User:PeterStJohn/ErdosNumberControversy

This is for notes regarding the Erdos Number Controversy, which has become somewhat broader.

I intend to build the actual case here. Pete St.John 21:45, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

The ANI broght by BHG
The ANI was archived here. The last comment was by Jc37 but he says (in my talk page) that he did not archive it; at this writing I don't know who or what did. To me it seems not resolved.

Giving the link to the (then current) Deletion Review at the math project page
''I posted to Ksmrq's talk page as follows. The comment in the histtory of his having reverted my edit suggested, to me, that first, he thought the link was already given in the preceeding announcement by Jc37, and second, that my giving the link would constitute further "canvassing".''

Links to the latest Deletion Review
At the Relisted section at the math project discussion page, Jc37 had written:


 * An editor has asked for a deletion review of Category:Erdős numbers. Since several of you participated in the previous discussion for this category, you may wish to participate in this relisting of the deletion review. The previous one was apparently closed as "relist" due to canvassing. - jc37 09:23, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

That item does not contain a link to the new deletion review, which I myself had difficulty finding. So I posted:


 * The new listing of the new Deletion Review is at Deletion_review. Pete St.John 19:09, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

If you follow the links, and note the differences in the links, I believe you will agree that the actual link to the actual Deletion Review in question was nowhere on the talk page; the infobox at the top does not link to it, and Jc37's announcement does not link to it.


 * I invite you to reconsider. I will not put the item back myself. Pete St.John 21:35, 13 November 2007 (UTC)


 * The words "deletion review" link to the second (November 10th) DRV. Your link seems to go to a larger page that contains the November 10th page as a small subpart. (I'm not sure how that works, but it appears that edits show up in both places simultainiously.) I think that the November 10 page is more convenient for navigation, since it is smaller in size, and the second Erdos number DRV takes up most of the page. --Ramsey2006 21:47, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I think that "my" link points to the subsection, and that the other link points to the top of a huge page where I may have once missed finding it merely on account of lag. But your point is well taken, the material does follow reasonably from original, and while I may consider somewhat obfuscating, it's not outright wrong, as I had mistaken it. I'll retract at KSMrq's page. Thanks for watching. Pete St.John 22:02, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I seem to have blown this completely, and I've apologized flatly at Ksmrq's talk. Pete St.John 22:08, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Theories regarding opposition's motivation and premises
From the (current) Deletion Reivew:
 * It's a funny thing -- I don't actually feel strongly about the categories, making my decision to keep them in the original CfD after some research. I think that I came to the right conclusion then. But this process is clearly driven by a small group hostile to the category, a group which does not have the support of Wikipedia at large. It's amazing that this has taken so long to resolve -- the unsupported deletion result should have been overturned quickly. CRGreathouse (t | c) 20:30, 13 November 2007 (UTC)


 * CRG, I think it's worth addressing (maybe not here) such meta-issues. For one thing, I belive that at least one of the opposition admins has a truely vast contribution history. That doesn't excuse obviating apparent consensus, but it does, IMO, excuse hesitation on the part of an admin who considers acting on this. My theory, fwiw, is that the opposition believes "law precedes justice", what I would call the moralistic view, while I believe "justice preceeds law", what I would call the ethicist view. In other words, they fight (terrifically) for their interpretation of Wiki Policy, while mathematicians tend to fight for the content. Just my hypothesis. Pete St.John 23:03, 13 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Well put, PSJ. I had some inchoate thoughts along these lines, but your hypothesis is much better stated. From what I already knew empirically, and from what this long series of debates has taught me, I think your theory is substantialy correct. Turgidson 23:35, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Surprise closure by Xoloz
I posted at his talk page:

Xoloz, is it your opinion that Kbdank71 had been correct to close the review of the category with "delete", and is it your opinion that that closure reflected a consensus? And do you believe that reflecting a consensus is relevant to the deletion review process? I won't address the condemnation of the category itself as "trivial", here now, because I had been led to believe that the issue was whether the closure had been correct. Pete St.John 23:14, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Curious: Are these more "I'm planning to request arbitration against you all" questions/evidence? - jc37 23:22, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Nevermind, I see that they are [1] - jc37 23:23, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm planning Arbitration, I don't at all mean to hide that. However, I don't think the question is irrelevant as it stands. Consider this from the Deletion Review:


 * Overturn deletion. There was no consensus to delete. The close was inappropriate. Paul August ☎ 04:35, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
 * My belief that the issue at hand, was whether Kbdank's closure was correct, and not whether the category is trivial, seems to be shared by others, who can be presumed better informed about wiki policies than I myself. Pete St.John 23:28, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Xoloz"

Xoloz replied on my Talk page:

This is a cross-posting with my own [Xoloz's] talk page:


 * Hi Pete, I'll answer your question down here. My job in closing a DRV is to evaluate the consensus at the DRV, not to make independent judgments about what happened at the XfD.  At the DRV, the consensus was that the issues needed more discussion, and they are receiving it at the relisted CfD.  Reading beyond the bold-faced commentary, there was also a consensus that Erdos numbers were probably "trivial", though I acknowledged in my closure that full evidence had not been brought to bear on that question.  At the DRV, on the basis of strength of arguments, there was also a consensus that the original deletion should not be overturned wholesale.  There are several reasons for this last conclusion: Brownhairedgirl's excellent arguments regarding the proper purpose of categorization went largely unrebutted, various folks favoring overturning did so only partially (with reference to some, but not all, of the Erdos numbers), and others appeared to favor overturning only in the interest of further discussion, an opportunity which they received through the limited relisting.  Considering all these factors, there simply was not a consensus to overturn the deletions altogether, leaving them in place and endorsed.  There was a consensus for a limited relisting of the kind provided.


 * I can't speak to what the DRV says specifically about Kbdank's closure in any more detail. This particular DRV was very much "forward-looking" (as in, "what do we do now?"), rather than backward-looking (ie., let's scrutinize every detail of the XfD.)  This can happen when several commenters propose "out-of-box" alternative solutions (eg., "endorse deletion, but listify".)  The discussion does not focus on the particulars of the past, but looks for solutions in the future.  That is my reading of what happened here, and it resulted in my close.  I consider the close a solid compromise, allowing both sides of the dispute acknowledgment of their valid points, and doing the best to make the content useful and suitable to all.


 * One piece of advice, as a long-time ArbCom watcher: You'll want to pursue an RfC first. Otherwise, any request is likely to be dismissed as untimely.  I certainly took notice of Arbitrator August's comment, by the way; I'm sure he would concede that his word is no more special than other Wikipedians' on content issues, and I'd expect he will see the merit in the compromise closure, whether or not he agrees with it fully.  Best wishes, Xoloz 13:35, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Enunciation of the Opposing Philosophy
BHG appears to be making a real effort to enunciate the philosophy behind deleting Erdos Numbers; apparently, also towards making certain points of the philosophy explicit in Wiki Guidelines/Policy.

Defining "defining characteristic" for categories
She wrote WT:CFD which has moved to Wikipedia_talk:Categorization

Wiki is Not A Database
She wrote Wikipedia_talk:What_Wikipedia_is_not/Archive_16.

= Comments about a Recurring problem = I've been around WP long enough to notice that this fits into a reucurring pattern of behaviour. What I take way from all of this is that WP policy is too centralized, and the people who set and enforce that policy do not understand the needs and desires of the various wikiprojects. I remember, in particular, the ruckus over scientific citations, which pitted the scientists vs. the much larger and politically more powerful group of non-scientists. The lesson I take away from this is that the wikiprojects should be more autonomous to make thier own decisions, and that people who do not otherwise contribute to a project should not be allowed to battle against the (mainstream) desires of a given project. linas (talk) 15:21, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Note to self re WikiSophistry
The item POINT is largely about what I'm calling WikiSophistry. I'm thinking we need to deliniate a Policy, but it would be a bear. Pete St.John (talk) 23:20, 17 January 2008 (UTC)