Category talk:Political parties in Indonesia

Huh?

[edit]

Categories: Political parties in Asia (-) (±) | Political parties in Oceania (-) (±) | Political parties in Southeast Asia (-) (±) | Political parties by country (-) (±) | Political organizations in Indonesia (-) (±) | Politics of Indonesia (-) (±) | (+)

Some moron - or should that be some oxymorons happening here - Asia and Oceania and Southeast Asia is really overdoing it - why not try Pacific Ocean as well? And political organisations (z north american spelling) - this is a classic example of what categorisation is not about. If anyone had really thought about it - Southeast Asia, by country and politics of Indonesia - is enough SatuSuro 01:30, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • You are perfectly right. I'm underway implementing a consistent category header with a consistent categorization. Before I added the regions to the header, I had only continents, and because Indonesia is sometimes counted as part of Asia and sometimes as part of Oceania, I added both. Now that I can apply more specific regions, the continents might be superfluous, however for the moment I wanted to stay on the secure side. Concerning political organizations vs. politics the picture isn't that clear either. "Political organizations" is the more specific term, so the one to remove is "Politics of". North American spelling is perfectly okay, however you can file a WP:CFM about it. Otherwise your comment is a classic example of arrogance. No, you're not the only one thinking about this, and yes, still it is possible to come to different results. PanchoS (talk) 02:30, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Arrogance indeed - (1) well for a start I object to over categorisation for any reason - always better less than more, specially where overlap occurs - security does not equal over categorisation (2) I see no need for the creation of an extra part of political organisation categories 'across' wikipedia - unless there is a lengthy discussion in some part of wikipedia that I have not see anywhere that endorses such a wide scope of extra categories (3) North American spelling is not universal or perfectly ok (4) Duck tests might indeed look arrogant - but asserting that something is wrong is not arrogance but stating that something is wrong (5) Attempting to apply standardisation over any particular part of wikipedia is something like trying to herd ants - real life is always a little more complicated with many exceptions - and should be done only after extensive double checking and conversations, of which I see none at all SatuSuro 04:43, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I looked earlier today and found that PanchoS had only made three contributions in Wikipedia talk space, and one alone in Category talk space (the one above) in his entire Wikihistory. Only five Wikipedia space edits precede his mass campaign on 6 February, and only another 19 until he started extending its reach on 18 February. (See [1]) There are 48 user talk edits since 1 February, nearly all of which were routine notifications. The few which aren't reveal a level of hostility and unwillingness to work with fellow Wikipedians who question his arbitrary actions. This was out of 4,000+ contribs since 1 February, almost all of which were in furtherance of his particular schema across a range of topics. (Although registered in 2005, only a few edits predate 9 December 2009.) There is no evidence whatsoever of any discussion, and that probably explains why the schema was so error-ridden and full of incorrect assumptions. Orderinchaos 13:26, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Orderinchaos, you've obviously been selectively searching for proves of you preconcept, trying to bring down a supposed disturber. However you're completely wrong on this. What you call a mass campaign has in fact been hard work in order to make the category-namespace in the political area more consistent than it is. And no, I've not created new schemes, rather I took up existing yet fragmentary schemes and tried to make their use somewhat consistent.
In some cases I was overturned in CfD discussions which is perfectly fine. Take for example the US vs. British spelling. Some people requested British spelling instead of American spelling which I was perfectly okay with. Your false allegations that I sported "hostility and unwillingness to work with fellow Wikipedians" is quite on the border of WP:NPA.
While you are right that I've been predominantly working in the category namespace in the last weeks, I've contributed quite a lot to the main articlespace primarily in my native language but also to some extent in the English Wikipedia. However I felt the categorization in the English Wikipedia were in need of some help, so I devoted quite a lot of time to this and other improvements, CfD discussions etc. You could say, wow, thank you. You could also say, this was good, that I object to – sure, we could talk about it. However trying to generally depreciate my contributions is simply not okay. I really hope you cool down to settle this in a civilized way. PanchoS (talk) 14:56, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I shall try to explain this against various points:
  • I didn't need to search. I informed others and they found the evidence. The evidence spoke for itself. I was personally shocked by it - I had assumed more good faith at the start of the process.
  • The majority of the world uses "-ise" as it's a feature of International English, it's only really countries with very close links to the US in whatever fashion which do not. Broadly speaking this is East (but not South East) Asia, the Philippines, the entire continents of North and South America excluding large sections of the Caribbean, Belize and Guyana, and numerous US island territories. British English is only in use in Britain (in standard usage), Gibraltar and Bermuda. WP:ENGVAR was meant to avoid arguments between differently located editors - initially the great majority of editors were English-speaking editors from the US, and such measures were necessary to protect the project from systemic bias in its early days. Actually changing existing -ise to -ize (as I noticed you had done on dozens of occasions eg here) is wrong and should be avoided wherever possible.
  • I have never disputed that you meant well, but I can't unfortunately say "this was good". It was not. It created a hierarchy which does not make any sense. "Political organisations" = what? Organisations that are political? I've worked for a good many companies which are riddled with politics. Political parties often have a transitory, non-organisational structure - especially in countries where democracy is either weak or in development, or even in stable democracies in their early history. Even if we can agree that political parties are political organisations, and settle on a definition for a "political organisation" (which as a native English speaker and politics student I have never heard of in my life), one is creating an entire category structure which simply duplicates "Political parties" and is of no use to anyone, ENGVAR issues aside. "Political advocacy groups" was also implemented problematically - it included trade unions which are neither political organisations nor political advocacy groups. A trade union's main purpose is industrial, not political. Yes, some of them do engage in political activity and indeed in Australia the Labor party was originally a political arm of the unions. In South America and some African countries, also, unions sometimes function as political parties in the wider system (although even there, they usually form a separate political framework or support an existing one and keep the two arms separate). "Think tanks" are most definitely *not* political organisations. Many have a political purpose (although most deny it!), but the great majority of them simply wish to have a forum to conduct dialogue on a range of issues, some of which are only peripherally related to politics and are usually more concerned with either economics, public policy or social welfare. I've been a member of one or two at different times and really they're just talkfests. And student unions are neither trade unions nor student political organisations. Calling a student union a political organisation would be like calling the local city council (complete with its apolitical administration) a political organisation. Yes, there is politics within it, yes, key positions are filled by election - but its main purpose is service provision and a lot of its staff are employed on merit, paid on public service awards and are consciously separate from politics. Adding such a category to Jihadist/Islamist groups in India which seem to be "student groups" in name only was also problematic.
  • I haven't even gotten onto the political movements and the educational stuff - I note the latter has already been raised with you on your talk page. Nor have I gotten onto the continents and regions, which were fast spinning out of control, and which I only partly fixed. There was a huge amount of WP:OR in the starting implementation of this - and no international agreement as to what constitutes continents or parts of continents (the argument above re Indonesia being one case in point.)
  • I based my opinion of your reaction to criticism from your participation at several CfDs (including a recent interaction with BrownHairedGirl) and on your initial reply to SatuSuro above, which appeared sullen, aggressive and obstinate. Broadly speaking, despite being so clearly under-prepared and not having discussed it with other knowledgeable people who could have helped you, you are so convinced of the rights of your case that you are willing to fight it all the way. Despite having made over 4,000 edits last month, you only interacted with other Wikipedians in CfDs or, in just 14 occasions, on talk pages.
In Wikipedia, it's generally expected to use the talk page to come to solutions with other editors; when a massive deviation from this occurs, it's expected of admins to fix it. Of course, admins' actions are subject to scrutiny, but I doubt any neutral review of my actions would find that I acted improperly, in light of the clear problems and the lack of consensus for this model, your stated insistence on persevering regardless, and your ignorance and occasional defiance (mostly through ignorance rather than intent IMO) of policy and guidelines in implementation. In those circumstances, the only solution I and others could see was to raze the edifice to the ground and start again. Had that not worked, the next step would be removing HotCat, the next step after that would be initiating an RfC/U, and failing that, ArbCom. I don't believe that "standardisation" justifies ignoring facts, history and common sense just to make something look nice - and you're far from the first person I have taken issue with on this point. It's actually not an uncommon feature over at CfD, which tends to be largely unwatched by the community at large. Orderinchaos 16:06, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This is really getting exhausting, but I'll try to answer at least to some more important aspects.
You say, "It is not British but International English which uses "-ise", which is the vast majority of cases outside N/S America, East Asia and the Philippines." Obviously I stepped on a landmine. However there is unfortunately no such thing as "International English". And certainly there is no "British first" rule, as "approximately two thirds of native speakers of English live in the United States" (taken from the article American English). Also this is not just about British vs. American spelling, "organize" and "organization" is also in accordance of Oxford spelling, so "British usage accepts both -ize and -ise (organize/organise, realize/realise, recognize/recognise)" (taken from American and British English spelling difference). To summarize, "organization" is acceptable in both British and American English, "organisation" only in British English. This means it's perfectly correct to use "organization" when in doubt. Believe me, this question is still so peripheral to me, I'm just responding to the assertions you made. As I said before, a speedy CFD would do to change it to British spelling, if it is more appropriate. And I certainly don't insist on US spelling, as to me both are okay. But it is important to me that you accept that I was not in breach of any rule when creating a category in the American spelling.
Next aspect: "Political organisations" = what? To explain you the background: Quite a number of categories in the "Anarchist organizations" scheme was preexisting. Also there are preexisting categories like, most importantly Category:Political organizations, further Category:Political organizations in France, Category:Political organizations in Sweden, Category:Political organizations based in Israel, Category:Civic and political organizations of Turkey, Category:Conservative political pressure groups of the United Kingdom or Category:Iranian political organizations or Category:American political organizations or Category:Political advocacy groups in the United States, to name just a few. All of these following some preexisting scheme yet both fragmentary and unconnected by implementation. All I did is further develop the implementation of these category schemes to allow for some consistency.
Now you can certainly ask for a rationale of "political organisations", then it would be easy to agree on that "Anarchist organizations" or "Conservative organizations" or "conservative political pressure groups of x" or "political advocacy groups of y" are genuinely political organisations. "Political parties" would IMHO be also an easy case, as they are both political and organizations. These were often randomly categorized as "Organizations based in", "Political organizations" etc. So all I did is bring together and complete a fragmentary scheme.
Certainly this raises some questions, for example whether it makes sens to contrast "political advocacy groups" with other "advocacy groups" or whether an advocacy group isn't political by nature. This is a question that led me to halt further developing this scheme until I discussed this in a WP:CFD. However, again, this was no primary research of mine, rather the scheme had already preexisted for years.
Now, are 'trade unions' 'political organizations'? Are they, more specifically, 'political advocacy groups'? They certainly are organizations and they mostly engage in politics, even if in some cases it is only labour politics, so they are political. And IMHO they are certainly advocacy groups of the workers they unite and their interests.
Now, we could have talk about whether to do it this way or that way, but now that you simply deleted the categories and reverted categorization, you created a fait accompli much more than I did when doing the work I've done. If you see a specific problem you can't just eradicate everything, you need to tackle the problem and at best discuss it on a broader basis. It's exactly what your accusing me of, that you didn't do yourself.
Finally, it is simply not correct that my initial reply to SatuSuro was "sullen, aggressive and obstinate" as you say. In the contrary SatuSuro in fact sported some arrogance stating "And political organisations (z north american spelling) - this is a classic example of what categorisation is not about. If anyone had really thought about it". Indeed someone really did think about it and for the moment came to a different conclusion. As stated numerous times, using American spelling has been perfectly correct, even though I also stated to be perfectly fine with a debate about whether British spelling might be even more appropriate.
PanchoS (talk) 17:24, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Addition: Where do you see any indication of "stated insistence on persevering regardless" as you call it? Please, you're completely on the wrong track! My perseverence has never been regardless of opposition. And there has never been an attempt to file a WP:CFD for the categories you deleted. I'd welcome one, however first, your fait accompli needs to be reverted.
I'm absolutely aware, that you will certainly hold up your position against me to a certain extent, no matter which arguments I bring. However, I'm seriously calling on you to give in and settle this in a productive way as I really don't want to bother others with using the various mediation processes. But what must be, must be. PanchoS (talk) 17:42, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
One more addition: I really don't want to be stubborn, but you brought up several allegations that I expect you to either substantiate or to explicitely withdraw, apart from the supposed "stated insistence on persevering regardless" such as "There are 48 user talk edits since 1 February, nearly all of which were routine notifications. The few which aren't reveal a level of hostility and unwillingness to work with fellow Wikipedians who question his arbitrary actions" or "The evidence spoke for itself. I was personally shocked by it - I had assumed more good faith at the start of the process" in your initial answer on this page. I'm not going to allow any dirt thrown to keep sticking on me, even if it's going to take time and effort I would certainly prefer to put into some other activities. PanchoS (talk) 18:43, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Original reply

Believe me, this (ENGVAR) has been an ongoing dispute for a number of years and people have even gotten banned over it. It's the reason we have the guideline. Broadly speaking - it's safe not to assume anything unless it is explicitly known. In Australia and New Zealand, "-ize" is incorrect usage and is easily recognisable as North American usage. In Canada and the US, "-ise" is incorrect usage and is usually recognisable as British. Different parts of the world work in different ways. I have never seen a UK text that uses "-ize" (even though the Oxford officially acknowledges it as a secondary correct usage) and I used to work with style guides all the time where I worked in the media and we did work which was intended for audiences of a number of countries, which is why I could rattle off the top of my head which countries use ISE or related and which countries use SAE or related. (And there is indeed an International Standard English - they teach it at international schools and mission schools throughout the world, mostly in non-English-speaking countries; there are style guides and primers written in and for it used by media agencies, and while it is most similar to British English, it has a number of key differences.) Re: component populations, the 2/3 sounds way off in the first instance - it would certainly use a very strange definition of "native" which would exclude middle class Indians, Africans and Overseas Chinese for whom it genuinely is a native language. Finally, my biggest issue was with you changing existing usages - the fact you created new usages was problematic, but the existing changes were a lot more so (especially for somewhere like India where, like Australia, "-ize" is incorrect.) This is en.wikipedia, not en-us.wikipedia.

I'm not sure if "Anarchist organizations" immediately strikes you as odd - that sounds almost like a contradiction in terms to me (people who abhor authority structures creating an authority structure), although I don't doubt such do exist. I would have thought they were more inclined towards free association. And "conservative organisations" is probably OR/POV - note the debate at CfD about other categories containing "conservative" which is leaning delete. Trade unions are industrial organisations or workers' advocacy organisations, not political organisations - they generally do not engage in politics (especially in the modern era) - I'm not sure what you mean by "labour politics" but the primary purpose of a union is to advocate for members, to negotiate settlements for disputes and to deal with enterprises and governments with regard to awards and agreements. If this was to be deemed political, then any law firm, especially any that engaged with constitutional or political legal questions, would be a "political organisation" as they also advocate within the political sphere.

Re your reply to SatuSuro, you sounded like you were berating him for holding an opposing view, announcing your pre-formed plans without any implicit room for criticism or flexibility, and putting the onus on him, a volunteer like you and like me with time restraints and business of his own, to fix your mistakes. That wasn't just my interpretation - clearly SatuSuro took it as well. Your response thus seemed like a rather strange response to legitimate criticism of your actions at this category (PP Indonesia), and was the primary reason that I started investigating, and found what I did. One offline person suggested your use of HotCat to make it happen suggested an intention to "sneak in" the changes before anyone noticed so it would be a fait accompli - which it almost was by today, as it took a massive effort to fix - and correctly observed that your responses to BHG on the questions re the education cats on your talk page was also somewhat wanting.

My supposedly unreasonable actions were simply setting this part of Wikipedia back to where it was on 5 February 2010, with some rare exceptions where a further minor edit was required. I *did* look for a discussion, or a conversation, or any suggestion that this was not simply a lone act, but found none. So in other words - put yourself in my shoes for a minute:

  1. Major changes to the category framework.
  2. Clear evidence of errors and/or OR and/or policy/guideline issues and systemic bias issues.
  3. At least two instances where criticism was poorly handled, and a general absence of communication with either people or projects.
  4. Growing evidence of a lack of consensus for the changes being implemented.
  5. Some suggestion at least that this was being pushed through in an unacceptable way using a tool.
  6. A general understanding of how CfD works, that it would end "no consensus" for a mass nomination (mass noms have an established history of failure, usually on the ground of "every case is different").
  7. As someone with an academic understanding who tries to promote Wikipedia to academics and politicians, an understanding that this category structure would make Wikipedia look foolish and amateur.

What would you have done? As an admin, I was put in an unenviable situation - once I found this, it was then my responsibility to do something about it. My position isn't that of an ordinary user - I don't have the choice to just leave something major like this and adopt what we in Australia would call it, a "she'll be right, mate" attitude. There's no point in mediation - you want the categories back, I believe my decision to remove them was correct and justified, and there really isn't anything to mediate. All I would suggest is that if you want to make radical changes, you should do what you should have done in the first place, what Wikipedia policy in fact tells you to do, and get consensus on how the political party categories should be organised. Orderinchaos 19:22, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to second addition

Exhibit 1 - your comment on this page, demonstrating what I described as "sullen, aggressive and obstinate" behaviour

North American spelling is perfectly okay, however you can file a WP:CFM about it. Otherwise your comment is a classic example of arrogance. No, you're not the only one thinking about this, and yes, still it is possible to come to different results.

Exhibit 2 - establishes general lack of communication, and poor handling of disputes

Exhibit 3 - "The evidence spoke for itself"

  • The oft-cited PP India diff, where you deliberately violated ENGVAR. I subsequently found almost 80 more.
  • The trade union CfD which I hadn't hitherto noticed.
  • The details of the history; namely, that you started properly editing on 9 December, and started your campaign in earnest on 1 February, making major changes within 5 days (6 March) and in two more rounds (18 February and 1 March), as well as the lack of talk page edits. Orderinchaos 19:22, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Category_talk:Political_parties_in_Indonesia&oldid=1048286487"