouldn't he be adding to these articles? Since there is an article about himself, why shouldn't he be allowed to correct/update it? The important point is the quality of the artilce, the phenomena it is reporting on, and ensuring it meets wikipedia standards for NPOV, no original reserach, etc. There are many people involved in Yoism, and many more who know about it and find the article informative. The question is whether it is notable enough for wikipedia, not who contributes to it. OrionK 20:41, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Endorse/keep deleted per above. The objection by the creator of this sect smacks of vanity.  Friday (talk) 20:22, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
 * That may be. But how does that obviate any need to respond to the content of the objection? Kriegman 20:57, 10 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Would someone care to undelete the history of Talk:Yoism? Practice two years ago was to move the discussions of kept articles to their talk pages, and from the edit summaries of the deleted revisions, that seems to be what happened here.  (It's not linked from Archived delete debates, but it is from Votes for deletion/Precedents/Archive, and probably shouldn't have been deleted.) &mdash;Cryptic (talk) 20:24, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Overturn Yoism is part of a young and growing phenomena of open source religions, and this is of interest to many within the open source movement more generally. The article is NPOV, independently verifiable, and not a vanity page. Legitmate votes have been discounted as "meat puppets" even though no puppetry (in terms of manipulation of the process, which is what the term originally refers to if you actually bother to read about it) occurred. Fans of the Yoism site did vote to keep it, and some of them are active wikipedia editors (like myself) who ALSO identify as Yoans. Because of vociferous comments by Dan Kriegman, many wikipedia editors are irrationaly biased against the article. But a rational and level headed assessment indicates that the original reason for deletion, i.e., vanity page, is not applicable to the Yoism article. OrionK 20:39, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Even if any of the discounted opinions were in fact valid, it's perfectly understandable why they were ignored, given their meatpuppettish ranting. Repeating it here's unlikely to win you any support.  WP:DRV is not the place to come to to re-argue your position after you failed to convince anyone during the afd; we examine the process here. &mdash;Cryptic (talk) 20:47, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
 * I don't understand you -- my comments are about the process. Since I am not an admin, should I not be commenting? If so I apologize but that wasn't clear to me. It would be helpful if we could clarify who is being accused of being a meatpuppet and why? Clear wikipedia editors who voted for keeping yoism are myself, dan kriegman, overzealous fan, presnell and rob (user (24.60.21.122) has numerous, unrelated, prior edits) -- that is at least 5 legitmate votes in favor of keeping, no? There ought to be some reflection about how the term meat puppetry is used in an illegitmate way -- this is a process observation. OrionK 22:32, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

NEW INFORMATION In addition to IRS recognition as a religion/church and the Boston Globe article, I have found another newspaper article in Spare Change (August 22-September 4, 2002, pp. 12, 16) describing a major YO project (the major focus of Yoan activity in the Boston area for two years). The links to information about this major project are the part of the yoism.org website that is still not working. Hopefully it will be soon. Kriegman 20:57, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Weak overturn/relist. Counting non-puppets, the vote is 4-1 in favor of deleting: right on the borerline of consensus. For this reason and this reason alone, it should be relisted in order to get more non-puppet voters. It is very important to note that deletion review is for deciding whether or not a deletion was done out of process, and votes saying things like "Overturn, it is notable" are irrelevant and likely to be discounted. N (t/c) 20:58, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
 * 4-1 = 80%, which is well in excess of the 2/3 standard normal at AfD. Xoloz 21:11, 10 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Bless Spare Change, but it is not known for editorial rigor. Keep Deleted Valid AfD; new arguments are not really new -- articles that turn into puppetfests have attracted these objections before.  The information available from the reliable sources given is insufficient to construct a viable article about a "religion". Xoloz 21:09, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Please see New Information: Zuzu's Place below Kriegman 21:56, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Endorse closure/keep deleted - for all reasons above. Valid AfD and nothing new to overturn it. -  T&#949;x  &#964;  ur&#949;  21:40, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep Deleted valid AfD covered in sockpuppets/meatpuppets (which is, frankly, never a good sign that an article should be kept). I also find Edwardian's reasoning (above) quite convincing. Andrew Lenahan - St ar bli nd  22:02, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Endorse closure/keep deleted per Edwardian. Valid AfD. No good reason to overturn. Dpbsmith (talk) 23:31, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep deleted, clearly a valid AfD closure. There is no question about it.  User:Zoe|(talk) 02:22, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Overturn and relist The AfD clearly had some issues. I'm not convinced that all of the deletes are necessarily what are traditionally considered "sock puppets." Accounts created after the AfD clearly are, but ones created before, even if they have a low edit count, should not be discarded outright. I think there may be some kernels of truth in Kriegman's um.... rather verbose responses, although I certainly don't agree with everything said. I'm abstaining for the moment on whether or not the article should be deleted, as this is not the proper place for that, but I think it does deserve another shot at AfD, (which is frankly where some of the discussion on this page belongs). It would be best for all if a clearer consensus could be reached, one way or the other, in a new AfD. Turnstep 05:41, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Endorse/KD per the above, and I find the 'spare change' hardly an authoritative source. Radiant_ &gt;|&lt; 11:11, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Please see New Information: Zuzu's Place below Kriegman 21:56, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Overturn more community input is needed.  Grue  14:37, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep deleted, valid AFD, no authoritative sources. Tito xd (?!?) 23:55, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Overturn, it looks like plenty of source material is coming to light. Bryan 19:06, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Relist. Two clear process problems here: the previous vfd discussion, archived in (now-deleted revisions of) Talk:Yoism, was referenced only indirectly in the discussion; and the discussion was tainted by overenthusiastic puppetry.  I've referenced RickK's three-sockpuppet-limit mantra myself, but it's fully reasonable to expect that this article might have been kept if they hadn't pushed so hard. &mdash;Cryptic (talk) 19:59, 12 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Keep deleted The meatpupet invasion was bad enough the first time round and I'm getting a little fed up of people trying to tell me why I listed it.Geni 04:21, 13 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Sorry 'bout that. I guess I would have hoped you would have tried to take at least a brief look at the website of a religion/organization, an article about which you were putting up for deletion.  What was clear was that Edwardian tried to look at it and found the redirected temporary replacement for the hacked site and made an interpretation of what he found there.  He then stayed heavily involved in the VfD (possibly because he and I got into an unpleasant exchange).  While I can surmise from your commitment to skepticism and your exchange with Bernie in another forum, I do not know your motives.  Kriegman 18:24, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
 * a significant percentage of the website can be found through the wayback machine.Geni 20:14, 13 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Overturn. Bring it back. Relist if necessary.  Was No vote.  This Wikipedia hearing is only about the "process," not about the content.  And the "process" was as sound as Christ's crucifixion.  That is, the Wikipedia process for deletion of the Yoism page proceeded to its conclusion without regard for facts, history, or reality.  I myself have attended Yoan gatherings and indeed personally I co-led one Yoan gathering.  And you could too if you would only stand up and say what is true for you.  It is about time that humanity take responsibility for the evil in the inherited human longing for a relationship with the alpha-male God.  And in my opinion, Yoans do better than any other group of thirty people I know alive on this planet today in attempting to address and heal the inherently evil nature of Christianity, Islam, and Judaism without just starting another -ism that, sure enough, just finds another manifestation of the alpha-male God which evidently can be imagined almost anywhere.  But despite all those facts, and despite the very real promise that the Yoism approach has, the Wikipedia process for deleting the Yoism page was flawless.  And the process of the crucifixion of Christ was also flawless--even though there is no God and even though whatever Christ there was rotted in the grave turning to only pieces of worm, flower, and tree for any living system that actually reached to what was left of him and to wherever he lay and to wherever they took him in their desperation to avoid the reality of his death.  May the Yoism page rest in peace.  I personally have no hope for Wikipedia or humanity.  That is what I learned from Yoism, and I am not Yoan.  But the Yoism page should have never been deleted, and Christ should never have been crucified.  Have you no conscience?  Rednblu | Talk 21:02, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Is this NEW INFORMATION? A Wikipedian with thousands of edits who is NOT a Yoan reports attending and actually co-leading a Yo gathering.
 * Don't feed the trolls. User:Zoe|(talk) 22:38, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
 * The above comment and Mr. Nicodemus's reasoned style that follows convinced me I should at least cast a clear vote. Rednblu | Talk 03:51, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Overturn as per many of the arguments above. Relist if necessary.--Nicodemus75 23:32, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Endorse (keep deleted) for both process and content reasons, and please, spare us all the new-age psychobabble. MCB 23:52, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

MORE NEW INFORMATION: ZUZU'S PLACE The major Yoism project that was reported in Spare Change (and dismissed by some people as an unauthoritative source) was also described here along with a photograph of the first Zuzu's Place coop. I hope a photo of an actual coop created by the Yoan community is not considered an unauthoritative hallucination. Zuzu's Place is the part of the Yoism.org website that is just now being fixed. It should be accessible in a day or two. Kriegman 21:47, 15 November 2005 (UTC)


 * I for one do not see this information as enough to overwhelm the reasons listed above for endorsing the decision and keeping the article deleted. - T&#949;x  &#964;  ur&#949;  22:24, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
 * This new information is not the basis for this VfU. It is just being reported as part of the new information available.  Along with the fact that Yo, Inc. was closely examined by the IRS which recognized it as a religion/church, there is new information that should be examined.  But new information was not the basis for this VfU. Kriegman 06:46, 16 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Overturn Hi this is Rob Levy. I'm in favor of undeleting.  Thanks much. What is UTC? (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by  24.60.21.122 (talk • contribs) 22:50, November 16, 2005
 * This user has 29 unrelated edits prior to this VfU, and he is using his real name and can be verified as a non-sockpuppet. Kriegman 03:35, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
 * That isn't a user, it's an IP address. Votes made without accounts are not counted.  Oh, and UTC is Coordinated Universal Time.  Wikibofh 04:12, 17 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Overturn Hi this is Rob Levy. I signed up with an account just now but I have casually editted Wikipedia pages for years and I very often use the site for reference and learning.  I've been involved in Yoism since 2001, so I am not unbiased, but Yoism as I see it is an established enough phenonomenon to warrant presence on Wikipedia.  Furthermore the fact that our webpages were temporarily inaccessible due to a malicious attack made us more vulnerable in the AfD process.  So considering how much traffic comes into our site, the fact that we have IRS recognized legal faith-based status, the external verification in news sources, and other independednt 3rd party sources, it should be agreed on that undeletion is the natural course of action. Robert p levy 05:09, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Note: This vote is a duplicate of the one above it.  Rob Levy was apparently responding to Wikkibofh's note that "Votes made without accounts are not counted," by redoing his vote with a newly registered user name.  Regarding sock puppetry concerns, please note that Rob Levy had 29 unrelated prior edits prior to the VfU using the IP address 24.60.21.122.  Kriegman 05:32, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Now this is a valid vote. :)  Wikibofh 15:10, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Now that you have taught us all to vote, sir, how about a relisting so that we can show you proudly what we learned? What do you say?  Rednblu | Talk 08:22, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
 * I'm going to let another admin do it to avoid any perception of impropriety. Wikibofh 20:41, 19 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Strongly endorse deletion. Process was plainly followed; all of the supposed "new information" presented is trivia, and none of it is relevent to the reasons presented for deletion in the original vote. --Aquillion 09:20, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
 * This whole action is only about conscience. And if you really had a conscience you would abstain from strongly voting against the content that you oppose.  Accordingly, if you will retract your biased vote, I will likewise retract my biased vote. --Rednblu | Talk 10:03, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
 * I always vote my conscience. If you believe that your own vote is invalid and does not accurately represent your judgement of process, then I strongly encourage you to reverse it; but for myself I am confident that I have made the correct decision. --Aquillion 10:26, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Overturn - For the same reasons I voted keep on the original AfD. Namely, it's verifiable (501 status), notable (some press coverage), and I just found it to be an interesting read after stumbling across it (had never heard of it before then). --Presnell 16:53, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

Yet, more new information: Manifestations of Yoism beyond the minds of its main proponents, include the Zuzu's Place project (referenced already above) and SPAM, which was noted in one of the NY Times top ten most emailed articles:  ". . . the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster flourishes. It even has schisms. A rival faction, based on SPAM (Spaghetti & Pulsar Activating Meatballs), has formed." (New York Times, August 29, 2005)"  The parody religion known as SPAM is a Wholly Yoan creation (pun intended), that, unlike Yoism itself, does exist only in Yoism webspace. Kriegman 13:54, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
 * I don't see "Yo", "Yoism", or "Yoan" mentioned anywhere in the New York Times article, thus it does not meet the standards set by Verifiability. Edwardian 17:52, 21 November 2005 (UTC) edited 22:26, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
 * I said it was a manifestation/creation of Yoism that has been noted outside of the minds of Yoans, not that Yoism was recognized by the NY Times. Had that happened, you can be sure I would have mentioned it, and we wouldn't be involved in this process ;-) The SPAM page at yoism.org, many shorter discussions of it along with links to it, and brief references like the one in the Times article are the only places you will find any evidence of SPAM, the religion.  Kriegman 18:32, 21 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Keep Deleted A SUPPORTER claims this group has 30 members.  If they really are on to something, why not wait until their membership hits a level of notability.Ryoung122 23:43, 22 November 2005 (UTC)