Wikipedia talk:Deletion review/Log/2009 June 25

Post-close alterations by User:Badagnani
Just a note about some post-close activity: User:Badagnani has removed a portion of User:William Allen Simpson's comments in the surnames DRV and has claimed multiple times in edit summaries that his justification for removing the comment in question is "one may simply not add new comments after a close":, ,. However, the comment was initially added on 29 June. The surnames DRV was closed on 2 July. Good Ol’factory (talk) 05:57, 15 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Goes back even further: Badagnani in class by himself because of his first deletion of my comment. In reality, Badagnani was one of those referenced by inference earlier in this discussion: "they simply had no viable arguments for keeping the pre-existing structure." Now, s/he didn't like the verifiable fact that the keep !vote had no argument itself, and "per above" was actually an argument for change.

--William Allen Simpson (talk) 13:45, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Deleting somebody's comments are contrary to policy and practice. This verifiable fact was important in the review discussion here: "One side gave some very persuasive arguments; the others gave none."

The editor attempted to repurpose my comments (not once, but again and again), which was very wrong. "Per above" clearly meant the various comments made above mine, not literally meaning "the single comment just above mine," which was clearly unrelated to my oppose vote. The addition of this text attempting to repurpose my vote--after a close, no less--is completely against our policy and should be removed. Badagnani (talk) 20:54, 22 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Putting aside for the moment the accuracy of the quote, from what I can see, the first post-close change to William Allen Simpson's comment was made by Badagnani, not by William Allen Simpson. Therefore, regardless of whether or not the quote was an accurate or inaccurate representation of what was stated beforehand, it is inappropriate at this stage to change it. I wouldn't worry too much about it since it won't be a high traffic page with many views from here on out.


 * Now for the quote. If it was a misquote or a misattribution, I still don't know of any policy on WP that allows a user to change the comment of another user to "fix" the misquote or misattribution. The solution is to make a new comment (prior to the close) that says, "you misquoted me" or "you misunderstood what I meant", etc. In discussions we generally don't refactor others' comments. Good Ol’factory (talk) 07:40, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Incorrect. At the time of the archiving of the discussion following the close, the William Allen Simpson comment did not exist in the discussion. Adding it after the close, thus, was completely against our project's policies. Badagnani (talk) 21:12, 23 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Could you provide some diffs to prove this or back up what you are saying? I've looked at this quite closely now, and according to what I can find, the comment was initially added on 29 June. The surnames DRV was closed on 2 July. It's true he did restore his comment after the close because you had improperly deleted it earlier, but he did not initially add the comment after the discussion had been archived. You can't get away with changing someone's comment just because you managed to do it prior to the archiving but before the person noticed it had been changed. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:49, 23 July 2009 (UTC)