Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/2005-08-08/Deletion deletion

An excellent presentation. It confirmed everything I knew already and added a lot of stuff I didn't know. Consider me a Signpost subscriber from now on. :-) Uncle Ed 23:43, August 7, 2005 (UTC)

Comments by User:Tony Sidaway

You asked me to fact-check this. Here goes.

On a point of style, do you normally refer to people by their surnames? If you look at the RfC, everybody refers to me as Tony thoughout. Unless it's your house style to use surnames only, please do likewise.

"The complaint focused particularly on VfDs for which Sidaway had not deleted the article in question, even though there were few if any users voting "keep" (votes to merge or redirect were typically also present)."

No, we were all agreed that an article can only be deleted if there is a rough consensus to delete. In most of the disputed cases there was no such consensus. Most of them were cases in which I had determined no consensus instead of (as Ambi and Aaron for some reason seemed to think I should have) lumping the delete votes in as votes for merge, or redirect, and declaring a merge or redirect, or whatever.

"Sidaway responded that he was choosing the most conservative option available, as the instructions say, "If in doubt, don't delete!""

The wording of my response was "The most conservative option a VfD closer can make, if there is no consensus to delete, is to leave what happens next up to the editors."

"A number of people indicated that while they might have reached different results in closing the same VfDs, the judgments being made were within Sidaway's discretion."

Actually some 22 23 people have endorsed my response to date. Only 4 people, including the complainants, endorsed the complaint. But your summary is correct as far as it goes: there is a general recognition that the dispute is over a legitimate difference of opinion on how policy is interpreted.

"In an extension of the debate that started it all, Tony Sidaway got into a dispute with Carnildo after the latter reopened some of the VfD listings he had closed. Sidaway blocked Carnildo for 24 hours over this,"

Carnildo did not re-open any VfDs. He did not tag the pages and he did not reinsert the VfDs into the day log. He simply vandalised the closed VfDs, in one case removing the closer's comments entirely. Having warned him, I blocked him not for 24 hours, but for 3. I was then blocked for 24 hours but the block was released within minutes. --Tony Sidaway ^Talk 00:03, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding these points:

Yes, Signpost house style has always been that for people with a (given name, surname) pattern, subsequent mentions use the surname.
As to what the complaint was about, that sentence is designed to be about their views (counterbalanced by yours in the next paragraph) rather than what both sides might agree on.
I've paraphrased your response a little more closely to pick up the latter half of the wording you mention.
"Reopening" would not require listing the VfD in a new daily log; that's what you would do if you made a repeat nomination (aka suicide by GNAA). Whether he covered everything he should have done is debatable, but reopening is pretty clearly what he had in mind. Your contention that it was vandalism has been noted now.

Michael Snow 13:18, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by User:Kim Bruning

Well, the RFC was definately not certified properly, and there was no sane reason (IAR or no) why that should be allowed to pass.

The way you write makes it looks like I was cooperating with Ed Poor. That's not true :-/

I came to my conclusions independantly, and during this incident didn't communicate with Ed Poor at all up 'till the first time I blocked him. Kim Bruning 00:17, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding certification, UninvitedCompany said, "Certification was provided. What, you think you can "uncertify" something once it is "certified?"" Given that statement, I can't present your side as if it were fact. I've tried to separate you out from Ed a little bit better. --Michael Snow 13:18, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It was uncertified at the moment in time I deleted it. Kim Bruning 01:50, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by User:Aaron Brenneman

Great article. I must admit I'd always thought these Signpost objects were just made by magical elves or something.
The section

Sidaway responded that he was choosing the most conservative option available, as the instructions say, "If in doubt, don't delete!" Also, he pointed out that when dealing with options other than deletion, such as a merge or transwiki, the administrator closing the discussion is not required to implement these steps, particularly when a consensus for them is not clear. Others pointed out that votes other than "delete" implicitly favor keeping the article in some form, even if only as a redirect.

A number of people indicated that while they might have reached different results in closing the same VfDs, the judgments being made were within Sidaway's discretion.

Is problematic for two reasons: it doesn't fully characterize the discussion, and doesn't support the subject of this article. Maybe something like "vigourous debate ensued (e.g. This page is 97 kilobytes long.)" would capture the ~~bitterness~~ passion without appearing to support any particular view?
brenneman ^(t)^(c) 00:49, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

That paragraph is intended mostly to present Tony's side of the discussion. The perspective of the complainants comes in the previous paragraph. --Michael Snow 13:18, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by User:Func

It might be worth mentioning that long time editor, administrator, and arbitrator Ambi has left Wikipedia over this matter, (at least for now). Func( t, c ) 02:03, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Specifically, she took great offence at my characterisation of the VFD - David Gerard 12:55, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Database locking

The article formerly stated "The incident also forced the developers to briefly lock the database in order to recover from the effects." As far as I know this is inaccurate; deletion and undeletion of such a large, oft-linked page almost certainly caused some database update lag, which would have automatically locked some edits once it got beyond a certain threshold.

Somewhat later there was a totally unrelated server issue during which we had to manually lock the wikis while reconfiguring the database master. --Brion 07:03, August 8, 2005 (UTC)

Comments by User:David Gerard

The bits with me in look much as I recall the events - David Gerard 12:54, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]