Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Tony Sidaway 1

what?
I'm not sure I understand what this RFC is about. Then I read Smoddy's comment at the bottom, where Smoddy says "merge/delete becomes merge, redirect/delete becomes redirect." Does this describe the poitn of this RFC? Does the wikipedia guidelines for VFD's say this is how it should be done? Or does policy not define what to do when concensus is not reached because it was split between merge/delete? If there is no policy, then Tony can't be violating policy, and perhaps what is needed is a change to policy. If there is a policy saying go with the most conservative choice, then could someone link me to it so I can read it? Thanks. FuelWagon 17:49, 1 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Deletion policy says explicitly: "If in doubt, don't delete!" This RFC is fundamentally an attempt to use spurious policy and the dispute process as a bludgeon to get a dissenting admin out of VFD - David Gerard 18:31, 1 August 2005 (UTC)


 * But, nevertheless, there is a fundemental point involved. Tony has been enterpreting the policy to the letter.  I think he is probably acting in good faith, but misguidedly.  That is the point of the RfC, at least to me.  To comment on the actions of an administrator acting in that capacity, and suggest a course of action for the future.  Certainly from me there is no bludgeoning.  I am simply arguing for a more liberal enterpretation of the rules, to best fit the community's decisions.  I don't think anyone in this VfD wanted this outcome.  I quote from the first line of WP:RFC: Ultimately, the content of Wikipedia is determined by making progress toward a community consensus.  I don't think that Tony is acting outside policy, nor do I think he is acting in bad faith.  Nevertheless, I do think he is acting misguidedly, which is why I chose to participate in the RfC.   [[smoddy ]] 18:43, 1 August 2005 (UTC)


 * I disagree. VFD regulars' insularity and hostility to non-regulars isn't actually a good thing. Remember when they didn't want VFD split up by days because it might attract too many more people to vote? That sort of rubbish is what makes this RFC indistinguishably resemble an attempt to bludgeon by policy. This is fundamentally, you will note, a dispute over the closing of one VFD debate. Those involved in this RFC should be ashamed of themselves - David Gerard 19:17, 1 August 2005 (UTC)


 * And by the way, you say "So I suggest that "no consensus" be defined as "be conservative"." But "be conservative" is defined by the deletion policy as above: Don't delete - David Gerard 19:30, 1 August 2005 (UTC)


 * David, I expected better of you than to scream before reading the case here. When I went through Tony's contributions, I found - as one does, with closing VFDs - many close judgement calls. Some I agreed with; some I didn't - but these were well within the jurisdiction of a closer. The issue here is ones where there were no or vastly outnumbered keep votes, and where Tony treated them as no-consensus keeps - despite the fact that this was against the wishes of nearly everyone who voted. I'm not arguing that these articles should have been deleted, and I'm very angry that I've been misrepresented as such when I have NEVER said this. What I am arguing is that the closest thing to the consensus of the people who voted should have been chosen - which was, in all of these cases, a redirect. You also claim that this is over the result of one delete debate - when if you had read the RfC, you'd actually have noticed that it's about 26 cases where the exact same thing has happened. Ambi 23:33, 1 August 2005 (UTC)


 * But "don't delete" is being enterpreted as "keep", which is by no means the same thing. "Be conservative" is far more open to enterpretation, which means that the admin will be more flexible (or at least should be).  I would note that I am by no means a "VfD regular".  I nominate pages from RC patrol, and I follow those debates. I am not attempting to bludgeon by policy (indeed I recognise that my position is not actually backed up by policy). And I am certainly not ashamed of my participation on this RFC.  I did precisely that, provided a comment. My comment has been supported by several people, so I certainly feel vindicated in that my submissions were not worthless.  Whatever the reasoning for the beginning of the RfC, it is certainly covering a wider area now, and I fully intend to address that.  Am I really being unreasonable?  [[smoddy ]] 23:36, 1 August 2005 (UTC)


 * So, for those of us who haven't been following this dispute as closely as some people follow the Lost tv show, when Tony has encountered a situation where he believes that there is no consensus, what is he alleged to have done? Delete the article, & close the VfD -- or just closed the VfD without deleting the article? Or a random choice between these two options? (Or maybe he prints the article under off onto a piece of paper, & does something with it that is not workplace safe to describe.)


 * The original authors of this RfC need to explain more clearly what their complaint against Tony is, otherwise the rest of us at Wikipedia will assume this is Yet Another Personality Conflict, & be less curious about their future complaints. -- llywrch 20:47, 1 August 2005 (UTC)


 * As I understand it, there were a number of VFDs where there were few or no votes to keep, the votes were more or less evenly split between Delete and merge or between delete and redirect or in one case between Delete and BJAODN. Tony closed these as "no consensus" and thus a default of keep. The people bringing this RfC argue that in all these cases the one result that almost no one supported was "keep" and that onluy the most conservitve (or most inclusionist) of the options with significant support should have been chose. This seems reasoanble to me, but it is not by any means our current explicit policy. if this is to be the policy hereafter, then this ehould IMO be made explicit on the relvant policy pages.  I do agree that "BJAODN" should be read to imply a vote of "delete", which was not how Tony read it in the one VfD where this was an issue.  DES (talk) 22:00, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
 * No, we're not arguing that the most inclusionist option should be chosen. That's what Tony is currently doing. What we're arguing is that the closest action to consensus be taken. In all of these cases, there was no consensus to delete. But moreso, there was no consensus to keep. The action taken that would thus be closest to a consensus move in all of these cases would have been either redirect or merge, and would have satisfied as many parties as possible; rather than none at all. Ambi 23:33, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
 * We are arguing (well, I am) that the most conservative option be taken. "Keep" is not an option where there are 5 delete votes and 5 merge votes.  "Merge", to me, is the appropriate action here, as there is no consensus to delete, but no support at all for keeping.   [[smoddy ]] 23:36, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
 * There are only 2 results of a VfD: Delete or don't delete. An admin is not required for redirects or merges. If there is an even split between Delete and Merge, then there is obvously no consensus. Clearly, more favour merge over keep and that can be undertaken by anyone interested following the VfD result. Double Blue  (Talk) 19:03, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
 * No, that is not necessarily true. Your opinion (like Kim Bruning's and that of several other users) is that VfD is binary, keep or delete.  I am very specifically not of that opinion.  I am not against Tony or his actions, but I would like to see what I am suggesting written into policy.  Several people agree with me.  Truth is, VfD is de facto not binary, as witnessed by the huge number of pages that are "not deleted" but are merged.  My suggestion is to fix VfD if it is broken, which some people clearly feel it is.  I don't feel that Tony was wrong, only misguided.  Therefore I am proposing a change to the guidance.  Perhaps this will work its way into the new deletion procedure that seems likely to come about.  [[smoddy ]] 20:44, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
 * My objection is a specific case where the votes were evenly split between "delete" and "BJAODN", with only one non-anonymous "keep" vote. Tony closed that VfD debate as "Keep.  No consensus". --Carnildo 23:44, 1 August 2005 (UTC)


 * The guide to VfD says that if there's no consensus to delete the article cannot be deleted, but that this doesn't preclude stuff like merges and redirects and the like. I think it's unhelpful to act as if six people voting for merge and six people voting for delete is indicative of anything or should override the explicit instructions in the VfD guide. Where there is no consensus the article is kept.  Any disposition such as merge and whatnot can be done either as part of closing or (my preference where the vote for merge or whatever doesn't have consensus support) by an ordinary editor. --Tony Sidaway Talk  02:46, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
 * The problem with that is that if the close is "no consensus", then it's very common for one person to un-merge or un-redirect the article. If the result is "merge" or "redirect", this is far less common -- even if the votes are the same in the two cases. --Carnildo 03:49, 2 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Why do you think that unmerging is a problem? It's just an act of editing. --Tony Sidaway Talk  06:07, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

Inappropriately placed?
I'm not clear on how this is an RfC about inappropriate administrator conduct. Tony didn't use any admin privileges in closing those VfDs with no consensus or a consensus to keep. You don't need admin privileges to close a VfD unless you're going to delete. And Tony didn't delete on any of these. Kelly Martin 00:35, August 2, 2005 (UTC)
 * It isn't about inappropriate administrator conduct; it's about inappropriate user conduct. Ambi 00:38, 2 August 2005 (UTC)


 * To some extent it is about administrator conduct. If someone feels that an ordinary user has inappropriately closed a VfD, it's simply a matter of re-opening the VfD and asking an administrator to review it.  Administrator closings of VfDs are seen as more authoritative, so even if an admin didn't (mis)use any of their special abilities when closing, it's still an administrator action. --Carnildo 00:47, 2 August 2005 (UTC)


 * It's listed on the RfC page under "use of admin privileges," and it's already made Tony wonder whether he should ask to be de-sysopped until it's resolved. Perhaps it should be moved to the general user conduct section? SlimVirgin (talk) 01:13, August 2, 2005 (UTC)


 * To clarify, I invited Ambi to follow the next step in dispute resolution (ie RfC) if she felt that my conduct as an administrator was unacceptable. On seeing the early responses, which were uniformly negative, I went to RFAR, but my application for review was summarily rejected. --Tony Sidaway Talk  01:28, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

Ambi's comments on Tony Sidaway's Response
I've moved these comments by Ambi out of my response section (nobody else is supposed to edit there) so I'm reproducing Ambi's version here. I have no further comments on this at present. --Tony Sidaway Talk 01:25, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

It goes:
 * VfD reference
 * Tony's comments
 * Ambi's rebuttal.

Disputed VfD closings

 * Votes for deletion/Calvary Christian High School
 * See closer's comments.
 * Votes for deletion/KarlSchererRevisited3
 * 4 deletes, 9 merges (to different targets), 2 keeps. No consensus.
 * Votes for deletion/Theta Theta
 * 1 delete, 4 merge-and-redirects but evenly split between 2 targets. No consensus.
 * Votes for deletion/Not pron
 * 2 delete, 4 merge-and-redirect. No consensus (67% merge-and-redirect)
 * There were no keep votes. There was no consensus at all to keep. The closest thing to consensus, which would have likely appeased all voters, was to merge and redirect. Keeping the article in this manner went against the votes of everyone who voted.
 * Votes for deletion/Tory Belleci
 * 3 deletes, 3 redirects. No consensus (50/50).
 * There were no keep votes. There was no consensus at all to keep. The closest thing to consensus, which would have likely appeased all voters, was to redirect. Keeping the article in this manner went against the votes of everyone who voted.
 * Votes for deletion/CSE Revue
 * 2 deletes 2 merges and a move/rename. No consensus (40% merge, 40% delete).
 * There was one keep vote. There was no sign of any consensus to keep. The closest thing to consensus, which would have likely appeased almost all voters, was to merge and redirect. Keeping the article in this manner went against the votes of everyone who voted, seeing as even the keep voter didn't want it at this title.
 * Votes for deletion/Blaze (Pokémon)
 * 11 delete, 7 merge, 1 redirect, 2 keep. No consensus (52% delete).  A couple of days later someone redirected to Pokémon Abilities, something that didn't need a VfD to do.
 * No, it didn't need a VfD to do, but it was the best consensus outcome that could've come from this, and it shouldn't need someone to be bold later because the closer didn't follow the result. Keeping it intact would have pleased two voters and gone against the wishes of the other 18. A merge would likely have pleased 18 of the 20 voters. Seems much closer to a consensus result to me.
 * Votes for deletion/Aage Neutzsky-Wulff
 * 3 delete, 1 merge. Borderline (75% delete).  I could have gone either way.  The article has been cleaned up by a couple of people and is now rather a pretty little thing.  Remember this is why we're here: to make good encyclopedia articles.
 * While it's nice that the article has since been rewritten, it doesn't change the result at the time. This is a tough call - but between deleting it outright and merging. There was no justification for a no-consensus-keep call here, as no one who responded supported that outcome.
 * Votes for deletion/DKU
 * The extreme paucity of android79's article edits may have counted against him here, as certainly did the newness of the proposer, Chill Pill Bill. In any case it was either 1:1 or 2:1, I can no longer remember which.  No consensus (50%/50% or 67%/33% split)
 * There were no keep votes. There was no consensus at all to keep. The closest thing to consensus, which would have likely appeased all voters, was a borderline call between deleting it outright and redirecting. Keeping the article in this manner went against the votes of everyone who voted.
 * Votes for deletion/Festa no Apê
 * 2 deletes, 2 merge-and-redirects. No consensus.  (50% delete).
 * There were no keep votes. There was no consensus at all to keep. The closest thing to consensus, which would have likely appeased all voters, was a merge and redirect. Keeping the article in this manner went against the votes of everyone who voted.
 * Votes for deletion/List of Applied Mathematicians
 * 4 merge-and-redirects, 3 deletes. No consensus (57% merge-and-redirect)
 * There were no keep votes. There was no consensus at all to keep. The closest thing to consensus, which would have likely appeased all voters, was a merge and redirect. Keeping the article in this manner went against the votes of everyone who voted.
 * Votes for deletion/Folio (Company)
 * Ignoring the keep votes of various interested parties who were probably not regular editors (I'm not going to do a full check again now), there were 2 deletes and 4 merges. No consensus (67% merge).
 * There were no keep votes. There was no consensus at all to keep. The closest thing to consensus, which would have likely appeased all voters, was a merge and redirect. Keeping the article in this manner went against the votes of everyone who voted.
 * Votes for deletion/Indiana Jones 4
 * 7 deletes, 6 redirects (to different targets), 1 keep. No consensus (50% delete).
 * Borderline call; perhaps forgivable on the grounds that the redirects were to different targets. It still went against the wishes of everyone who voted, however.
 * Votes for deletion/List of names for the human penis
 * 7 deletes, 4 merges (to various targets), 1 redirect, 1 keep, 1 transwiki. No consensus  (54% delete).
 * Ditto above.
 * Votes for deletion/Absynthe Magazine
 * 4 deletes, 2 merge-and-redirects. No consensus (67% merge-and-redirect).
 * There were no keep votes. There was no consensus at all to keep. The closest thing to consensus, which would have likely appeased all voters, was a merge and redirect. Keeping the article in this manner went against the votes of everyone who voted.
 * Votes for deletion/Triple Penetration
 * 3 deletes, 2 keeps, 5 redirect-and-merge. No consensus (50% redirect and merge).  There was also some mucking about and merging with Triple penetration.  Someone later redirected to Group sex which was fine with me. You don't need a VfD to do that.
 * There were no keep votes. There was no consensus at all to keep. The closest thing to consensus, which would have likely appeased all voters, was a merge and redirect. Keeping the article in this manner went against the votes of everyone who voted.
 * Votes for deletion/FactBites
 * 3 deletes, 1 keep. Borderline (75% delete).  I could have gone either way.  2 more delete vote would have sealed its fate, but the fact is that all three delete votes came in the first 15 minutes, and there were no other votes to delete in the following 5 days it was on VfD.  It seemed to me that Wikipedia was not fired with a massive enthusiasm to delete this article.
 * I'm leaving this here because I didn't pick up on it earlier when I checked through these again - I personally would disagree with this (75% generally falls as consensus on Wikipedia), but I would tend to see it as forgivable.
 * Votes for deletion/Phenotypic freedom
 * 2 deletes, 2 merges (to different articles). No consensus (50% delete).
 * Perhaps forgivable due to the merges being to different articles. However, asking the people who voted may have been a better solution than a result that went against all their wishes.
 * Votes for deletion/Isv Kraan
 * 3 deletes, 7 merges, 2 keeps. No consensus (<60% merge)
 * There were two keep votes. There was very little sign of any consensus to keep. The closest thing to consensus, which would have likely appeased almost all voters, was a merge and redirect. Keeping the article in this manner went against the votes of everyone who voted.
 * Votes for deletion/Mandalis
 * 2 deletes, 1 transwiki, 2 merge-and-redirects, no consensus.
 * None of these people wanted the article kept. A merge-and-redirect was the closest option to a consensus outcome here.
 * Votes for deletion/Chhatrapati
 * 6 merges, 2 deletes, 1 transwiki. It's just 2/3.  I don't even consider calling a consensus without appreciably more than 70%.  I could have been bold and merged on my own account, but I decided not to.
 * There were no keep votes. There was no consensus at all to keep. The closest thing to consensus, which would have likely appeased all voters, was a merge and redirect. Keeping the article in this manner went against the votes of everyone who voted.
 * Votes for deletion/Krayt pearl
 * 3 deletes, 2 merges. No consensus (60% delete)
 * There were no keep votes. There was no consensus at all to keep. The closest thing to consensus, which would have likely appeased all voters, was a merge and redirect. Keeping the article in this manner went against the votes of everyone who voted.
 * Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Samples of Baltic: Old Prussian, Latvian, Lithuanian compared to Slavic: Polish Language
 * 5 deletes, 4 merges, 1 keep. No consensus (50% delete).
 * There was one keep vote. There was no consensus at all to keep. The closest thing to consensus, which would have likely appeased all voters, was a merge and redirect. Keeping the article in this manner went against the votes of everyone who voted.
 * Votes for deletion/Toerag/Archive1
 * 2 delete votes, 1 transwiki and redirect (even a valid option????), no keeps. Article was kept and VfDed again.

Brenneman's further exposition as per llywrch's request
brenneman (t) (c) 01:45, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
 * I'm firstly dissaponted by comments such as "Worst RfC ever." and "This is an embarassment."  To contrast, SlimVirgin expressed dissagrement in a civil and constructive manner, and I thank her for that.
 * To allow us to focus on the central issue, I submit:
 * To my memory, Tony and I have only directly interacted one time.  I'll try and stay on topic, but I found his obfuscation there poor form, and his failure to reply ungentlemanly.  But so what?  Editors are allowed to be brilliant, stupid, cordial, rude, or even insinuatingly and slyly deceitful, and in that instance Tony was simply doing what any editor can do.
 * I'd also rebut suggestions that this RfC is Sour grapes over some previous pages I wanted to remove. I did not vote on the articles in question, and have in the past argued passionately against deletion of articles that consensus should be respected.
 * Quoting "If in doubt, don't delete!" is a Straw man. I am not and have not suggested that Tony should heve deleted all of these articles.  However, if the process is intended to be binary keep/delete, then Guide to Votes for deletion is 39 kilobytes too long.
 * It's been asked what good can come of this, stated that what's the harm, etc. The VfD process is a difficult one, and I would not support any changes to policy.  But the actions in closing these VfDs in this manner does not build community or consesus.  Just as archiving a talk page effectivly closes discussion, so does closing a VfD.  So, as to outcomes, I'd like to see more respect for the opinions of other, as opposed to wikilawyering.

I eventually gave up discussing The 20 Cent Quest with Aaron because my well-intended responses, though I did my best to be polite, seemed to cause him distress for reasons I could not understand, and he was becoming unnecessarily .snide. --Tony Sidaway Talk 02:32, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, I should have ended that point at the first sentence. The rest was not relevant, and should have gone on Tony's talk page, where it is now was. -  brenneman (t) (c)  06:44, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

I agree that the guide to VfD is far, far too long. --Tony Sidaway Talk 02:37, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

Comment by Carnildo
(Removed from reply endorsement) %:::::::this is not permissible on a document of this size under our site license. Cite the relevant passages, please -- the actual text -- and explain how they apply. --Calton | Talk 14:12, August 2, 2005 (UTC)
 * 1) (Is this a joke? HKT talk 02:28, 2 August 2005 (UTC))
 * I don't know. What would you call closing a VfD in which four people voted "delete", three vote "BJAODN", and one voted "keep" as "no consensus"? --Carnildo 03:26, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Dunno about you, but I call that borderline. You may have a different standard for rough consensus. --Tony Sidaway Talk  06:13, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
 * If you consider 7:1 in favor of deletion to be "borderline", then you should probably stop closing VfD discussions. --Carnildo 06:18, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
 * It's borderline if you have problems understanding the "D" in "BJAODN", I guess. (Since Tony removed this comment, maybe he does but doesn't care. So "criticism" is another tough concept maybe.) --Calton | Talk 06:20, August 2, 2005 (UTC)
 * No, the definition of "rough consensus" is a matter for the individual. I will not consider calling a consensus before 70%, and my confidence approaches 1 as the figure approaches 80%--which latter figure, coincidentally, is the figure that bureaucrats commonly use as the minimum bar for consensus in RFAs. --Tony Sidaway Talk 06:30, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
 * 7:1 is 87% Isn't that above 80%? --Carnildo 06:40, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
 * 1) What the f--- are you - babbling about.  Jesus christ already.  Thank GOD I'm not an admin.  This is the most frivolous RfC ever.  Now hand me my wallet.   &mdash;RaD Man (talk) 06:46, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
 * I misread your comment,Carnildo (hardly surprising since it doesn't make much sense). You seem to be adding together BJAODN and delete votes; this is not permissible on a document of this size under our site license.  The actual proportion of delete votes was much, much less than 80%.  The proportion of BJAODN's (assuming your figures above) was even smaller. There was no consensus. --Tony Sidaway Talk  06:59, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
 * What I meant to say, and I can't believe I'm taking this discussion seriously for a brief moment, was that this entire discussion is now moot. In place of the former BJAODN candidate which had no consensus to delete now stands a legitimate stub on a real institution.  Something tells me this won't silence the bitching, unfortunately.  &mdash;RaD Man (talk) 07:04, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
 * May I ask how the GFDL does not permit that movement of content? As long as the contributors are kept recorded (i.e. copied to the talk page), it is perfectly within the GFDL.   [[smoddy ]] 09:59, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
 * I've checked again and I was wrong to say that licensing considerations precluded history deletion. Smoddy states correctly that recording the contributors on the talk page is sufficient. --Tony Sidaway Talk  14:55, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

If it's any help, I'll describe my thinking on the wording of the VfD guide section for BJAODN:


 * "BJAODN" is a shorthand for "Delete but keep a copy in Bad Jokes and Other Deleted Nonsense, deleting the resultant redirect". BJAODN is a page where Wikipedians archive pages that they deem to be worthy of saving for humour value.  People do not necessarily consider the article a bad joke or nonsensical; indeed, a number of amusing and coherent articles that simply do not meet Wikipedia's standards for inclusion have been partially preserved in this form.

What is described above isn't a delete, really, but a move. The giveaway is "deleting the resultant redirect." The only Mediawiki operation on an article that leaves behind a redirect is a MOVE. I interpret the above as meaning "move  PAGENAME to Wikipedia:Bad jokes and other deleted nonsense/PAGENAME and delete PAGENAME." Now it appears to me that there is another legitimate interpretation of BJAODN vote, and that would be better described as "Paste a copy from the article into the current BJAODN page, enter up to five most recent contributors into the talk page to comply with the GFDL, and delete the article from articlespace. I suggest that the guide be updated to reflect whatever is current accepted practice (I don't know much about BJAODN but have tended to assume it was some kind of move).  I don't care which it is as long as the current ambiguity is resolved. I don't mind treating BJAODN as delete as long as it complies with the license and the guide is clear enough that all editors know that BJAODN is a vote for article deletion in precisely the same way as a delete vote. --Tony Sidaway Talk  17:38, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Whether implemeted as a move or a cut&paste followed by a delete, BJAODN is a vote to remove the content from the article space. This should be made explicit in the admin's guide to VfD, IMO. DES (talk) 18:32, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
 * That was my understanding. I think it's clear enough that it's a vote to remove the article from article space. --Tony Sidaway Talk  19:01, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

Comments by R. fiend
I've been starting to wonder if we're going to start seeing closings stating: "5 speedy deletes; 6 extreme deletes; 13 deletes; 1 merge; 1 transwiki: no consensus (50% delete)" -R. fiend 22:09, 2 August 2005 (UTC)


 * That's very naughty. You also say, in more serious mode:


 * Any admin who defaults to Keep when not a single keep vote was cast is clearly doing something wrong. Also, Tony seems to like to count anons and sockpuppets...when it suits him


 * The guide to VfD is absolutely crystal clear that an article must be kept if there is no consensus--that applies even when there is not a single keep vote.


 * Your last sentence is, as far as I'm aware, the most outrageous calumny. Absolutely no evidence has been presented to support it, and to my knowledge it's the first time that this false allegation has ever been made. --Tony Sidaway Talk  01:46, 3 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Evidence, if you so require -R. fiend 03:47, 3 August 2005 (UTC)


 * I see 4 clear deletes, 2 clear non-anon keeps, 7 clear anon keeps, 5 clear merges, and one unclear vote. The only way to get a clear "keep" out of that is to count the anons. --Carnildo 06:15, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

I saw (and still see) 8 discounted votes, comprising 6 keeps and 2 deletes. This large pile dwarfed all other votes so I declared a keep. I am warning Carnildo that his edits of closed VfDs, with edit summaries as "corrections" are disruption and close to vandalism, and I will not hesitate to block him if he persists. --Tony Sidaway Talk 06:41, 3 August 2005 (UTC)


 * I saw (and still see, discounting all anons) 2 keeps, 2 merge/redirects, and 10 deletes (including "merge and deletes" which are still votes to delete (see the "delete" in bold?) and don't say it can't be done; it happens). One of those deletes is questionable, but that still makes 9. Using your standard fuzzy math, I can see how you might get a "no consensus" out of that (though I can't imagine any other admin doing so), but an all out "keep"? That's beyond the pale. -R. fiend 14:44, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

I'm sorry but I don't agree with your math. There are two questionable deletes and six questionable keeps (sorry I don't keep notes and I'm not going to trawl through the user contributions all over again to identify them by name). Most of the legitimate merges don't specify delete, some of the small number of legitimate deletes don't specify merge, and two additional legitimate votes specify neither merge nor delete. It would be difficult to get either merge or delete out of the thing. I went with keep. A clear delete vote in the legitimate votes would have changed my mind; I did not see any such clear call. Don't fool yourself that I ignored legitimate votes or that my actions would have been different in the absence of the questionable votes. There just wasn't a deletion consensus there.

I find this unsurprising since it isn't what I would normally consider to be remotely deletable material. Norah Jones is famous, she does have a mother who is famous enough for people to write about her, and one would expect to find something about her in Wikipedia. Whether in one article or two I think is something I can leave to the editors. --Tony Sidaway Talk 17:03, 3 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Let's look at the votes. The following people voted "delete" in bold, so it's sort of hard to confuse if they think the article should be kept or not: Splash, Antaeus Feldspar, Sirmob, Dcarrano, R. fiend, Etacar11, Xoloz, nixie, Indrian, and Fitful. That's 10. The last one is questionable, and I'll take your word for it that another is as well (though almost all the names are familiar enough to me). That's at least eight. I see two keeps. Add to that the two merges that didn't mention delete, discount two delete votes, and we have 66% in favor of deletion. That's a consensus in many people's books. Not yours, of course, but it is not a consensus to keep. You practically said you let your personal opinion on the article color your actions. -R. fiend 18:12, 3 August 2005 (UTC)


 * I think I get it now. You're nitpicking over the precise wording of the call, right?  If I call keep, it is supposed to mean "consensus to keep"?  Is that right?  If so then I'm sorry to disillusion you.  We closers call keep whenever we feel like it.  We absolutely are not in the business of deciding on a "consensus to keep"--the concept has no meaning on Wikipedia because we keep everything unless there's a consensus to delete it. I can show you tons and tons of VfDs closed as "keep" on the schools project, where the vote was a majority to delete. --Tony Sidaway Talk  20:10, 3 August 2005 (UTC)


 * That's only part of what I'm arguing about, and it is a significant distinction. There is a difference between a consensus to keep and no consensus: default to keep. The fact that you have used both in different situations implies that you know well that there is. A consensus is a consensus, for or against. A VfD ending in no consensus is not an entirely settled matter, particularly if there is a majority in favor of deletion. Between how you count split votes and your exceptionally high standard of what a rough consensus is, you're making it nearly impossible to delete articles if you're going to close them, which I suppose is your aim. I think nearly any other admin in wikipedia would have concluded that Sue Jones should have been deleted, based on the voting. -R. fiend 20:35, 3 August 2005 (UTC)


 * On Wikipedia, there is *no* difference between a consensus to keep and a default vote to keep. The "consensus to keep" is a complete and utter fiction.


 * I have no idea on what basis you make the claim that any other admin would have closed Sue Jones with a delete result. Even if you discounted *all* of the keep votes and counted *all* of the delete votes, the result would not be delete.  Using that crude method would give 10 delete votes (some with merges) and 4 merges (without delete): 71%.  Are you really so sure that all other admins would close for delete on that figure?


 * And again this insinuation that I have an aim of making it almost impossible to close VfDs for delete: firstly no one admin could achieve such an end, secondly, here is what the vast majority of VfD listings actually look like:


 * Votes_for_deletion/SE_Share-A-File
 * Votes_for_deletion/Neopryn
 * Votes_for_deletion/Playaz_Lounge_Crew
 * Votes_for_deletion/Final_Cut_Pro_4_and_the_Art_of_Filmmaking
 * Votes_for_deletion/Mie_Elleb%C3%A6k_Klausen


 * Hardcore cruft doesn't hang around long. It's vamoosed.  So what you're objecting to here is that in some cases where there was some debate about what to do with an article my methods don't arrive at the deletion decision that you feel would be correct.  Tough.  I think there's a difference between a consensus and a divided discussion.  We get around 100-120 VfDs a day, and I specialize in closing the late ones that have hung around for around two weeks and still have not been closed--the difficult ones.  This is necessarily going to mean that I'll make decisions that will upset those who think Wikipedia should delete more articles than is actually the case.  Too bad.  Go find a shoulder to cry on. --Tony Sidaway Talk  23:08, 3 August 2005 (UTC)


 * I also notice you said that the anons and discounted votes "dwarfed all other votes so I declared a keep". Well first of all, I count 23 votes total (I think). With 8 discounted that leaves 15. Since when does 8 "dwarf" 15? And even if it did, since when does a plethora of anons void an entire VfD?
 * Also, might I suggest you don't accuse Carnildo of vandalism and threaten to block him for trying to fix your screw-ups. If something is improperly deleted it can be taken to VfU, but if it's improprtly kept the solution is not as easy. -R. fiend 15:49, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

Hmm, where to start? Those votes dwarfed every other single result that I could have called. Does that explain it to you? And you can already see that I just wasn't looking at a consensus.

I'm happy if Carnildo realises that what he was doing in altering and in some cases removing VfD results was unacceptable. I should have got someone else to do the blocking. A past VfD can always be questioned and if it is done on the VfD page I'll normally move it to the talk page and discuss it. Charging in and saying your "correcting" a closing when you give no legitimate reason to suppose that it's incorrect is not acceptable. Saying you're re-opening a VfD when you don't add the post into the day log and don't add the vfd template to the article under discussion is not acceptable.

Supposing something were "improperly kept" (which you're very far from demonstrating, incidentally) then nothing irreversible would have been done. To complain that nothing can be done is simply incorrect. I don't have a monopoly on closing (far from it, up to now I've been a very occasional closer) so perhaps someone with a more generous approach to consensus will deal with the deletion next time. But attacking the closer, well as you can see from the endorsements to my response to this RfC, it's not going to get you anywhere. --Tony Sidaway Talk 17:03, 3 August 2005 (UTC)


 * I didn't say "nothing could be done", I said it wasn't so easy. If they can't reopen or even address a disputed VfD result without being banned for vandalism, their only option is to nominate again, which is never popular, and always garners a bunch of people voting keep for no reason except that the matter was already "settled", even if the whole point is it wasn't settled.
 * Furthermore, your "dwarfing" statement still confuses me. If you disregard anon votes, they become a nonentity. They are removed from the equation and should not be dwarfing anything. I think there was a consensus to delete the article, and while you may not agree, there was no consensus to keep, particularly if you call a consensus over 75%, as you seem to (see my other reply above for details).
 * Finally, I feel I should again mention it is quite unfair to add your statements refuting my allegations above people's signatures, as if they were endorsing something that wasn't even there when they signed. It is, at best, highly misleading. -R. fiend 18:48, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

Oh come now, what Carnildo was doing was vandalism, not disputing a result but being as disruptive and obnoxious as he could, outright removing closer comments and marking edit summaries "correcting" as if arbitrating on a close. If he was a newbie I'd understand, but he knows what a VfD close template looks like and he knows how to use a talk page.

What you have here is a dispute, and it's a very petty one. A single closer whom you've become obsessed with happens to adopt a stricter approach to consensus than you're comfortable with. It won't harm Wikipedia to have one or two articles that you'd prefer it not to contain and whose deletion discussions were not conclusive anyhow, so I suggest that you simply adopt a more relaxed approach to Wikipedia.

You say "if you disregard anon votes, they become a non-entity." Being discounted doesn't stop them existing, it just means they don't count towards the decision on whether to delete. But this conversation is becoming increasingly surreal. --Tony Sidaway Talk 19:53, 3 August 2005 (UTC)


 * My point is I don't see how they could have any bearing on the outcome at all. I think this "dwarfed" thing you came up with is an excuse, and a pretty poor one. It would be nice if you could admit that, and state why you really kept the article, which I imagine is that you wanted it kept and saw a way to do so. "This large pile dwarfed all other votes so I declared a keep" strikes me as a complete red herring. -R. fiend 20:48, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

I think I've made it plain that I couldn't call a delete--even discounting every single keep vote and including every single one of the 10 delete votes, I still could not have constructed a deletion consensus from the remaining merge, merge/deletes and deletes. Therefore "You wanted it kept and saw a way to do so" is simply incorrect. By the way, I notice that you're making these false insinuations of bad faith quite a lot lately. Cut it out. --Tony Sidaway Talk 23:08, 3 August 2005 (UTC)


 * I see it's your turn to make unsupported allegations now. -R. fiend 23:40, 3 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Tony, be careful. The comment what Carnildo was doing was vandalism is highly subjective. May I quote from Vandalism:
 * Vandalism is any indisputably bad-faith addition, deletion, or change to content made in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of the encyclopedia
 *  Any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia, even if misguided or ill-considered, is not vandalism
 * Apparent bad-faith edits that do not make their bad-faith nature inarguably explicit are not considered vandalism at Wikipedia
 * None of what Carnildo did is vandalism under these terms. Please stop the emotive and prejudicial use of terminology.  This may seem petty, but it is a very important point if we are to maintain a healthy atmosphere.   [[smoddy ]] 22:09, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

You're right in a sense. There are some people who would still argue that vandalizing a closed VfD in the manner that Carnildo did it was done in good faith, and therefore not vandalism. This doesn't mean it isn't vandalism, only that there are some people who will argue that it was not. Carnildo knows how to use a talk page; his vandalism was wilful and malicious; the intention was not to open discussion, for he did not add the page to the day log nor add the template to the article. --Tony Sidaway Talk 23:08, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

I'd like some clarity on some of the above comments. With reference to anonymous voters: brenneman (t) (c) 00:06, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
 * I hope we all mean editors whose edit history has been examined and found lacking regardless of the presence of a sig, as opposed to just discarding on sight.
 * Tony, in some sections it could be interpreted that you are saying these votes count as a de-facto keep, as they lower the percentage (eg 8 good d, 1 good k, 5 d and 5 k invalid = 40%).  I don't believe this is what you intended, I'm just letting you know it could be read this way.

To clarify, I do examine editing histories of editors I haven't encountered before. What I look for is one calendar month, at least 100 edits, and a good proportion of article edits (if a new editor has gone straight to VfD I tend to distrust him as a possible sock). I make exceptions. Unlike some closers I nearly always count the votes of those who have worked on the article, whether for keep or delete, even if this is their first few edits, and if they give a good account of themselves on the VfD it is likely to sway me in a very close vote. I am very slow to conclude bad faith in an editor; people may come here and make unsuitable articles, but this is seldom their motive, and they deserve respect for their often great efforts to produce something worthwhile. --Tony Sidaway Talk 20:14, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

Please explain to me
How this Votes for deletion/Savoir-faire is "no consensus"? Please, enough trash talk, just make it really simple because I'm clearly not getting something. I know I said "enough trash talk" once already, but I'll say it again - don't just tell me I'm wrong. I'm not trying to disrupt anything, or mudsling, or cause someone to have an aneurism. Clearly I have some reason for this, so before you answer, try and presume that my reason is that I'd like to build a great encyclopedia that anyone can edit. - brenneman (t) (c)  06:10, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Please see WP:NPA before again deleting this as personal attack. - brenneman (t) (c)  07:09, 3 August 2005 (UTC)


 * One difficulty I have in interacting with Aaron is that he continually comes out with irrational accusations of this nature. I am not familiar with the term "trash talk", but I am not in the habit of claiming that people are wrong without explaining my reasoning, and I regard Aaron's attempts to introduce the idea that I *might* be about to do so as unwarranted and in themselves personal attacks. --Tony Sidaway Talk 09:15, 3 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Tony, I am fully aware that I can be a pig. I'm also fully aware that you think I can be a pig. I'd just ask you to think about a few things, and maybe pretend that someone you respect is saying them:
 * I did not say, " Tony Sidaway, don't lash out." I think plenty of other people have done that, too.
 * Although, on reflection I can see how you'd feel as though I had. The "you" in there is unfortunately vague.  I am sorry that I was not more clear.
 * Even if I had, wouldn't "Aaron [...] continually comes out with irrational accusations" simply another personal attack?


 * brenneman (t) (c) 11:44, 3 August 2005 (UTC)


 * It's very simple. There are three "delete" votes, two "transwiki and delete" votes, and a "keep". That adds up to "no consensus" by Tony's logic that votes that aren't absolutely identical can't be combined. I've re-opened the VfD to let someone else look at it. --Carnildo 06:18, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Please see WP:NPA before again deleting this as personal attack. --Carnildo 07:23, 3 August 2005 (UTC)


 * I don't know where he got this summary from. It bears no relatio to the facts. --Tony Sidaway Talk 07:48, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
 * See User talk:Sasquatch and WP:ANI. --Tony Sidaway Talk 06:44, 3 August 2005 (UTC)


 * If you think that "delete" and "merge" can't be combined into a consensus to merge, that "delete" and "redirect" can't be combined into a consensus to redirect, and "delete" and "BJAODN" can't be combined into a consensus to delete, then logically "delete" and "transwiki and delete" can't be combined into a consensus of "transwiki and delete". --Carnildo 08:46, 3 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Delete and merge cannot be combined because they're completely different actions--no closing administrator to my knowledge would ever combine them. Delete and BJAODN I may change my mind on if and when the Guide to VfD can be clarified so as to decide whether BJAODN is a move or a delete (it seems to be in two minds about it at the moment).  Since the recent vote on extending CSD's, however, a transwiki vote implies deletion unless the voter clearly specifies that the article would have a place on both wikis.  See CSD A5. "Any article that has been discussed at Votes for Deletion, where the outcome was to transwiki, and where the transwikification has been properly performed and the author information recorded."


 * I do know that you feel you have a legitimate grievance about my actions as a closer, but I only ask you to be patient and wait for me to explain my actions before stating that they're inconsistent with logic. I for my part promise always to give a full and complete explanation. --Tony Sidaway Talk  09:08, 3 August 2005 (UTC)


 * This whole thing has certainly gotten ugly, thanks in no small part to me. I do think that this is a valid RfC, however I apologise for what I have done to increase the level of hostility.  I'm not alone in having done this, and I don't just mean Tony.  He has the excuse of it being about him.  Wait, I'm doing it again, aren't I? Damn. Sorry.  Again.   brenneman (t) (c)  13:24, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

I welcome your approach, Aaron. Could we try to start again and not be beastly to one another? I don't think you can be a pig, I just think that you can come out with stuff that I find impossible to understand. --Tony Sidaway Talk 15:32, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

Votes for deletion/Savoir-faire
I count this as 3 Transwiki and Delete (including the nom), 3 straight Delete, 2 Keep (including the vote by (203.79.121.31) and the vote by Robert Horning which could be read as a delete vote or as no vote except "don't transwiki". Discounting the anon that is 3TD/3D/1K or 3TD/4D/1K. That looks like a consensus for deletion to me, with no consensus on whether it should be tranwikied. I could see relisting for a clearer consensus, particularly in light of the note that there is an existing entry at wikibooks. But it seems celar that the consensus was not to retain the content as part of wikipedia. Admititedly this one is tricky, and i do not see the decision as any sort of abuse, but i think it probably was an error. DES (talk) 16:16, 3 August 2005 (UTC)


 * I will accept that some of these could certainly be errors, but if they are, he is making too many of them. This isn't rocket science. If he's overworked and going through them too quickly or lazily (my theory on the Sue Jones vote, above, where he threw out the whole thing because of too many anons) then he should cut back. -R. fiend 16:56, 3 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Transwiki and delete is the common transwiki procedure. We are deciding whether to delete or not, so: 3 Delete, 5 Don't Delete. Kim Bruning 17:12, 3 August 2005 (UTC)


 * So when someone says "tanswiki to wiktionary", unless they say "and delete" they are actually voting to keep what they admit is a dictionary definition in wikipedia? Have people been told this is how they're voting, because I'm not so sure they know. -R. fiend 17:56, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
 * But in this case all the people who said "transwiki" also explicitly said "and delete" so i don't see how that can be read as 5 Don't Delete. I read it as 6 to delete, three of whom wanted it transwikied first. DES (talk) 18:07, 3 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Ah, um, at the risk of insulting your intelligence, how exactly um, did you propose having those people do a transwiki *after* it has been deleted? Kim Bruning 18:13, 3 August 2005 (UTC)


 * I did say "Transwiki and Delete" not "Delete and Transwiki" which rather implies that the deletion be done second. More explicitly I said three of whom wanted it transwikied first. At the risk of seeming unduly persistant, how does a vote that says X and Delete whatever the value of X is, get included in a count of Don't Delete votes. Or did I misunderstand you? When you wrote We are deciding whether to delete or not, so: 3 Delete, 5 Don't Delete  you were including the people who voted Transwiki and Delete in the "don't delete" colum, and not including the nominator at all? Is that correct?DES (talk) 18:19, 3 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Nominator need not vote. You're asking the opinion of the community, you need not have one yourself. To transwiki, you need to hold on to the content until it is indeed transwikied, after which it's a CSD. You can't immediately use the delete button based on a transwiki vote. That's impractical. Kim Bruning 18:44, 3 August 2005 (UTC)


 * No the nominator need not vote. But in this case the nominator said This is a great idea, but I think it belongs on Wikibooks, not Wikipedia. That sounds like an opnion to me, and one agaisnt keeping the article on wikipedia. The normal result of a transwiki is that the content is removed from Wikipedia. If all votes must be counted as either "delete" or "don't delete" (as I gather you belive) then how can a vote that says "Transwiki" much less "Transwiki and delete" be counted as "Don't delete"? DES (talk) 18:54, 3 August 2005 (UTC)


 * It is impossible to transwiki that which is deleted. Therefore you must keep it until such time as a transwiki is performed. It's that simple. Kim Bruning 20:05, 3 August 2005 (UTC)


 * I have to agree with Mr. fiend and DES on this. You appear to be intentionally using an obtuse interpretation to make the count favor your opinion.  I can't imagine anyone saying that "delete" means "keep" no matter what order it appears.  -  T&#949;x  &#964;  ur&#949;  18:28, 3 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Newspeak, anyone? -R. fiend 18:36, 3 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Transwiki, THEN delete. Does that mean we can delete without transwiking? Kim Bruning 18:47, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
 * I did say far above I could see relisting for a clearer consensus, particularly in light of the note that there is an existing entry at wikibooks. I can see arguing that TD votes are so fundamentally different from D votes (In one case the content is kept albiet elsewhere, in the other it is not kept) that they can't be combined, but that doesn't lead to a consensus to keep, it leads to a non consensus, and IMO strongly argues for a relisting, given the small number of votes and the large percentage of them who ioncluded Delete in their votes. DES (talk) 18:58, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
 * "Relisting" is a big nono. Kim Bruning 20:05, 3 August 2005 (UTC)


 * As I see it, a transwiki vote is an option or suggestion for including the material elsewhere. Wikipedia voters we have no authority over the other wikiprojects, so no vote concerning those projects can be official. It's basically saying "give it to wiki-whatever if they want it; it suits them better than us". If no one feels like doing the transwiking for whatever reason, well, that's too bad for wikisource or whoever, but it has no impact on wikipedia, the sole jurisdiction for the voting here. I can't recall seeing a transwiki vote that intended the material to remain in wikipedia. Those votes are called "keeps". -R. fiend 18:56, 3 August 2005 (UTC)


 * The material must remain available on wikipedia until the transwiki procedure is complete. The closing editor is under no obligation to perform the transwiki procedure themselves. Kim Bruning 20:05, 3 August 2005 (UTC)


 * I don't see why. By your logic something that has 100% "transwiki" votes (or, if you prefer "transwiki and delete") will stay in wikipedia forever if no one bothers to transwiki it? Whether or not something exists in another wiki has nothing to do with what happens in wikipedia. Transwikiing is a courtesy, not a mandatory practice. If none of the people who voted to transwiki couldn't be bothered to actually do it, nor could the closer, then obviously no one cares all that much of it's transwikied or not. I think most people assume the closer will carry out the consensus, be it delete or transwiki (or keep, which doesn't involve doing anything, really), or else what's the point of closing? -R. fiend 20:24, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
 * The closer indeed often does not carry out the closing. Transwiki-ing and merging cost a lot of time and effort, and "there's another 100 vfds to close today". It is assumed that the voters actually carry out the work. The one exception is when an admin is the one closing. If they determine that the consensus is to delete, they may delete. (But this costs time too). Kim Bruning 22:59, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Does the idea that the closer doesn't carry out the closing seems a wee bit nonsensical to anyone? I guess his job is to pack everything in neat little blue boxes then. Wow. That's helpful. -R. fiend 23:43, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
 * That's VFD procedure for you. Kim Bruning 00:06, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

My recollection of the Savoir-faire vote, aided by cribbing from comments I made when it was still fresh in my memory, is that "I made the total five valid votes for delete/transwiki (one delete discounted because the voter is too new). One anonymous vote was also disregarded. There was one vote for keep and one well argued vote against transwiki. With 5 out of 7 for delete/transwiki, 71%, not what I'd normally view as a consensus..." Now while it's fun watching you all try to rerun it over and over again so that the figure comes out different, it won't change that. I seldom call a consensus on a figure as low as 71% and I am pretty sure you know that.

Robert Hornby makes no comment on the encyclopedic merits of the piece, he only says that it isn't a suitable transwiki candidate, so it's a vote against transwiki and I am bound to take that into account. Grace voted straight keep.

I'm not overworked. I'm not being obtuse. I'm just using my own judgement to count up votes and make a decision, as do all admins. The only difference is that I've used a very strict definition of "rough consensus" where some other administrators may use a far less strict one. And, unlike other admins, I'm telling you precisely how I made my decision. I have absolutely no problem doing that, I'll do it any time.

Now if *anyone* can go through the Jones vfd or the other one and find cause to delete, that's fine for them, and if they can show how application of *my* standards, which I explain above, could have come out with a keep in either case then that means I made a mistake. I am fallible, we all are, and it's possible that even now I'm overlooking some simple clerical error despite repeatedly checking the figures. Kim has a different interpretation which I think is perfectly valid--and I'm sure other admins have other interpretations that in this case would result in a keep. Closing isn't an exact science, we get to apply the principles that we think in our best judgement produces the best results for Wikipedia. I've explained my principles, so explain how I'm wrong using my principles to come up with 5 deletes, 2 other votes and counting a no consensus. --Tony Sidaway Talk 18:58, 3 August 2005 (UTC)


 * To be fair the above is consistant and not unreasoable. Since the vote against transwiki explicitly said that deeltion was fine with him (as would keeping be) then I think on the delete/don't delete issue this could better be read as 5/1 and thus well over 75%, while on transwiki/don't transwiki it could be read more evenly. But the above has at least some rational basis and seems to be an attempt to apply consistant standars. i still disagreee strongly with Kim Bruning's suggestion that thei be read as 5 "don't delete" votes.


 * This seems to me to make the case that thoere should be a clearer and more definate policy on just what the bar is for a consensus to delete. It shouldn't depend so much on the personal standards of the particular closer, IMO. DES (talk) 19:16, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

I can't remember Horning's precise words but I think they were of a similar tenor to your description above--that deletion wasn't an issue, he was fine with that, but don't transwiki. I'm sorry I don't see how you read that as a delete vote. As far as deletion goes, it's a "don't care if it lives or dies". As far as transwiki goes, it's "don't". VfD closing will always depend on the personal judgement of the closer. Any time you find a closer who has different priorities than your own, you'll be able to rerun this whole conversation. It's like meeting a football player after the game and explaining how he could have intercepted that pass--we all know how the match should have turned out. --Tony Sidaway Talk 19:59, 3 August 2005 (UTC)


 * I agree, Horning's vote cannot be read as either a delete or a keep vote, he was just saying that the article wasn't wanted on wikibooks. Therefore I argued that his vote should not be included in the base when computing the percentage of delete votes, which leaves by your reasoning above 5 delete votes and one keep vote, which is rather over 75%. I understand and agree that an element of judgement will always be involved in VfD closing -- at least unless we drastically change the policy and practice. I am arguing for a reduction in the amount of variation, by gettign a general agreement on what deos and what deos not consititue a consensus, and what sorts of methods are rational in combining votes for different but related outcomes. There will still be a grey area, and still a need for human judgement, but there should be somewhat less varience in the outcome for a given set of votes, IMO. It is really not good that some closers will consider 65% delete a consensnsu, and others insist on close to 80%, IMO. But since the standards were not clear, a given closer who tries to be self-consistant can't be faulted for that, also IMO. DES (talk) 20:40, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Specifically, Horning said This does not really belog on Wikibooks at all. This isn't a textbook at all, and is the sort of thing that at Wikibooks we are trying to get rid of ourselves (I primarily hang out at Wikibooks). Yes, there are "How to" books at Wikibooks, but I don't want to see Wikibooks be the dumping ground for unwanted content from Wikipedia. In short, if you want to delete it, kill it outright, and don't transwiki which i suggest should have been read as Comment as far as the delete/keep decision went. DES (talk) 20:43, 3 August 2005 (UTC)


 * I think I see where you're going with that. However you seem to be arguing that I should not count Horning's vote in the total number of votes when I count up the proportion of delete votes.  While one could probably make a reasonable argument for this, it is not in fact how I do it.  I tally deletes as a proportion of all votes, giving my aforementioned 5/7. He had the opportunity to express an opinion in favor of deletion and did not do so. --Tony Sidaway Talk  22:25, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Yes that is exactly my contention. He didn't express an opnion in favor of deletion, but then he didn't express an opnion against it either, nor indeed any opnion on what should happen on wikipedia, only an opnion on what should happen or not happen on wikibooks. Do you include people who make Comment entries on why a suggested course is a good or bad idea (for example someone who comments on a merge vote that the relevant content is already in the target article) but who don't express an opnion on wheter or not to delete in your base for determing whether a 75% ration has been reached? if you normnally do, i think you are mistaken. DES (talk) 22:48, 3 August 2005 (UTC)


 * A comment is not a vote. You seem to be scrabbling around, and quite fruitlessly I might add, to find some reason why I should not have counted his vote in the total number of votes.  This chap did cast a vote, and as far as deletion was concerned he made it plain that it was a "don't care."  I think another administrator might choose to count Horning in the transwiki vote but not in the deletion vote, but this sounds overly elaborate to me.  --Tony Sidaway Talk  23:21, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
 * No I was trying to explain why it seemed to me so obvious that he should not have been so counted. I don't particularly care what the result was in this case: I never edited the article, and i didn't so much as see the RfD page. I do care about the RfD process and that users should be able to expect a certian degree of consistancy and neutrality in the way the votes are closed. i was prying at this becaused your expressed reasoning anf the actions you took seemed very odd to me. That said, I don't see an abuse of power here. I disagree with some of the decisions you made, and i think we might want to come to agreement on a ratehr more detailed policy to reduce the degree to which the outcome will depnd on the personal standards of the closing admin -- even if that means that we consistantly do things in ways I wouldn't have personally chosen. At this pointe I agree with your comment below that we have probably taken this RfC as far as there is a point -- this should probably feed into one or another more general discussion about changing deletion policy and practice. I do recognize that closing VfDs is a good deal of work, and i assume good faith in your wor on this task. DES (talk) 23:38, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

Cyrius's part
I am writing this specifically because I strongly disapprove of using administrator powers to further a debate that you are even tangentially involved in. I disapprove of Cyrius's blocking Tony, as I am a firm adherent of the idea that any user involved in both good-faith and bad-faith editing should not be blocked summarily by an admin on the basis of the bad-faith edits alone. This is precisely the same reason that I disapprove of Tony's blocking Carnildo. I don't want to sign Cyrius's comments, but I do agree with them in essence, and wanted to make that known. [[smoddy ]] 16:44, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

What is consensus to delete?
Tony has said that he insistes on 75% or more to consider a delete result if I understood him correctly. Undeletion policy says deletion requires a two-thirds majority (admitedly it says this in passing). I understand that some judgement is allowed, that anon or otherwise dubious votes may be discounted, that the strength or weakness of arguments may be considered, and the effects of a rewrite during the VfD be considered. But in a simple case, where the arguments were clearcut and did not change much (say a debate over notability) and all voters are established editors, what level should voters expect the closer to use? Woud a 13D to 6K vote (no confusing votes of merge or redir or BJAODN or anything else) be a delete consensus? That is just over 2 to 1. How about 17D to 6K? (Just under 3 to 1) Should we have a slightly celarer standard for future closers? DES (talk) 17:16, 3 August 2005 (UTC)


 * I would be comfortable with the 75% to delete if it were consistently applied. (I am unhappy that Tony does not delete at 75%.)  Two-thirds requires some judgement, IMO. -  T&#949;x  &#964;  ur&#949;  17:50, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

Actually I have said that I will start contemplating consensus if I see 70%. I will nearly always count a consensus over 75%. 75% by itself is what I consider to be just on the edge. Count yourself lucky, I may just change my mind and go for the 80%, no appeals, that the bureaucrats use, and there is a lot to be said for 90%. Instead I give myself a 10% band where I consider my best judgement to come into play. You're not going to get anywhere by nitpicking about it; nearly all administrators will defend the right to use discretion.

I have no idea who wrote that deletion requires a two-thirds majority. It is simply incorrect to put a figure on it. Some admins would be as generous as to use 2/3, but this is not what I personally would be comfortable in doing, because then I'd be calling consensus when in my judgement there clearly was none. --Tony Sidaway Talk 19:09, 3 August 2005 (UTC)


 * And I think at this point we've all said pretty much all that can be said. Rather than go round again, I'll call it a day on this RfC.  Nice job, chaps.  I'm rather pleased with the outcome. --Tony Sidaway Talk  23:28, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

What was wrong with this RfC

 * 1) It got opened in the first place.
 * 2) *I don't believe this, but I'm trying to be complete.
 * 3) It was in the wrong place - not "admin" duties.
 * 4) *Again, I think this is moot, but when Radiant thinks something, I tend to think twice before I disagree. Then I'd think twice more.
 * 5) The main page is a mess.
 * 6) * David Gerard set the tone, and it went downhill from there.
 * 7) *Is it appropiate for changes to be made to statments after they are certified?
 * 8) *Is it appropiate certifiers to inject a strong opinion there rather than on the talk page, where it can be rebutted?
 * 9) *What the heck is with the quasi-RfC in the middle of the main RfC?
 * 10) *Some of the "Outside views" are a bit of a mess, too. Why couldn't most of those gone on the talk page? Oh, because...
 * 11) The talk page is a complete travesty.
 * 12) *I think this one speaks for itself.

The main RfC page states "RfC is appropriate when you want other Wikipedians to visit [the page,] to allow a consensus or a better quality of decision". It certainly does not say "RfC is a great place for every old puss-filled wound to be lanced." More than a few of the editor's comments make it clear that this issue wasn't examined, that they barely read what was here, but instead used this as an excuse to re-open old feuds.

While I still believe that it was appropiate to open this Request for Comment, I could be wrong. But a nice message on my talk page or here explaining my mistake would have been good. Has no one who sunk the boot in here ever seen this page: Please do not bite the newcomers? Or this one: Assume good faith?

I have tried, with limited success, to communicate with some of those involved in this. I have been very dissapointed with the response. I won't link to the relevent talk pages, because that seems rude. I've heard several time "VfD is broken, this is all because VfD is broken". Perhaps the system of VfD isn't the problem, but the inordinate passion some devote to it. brenneman (t) <sup style="color:#2f4f4f;">(c) 01:56, 4 August 2005 (UTC)


 * The good news is that I think that now Tony will close a VfD with five "delete" votes and five "BJAODN" votes as "delete", rather than "keep". --Carnildo 04:37, 4 August 2005 (UTC)


 * He'd better not! Kim Bruning 08:40, 4 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Won't. I can confirm that I'm not impressed with the arguments put forth on this RfC, I broadly agree with David Gerard's opinion of the RfC, though I wouldn't put it quite so forcefully as he does. I've already pointed out that BJAODN as it stands is an extremely ambiguous vote--described in part as a delete and in part as a move with deletion of the redirection--and until and unless this is cleaned up I will not accept BJAODN as a delete vote.  Voters might consider "BJAODN and delete" to be a reasonable alternative, subject to conformance with the GFDL. --Tony Sidaway Talk  09:06, 4 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Like I said, avoiding consensus like the plague. -R. fiend 12:24, 4 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Doesn't this mean anything to anyone? Can "votes to delete" be any more clear? -R. fiend 13:49, 4 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Hello, check the actual tallies on the RFC page :-) Now then, you were saying? Kim Bruning 14:15, 4 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Which actual tallies? There are many here. My point is Tony has been treating Transwikis, BJAODNs, and other such votes as something other than votes to delete. That page clearly says that they are delete votes. Arguments about specific tallies and consensus are not relevent to this single issue. -R. fiend 14:19, 4 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Yes, and the community has found that he was right to do so. In the mean time, how about taking me up on my offer (see below) :-) Kim Bruning 16:29, 4 August 2005 (UTC)


 * I would be very hesitiant to interpret any results from this as a consensus that Tony was right to violate policy. There are many different views that have been endorsed here. In fact, your own outside view says "VFD is binary; it has just 2 outcomes: Delete, and Not Delete." Very well, then transwiki and BJAODN must be one or the other, and the guidelines say in no uncertain terms that they are delete votes. For Tony to treat them as anything else is a blatant violation of the VfD guidelines. He can say "Oh I sort of think BJAODN is a more like a move or something, it's unclear". He can think whatever he likes, but it is a vote to delete. When people vote BJAODN they are voting to delete and he should respect their votes. (The fact that BJAODN is sort of dumb and people likely submit bad stuff just to have it put there is another issue.)
 * Ok, so transwiki counts as delete. If you say so. Watch what happens on vfu when you try that O:-) I'll just point your way ;-) Kim Bruning 20:24, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
 * It's not just me who says so, it's clearly stated in the guidelines, and I honestly believe that's what people intend when they vote that way. Do you really think when someone votes "transwiki to wikibooks" on "How to Fill a Waterbed" that they want to keep it in wikipedia as well? BJAODN is certainly a delete vote. Not only does the D give it away, but so do the B, the J and the N (the A and the O? eh...not so much). We don't keep "bad" things in wikipedia, nor "jokes" (okay we have an article on Lightbulb joke and some others, but those are about jokes, mostly, and there are few of them), nor "nonsense", which is even a speedy criterion. I would challenge you to find anyone who has voted BJAODN who wanted the said article kept in the articlespace as well. If you like we can try to put together an informal poll or just ask people what they mean when they cast those votes. -R. fiend 22:11, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
 * As for your offer, well, if you're serious I might take you up on it. I certainly didn't want to have to hassle an admin every time I needed a consensused VfD article deleted, but if you're volunteering and promising not to second guess me then so be it. Though it would probably be easier to nominate me for adminship, then I wouldn't have to hassle you at all. I won't hold my breath though. -R. fiend 17:12, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
 * You're not hassling, and I won't second guess you, though I might cover your rear if something blows up *too* spectacularly in your face, I don't want a Tony Sidaway style rfc against you! If you can handle it, and pass the other RFA criteria, I'd nominate you for admin (duh). Criteria are 1500 edits, 3 months, can handle conflict, and understands WP:TRI. If you do this vfd stint but don't yet pass the criteria, you can come back to me anytime as soon as you do and I shall nominate. :-) (the vfd stint in itself is like a distinguishing action, which will get you past RfA more easily :-) ) Kim Bruning 20:24, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
 * I'm certainly not intimidated by the criteria, though I imagine I would get some oppose votes. You may have noticed that I at times tend to get into loooong arguments, but I don't think that violates don't be a dick or any of the other policies. I'm just glad "don't be a snide bastard" isn't included. -R. fiend 22:11, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

Whatever you think, the community has spoken and found that there is no case to answer here. Others who have closed on VfD and elsewhere have acknowledged that, while closers may differ on specific cases, there is no suggestion that my actions constitute an abuse of VfD. Many have expressed outright dismay and repugnance--which I share--at the bringing of this case.

On BJAODN, look it up yourself. In the Guide to VfD the description is "Delete and submit to Bad Jokes and Other Deleted Nonsense, deleting the resultant redirect". The only Mediawiki operation that creates a redirect is a move. While this ambiguity exists, I will not count a BJAODN as a delete vote.

You will be pleased to hear that I have changed my closing practice as a result of this RfC:
 * 1) I will no longer use the term "no consensus" in wording the result.  I will declare a keep unless I declare a delete or transwiki.
 * 2) Having gained some experience, and thought it through, I am going to take a much more critical view of deletion rationales.  Starting today, I reserve the right to reject votes in favor of difficult to reverse operations, if I have good evidence that they are based on a position of ignorance rather than diligent and honest research.

Today, for the first time, I rejected delete votes based on ignorance--in the case of Lethal bizzle, a British rapper with a top twenty single and an appearance at Live 8, Edinburgh under his belt. I'm doing pro-active closes from now on. Deal with it. --Tony Sidaway Talk 19:51, 4 August 2005 (UTC)


 * I still think your refusal to count a BJAODN vote as a delete is ridiculous. It says "delete" right there. Perhaps an admin should take an Ed Poor style action and delete BJAODN, so people would be forced to make a less "ambiguous" vote of "delete". Also, just out of curiosity, is there any circumstance in which you'd ever reject a keep vote out of ignorance? -R. fiend 22:11, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

The heart of the problem
I think when it comes right down to it is that this RfC makes it very clear that the outcome of a VfD will greatly depend on who closes it. This should not be the case. After the voting and discussion are over, there should be little variation no matter who the closer is. Obviously we allow admins to exercise judgement, but the inconsistency level is out of hand.

As for Tony Sidaway, I think the greatest problem is that while the closer of a VfD should look for a consensus, and seek common ground among the voters, Tony seems to try to avoid consensus in any direction like the plague. My initial sarcastic comment was meant as a joke, but the more I look, it more it seems so close that what Tony is actually doing. Rather than making any attempt to settle the matter in a way that can be agreed on, he has at times taken an approach that pleases no one but himself (and maybe not even himself, I don't know). He may argue that his hands are tied by "policy", but the fact is no other admin has an RfC such as this; he is clearly doing something different. His division of what are all votes to delete into various separate categories defies common sense. Kim Bruning's acrobatics in calling clearly stated delete votes "don't deletes", saying closers don't close VfDs, and saying deletion must wait for transwikiing (but the closer sure as hell isn't going to do it) even if that wait is forever, further obfuscate the matter. Sure, "when in doubt, don't delete", but why does Tony seem to have so much more doubt than so many? -R. fiend 04:58, 4 August 2005 (UTC)


 * That's not aerobatics, you doofus. When's the last time you did VfD closings? Sheesh! Anyway, Tony Sidaway is one of the most experienced editors on wikipedia, if he can't do it to peoples satisfaction, then who can? Kim Bruning 08:54, 4 August 2005 (UTC) Note that you don't need to be an admin to close vfd votes, (though I can't in good conscience say "please help out", seeing this rfc. :-/ )


 * Well, retard (since we seem to be in the name-calling business now), I think if this VfD makes one thing clear it's that Tony cannot do VfD closings to everyone's satisfaction. Sure, I could close VfDs, but I'd have to confine myself to keeps, and those are the one thing Tony does handle quite well, actually. If I'm going to take my time doing them I'd rather be able not to have to be so selective in which ones I can handle. If I were to close VfDs I would actually like to close them, rather than just box them up. the latter seems just pointless. -R. fiend 12:39, 4 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Good tradition, you um, (*thinks up insult quick*) imbecil! ;-) Hmmm, well I do suggest you take up doing vfd closings, and yes you can even close a vote and mark as delete. Should be easy enough to get an admin to do the actual deletion . (I have admin privs. so you can ask me, for instance. I'll just do as you say, you'll have to deal with the raging hordes at WP:VFU yourself ;-) ) I suggest you try some and get a feel for it. It's a lot easier to understand what I'm saying after you've puzzeled through 100 vfds or so. Just remember that the default is always to keep, or you'll risk removing valuable data from the encyclopedia, without intending to do so. Tony Sidaway mostly does the trickier vfds that people leave behind after 2 weeks or so, hence him having to apply some judgement. Kim Bruning 13:15, 4 August 2005 (UTC)


 * I think this RfC is more or less done now, but I wanted to add a comment here tangentially, you, er... (insult). This is laudable, but restricted by Wikpedia:Deletion process to "near unanimous" debates of which there are fairly few that give a keep/merge/redirect. This is presumably for the very purpose of keeping the responsibility off non-admins' shoulders. Since I'm not moved by WP:IAR, I can't close those discussions that are no-consensus, no matter how blatant. So I can't touch 50-50 or 60-40 debates (even though they will obviously be kept/merged/redirected), and have little responsibility on my shoulders. As to boxing up deletion discussions, well, that seems a bit neither-here-nor-there since it's fairly widely held (right?) that the responsibility for a deletion rests with the deleting admin, who would necessarily have to check what a non-admin closer had done. Thus, I have not yet drawn any ire despite closing many VfDs. -Splash 23:00, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

A closer should try to determine consensus, but he must never manufacture the appearance of consensus where none exists. I've got an RfC because I do late, relatively controversial closes, the ones that other admins have passed over, and Ambi thinks that one should never declare a keep/no consensus when there are no keep votes. I could go for early closes and only close obvious ones, but then the late ones would remain and the VfD backlog would grow. If we can't make our minds up to delete an article, it probably should not have been listed for deletion in the first place. --Tony Sidaway Talk 09:10, 4 August 2005 (UTC)


 * A closer should try to determine consensus, but he must never manufacture the appearance of consensus where none exists.
 * I wonder if it should be observed beyond actually closing the articles. A lack of consensus to delete frequenlty seems to be represented as consensus to keep in statistics compiled at Watch/schoolwatch/Votes_for_deletion_archive and discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Schools. For example: Votes_for_deletion/Collingwood_School (15 delete, 13 keep) is recorded as "keep" because that is the action to be taken.  Do this for a number of pages, and it is rather like the problem of the Electoral College in the United States.  A divided opinion appears nearly unanimous because of the way it is segmented into smaller "winner takes all" contests.  While the argument has been carefully worded in terms of tabulating outcomes, it is easy to get the impression from the way the statistics have been compiled that there is near unanimity in the opinion that the articles be kept, when in fact what it means is that there is some consistency in the outcomes.


 * If we can't make our minds up to delete an article, it probably should not have been listed for deletion in the first place.
 * Especially in cases where the decision turns out to be rather evenly split, how is one to know this before listing it? If we knew the outcome before they were listed, there would be no need to discuss or vote.
 * --Tabor 19:35, 4 August 2005 (UTC)


 * You seem to be reading somewhat more into Watch/schoolwatch/Votes for deletion archive than is actually present. 15 delete, 13 keep is a very strong keep, nobody would delete on that basis.  There is a consensus to keep schools on Wikipedia, but only in the weak sense that there is a consensus to keep articles for which there is no consensus to delete. Nevertheless we commonly get massive keep votes, for instance some of the most recent closes: Votes_for_deletion/North_Sydney_Girls_High_School, Votes_for_deletion/Kamuzu_Academy, Votes for deletion/Gwinett County Public Schools.  Even a month or so ago such massive keep votes were unheard of; if the trend continues, it may well be that we'll have a strong consensus on schools. --Tony Sidaway Talk  12:55, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

When comments outweigh the vote
I myself can remember a couple of times where I have counted "delete" votes as something else than delete, because of the comment the voter gave while making the vote. In particular I remember In the first one, two of the delete voters wanted part of the content merged so even though "delete" was bolded I counted them as merge votes. In the second one I didn't even bother counting the votes, I just saw that a few people wanted this transwikied, that many of the delete votes voted delete because they thought it didn't belong in Wikipedia (some even hinted that transwiki might be an option). It seemed to me that nobody would be upset if I sent those articles off to Wikibooks. I never received any complaints of either of those decisions.
 * Votes for deletion/St Bartholomew's Church, Norwood, Adelaide and
 * Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Events with Muhammad: 1

Finally, I have noticed that Ambi has left, but I would like to mention that when I closed Votes for deletion/Religious persecution by Jews as a "no consensus" keep, she did make this rather harsh comment about my "flawed math" on IZAK's talkpage. Sjakkalle (Check!)  10:14, 4 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Today my first two closes were very good examples of the kind of judgement an administrator has to make.


 * One was an insurance company, and a number of delete voters made their votes conditional on the article having been created by an IP in the state of Florida. Had the IP number proven to be from Florida, it would have placed me in a very awkward position--to make a deletion based on the location of the person who wrote the first draft is patently silly.  To my relief the IP number belonged to a Virginia company.  I advised those in the discussion to concentrate on the content in future.


 * Another was a British rap artist. Quite a lot of delete voters simply threw up their hands and said he wasn't notable.  I did a quick Google and confirmed that he had a hit single in the New Year, entering at number 11, and was one of very few black British artists to appear at Live8 in July.  I disregarded those deletes and warned people to be careful about voting on the basis of personal ignorance. --Tony Sidaway Talk  12:17, 4 August 2005 (UTC)


 * I think the two you are talking about are Votes for deletion/VLSAA and Votes for deletion/Lethal bizzle. Both of those keep results should be perfectly non-controversial anyway. The first one appears to have 5 deletes and 3 keeps, the second has 8 deletes and 5 keeps, counting the anon which is up to the closing admin. Sjakkalle (Check!)  12:41, 4 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Actually it was complicated by some very iffy votes, so it would have been closer than it looks on the above counts. --Tony Sidaway Talk 19:33, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

Stuff inserted into Response section of RfC, which doesn't belong
Carnildo inserted the following into my response yesterday, shortly after being blocked for vandalism by me and then unblocked by another admin who I hope is beginning to regret it. Carnildo must have known that the Response section is intended for me, and that his insertion would mislead others into thinking that the incorrect 85% estimate was mine. I think it would be difficult to defend a charge of malicious vandalism in this case.

Because the case was not presented in evidence, it doesn't belong in the Response section, so I'm moving it here.

I have struck out his misrepresentation and replaced it with the explanation that, Carnildo knows, I have already given here and on WP:ANI. --Tony Sidaway Talk 19:33, 4 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Savoir-faire
 * 3 transwiki-and-delete, 3 delete, 1 keep, and 1 "we don't want it" from wikibooks. Closed as "no consensus" (85% delete) Vandalism of response section by Carnildo struck out.
 * Total of five valid votes for delete/transwiki (one delete discounted because the voter is too new). One anonymous vote was also disregarded. There was one vote for keep and one well argued vote against transwiki. No consensus (71% delete/transwiki). correct description of my thinking in closing this VfD

Patently false allegations
I added this section after R. Fiend made a false and very serious allegation:

I hereby absolutely refute the false, unsupported and malicious allegation by R. Fiend that I count socks and anons selectively "when it suits me."

R. Fiend add this comment to my section:


 * Did you just add this statement above everyone's endorsement? Can you do that? Really, that seems blatantly foul to me. Anyway, here is the VfD is was referring to in general. See the this for discussion of the topic. -R. fiend 15:32, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

I've moved it here because that section is supposed to be for my response to the charges. In reply, I will simply say that I am perfectly entitled to edit the response section. The only foul here was R. Fiend's malicious, false, and damaging allegation. --Tony Sidaway Talk 13:40, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

Arab hacker
The following attempt to start a discussion on my response section has been moved here:


 * Votes for deletion/Arab hacker
 * Tricky one.  (delete vote, 28 July) only had one month experience and 15 edits in article space.   (delete vote, 29 July) only had 5 edits prior to 29 June.  (delete vote, 29 July) made 5 edits prior to 27 July.   (delete vote, 29 July via anon IP but signed) had only 14 edits prior to 23 July and to date has made only 13 edits in article space.   (delete vote, 16 July) has voted in literally thousands of VfDs, but has fewer than 100 article space edits, about a score of which are insertion of VfD tags.  Cuervo (merge vote, 15 July) just about scrapes home.   (merge vote, 14 July) had no edits prior to 27 June.  (merge vote, 14 July) had 7 votes prior to 21 June.   That leaves,  and , for delete and  for merge.  I could have justifiably called delete here on what I consider to be a borderline consensus, but chose to let it slip because of the large proportion of questionable votes.  If it needs to be deleted it will be deleted in good time, on votes by people known to the community and without the taint of impropriety that this would have had. --Tony Sidaway Talk  16:13, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
 * This article has since been re-written (by me the nominator no less, and doesn't really constitute a good example). No good admin would delete an article after improvements had been made and no new votes had been allowed to come in. Harro5 08:05, August 6, 2005 (UTC)

It's been listed for deletion again, by Firebug. --Tony Sidaway Talk 14:34, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

We're all world famous. Can we have our Wikipedia vanity articles now?

 * Wikipedia Signpost, 08-Aug-2005. Deletion of Votes for deletion shocks system --Tony Sidaway Talk 14:18, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

Texture's revised outside opinion
As a result of a discussion on Wikipedia talk:Votes for deletion/Religious persecution by Jews, Texture has written the following:

''I have had to change my opinion about Mr. Sidway as a result of a recent discussion with him over his new decision to make all VfD results "binary" in nature. He has decided that, as a result of this RfC, all future VfD results will be either "Keep" or "Delete", even if there are no "Keep" votes. He is dropping "no consensus" as a valid result.''

''Despite my earlier support for him at this RfC and my ealier respect for his opinion of "no consensus", I have come to realize that he is now acting out of spite against his detractors. To toss out any acknowledgement of "no consensus" is to disregard the policy of consensus.''

I have stopped short of endorsing this RfC because it does not address the problem I now see in Mr. Sidaway's VfD closures.


 * I cannot agree that there is any taint of spite about my actions. They constitute a more strict interpretation of policy than I have adhered to hitherto.  The VfD guide is clear that an article is kept when there is no consensus.  Thus the results that I had previously called as "no consensus" were de facto keeps, and my new practise is intended to emphasize this and leave absolutely no room for doubt in the mind of those reading a VfD close, that the article is to be kept.  This is not a place where nuances are useful.  Either there is a consensus, or there is not.  If there is not, I will call a keep.


 * Far from making VfD closes binary in nature, I am simply changing the wording of my VfD closes to emphasize that this is what they are as a matter of policy: a decision on whether to keep or delete an article.


 * Despite my giving a full and complete explanation of this motivation, Texture has apparently made up his mind that this is an act taken out of spite. But  since more than 20 people had endorsed my response and only 2 (in addition to the disputants) had endorsed the RfC at the time I made the change, I wish to point out that there can be no visible justification for the claim that spite could be a plausible motivation. And I reiterate that no spite was involved; solely the wish to clarify that keeps are not arbitrary decisions by closers but are required by policy in cases where there is no consensus. --Tony Sidaway Talk  18:06, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

Splash writes: " It is inconsistent with the principle of "consensus" to suggest that there is no such thing as "no consensus"."

I agree completely. My change in calls does not imply that there is no such thing as no consensus, but rather emphasizes the fact that, if there is no consensus, an article is to be kept. --Tony Sidaway Talk 18:21, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

Response regarding Spite
I used the word "spite" (with a link to WP:POINT) because it became clear to me that Mr. Sidaway was chosing his "binary" approach only to make a point in response to claims made against him. Trying to prove something by making an exaggerated point in response to detractors is what I called "spite".

I did this in response to Mr. Sidaway's statements:


 * "Well as a result of the RfC I've rethought calling no consensus. In future I'm emphasizing the binary nature of the decision by calling a keep unless there is a consensus to delete."


 * "So no I'm not being spiteful, I can afford to be magnanimous."

(bold emphasis is mine)
 * "The fact that nobody voted to keep is supremely irrelevant--people thought it shouldn't be kept but they couldn't agree what to do, so I won't pretend that they did." 

The last quote bothers me the most since it says that people thought it shouldn't be kept but he will use his "binary" decision to call it a keep. If he kept with his original convetion of "no consensus" it would have retained my respect as his opinion even when I disagreed. Calling it a keep in this situation is wrong, imo.

(Please note that nowhere did Mr. Sidaway vary from a civil discourse. It even began with each of us agreeing, in part, with the other.) -  T&#949;x  &#964;  ur&#949;  19:09, 11 August 2005 (UTC)


 * I'm afraid I cannot agree with this reading. Other closers call keep when there is apparently no consensus.  A brief search shows:


 * User:Malathion
 * Votes_for_deletion/Gaw
 * Votes_for_deletion/Palm_m130
 * User:Dmcdevit
 * Votes_for_deletion/Authentic_Matthew
 * User:Sjakkalle
 * Votes_for_deletion/Religious_persecution_by_Muslims
 * Votes_for_deletion/List_of_purported_cults/2


 * I am afraid that my practise of calling "no consensus" has sometimes been misconstrued in a manner inconsistent with policy, therefore I no longer feel that it is safe to do so. The de facto action is keep in such cases, and this will always appear explicitly in the wording of my closes in future. --Tony Sidaway Talk  19:40, 11 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Splash Texture writes: "The last quote bothers me the most since it says that people thought it shouldn't be kept but he will use his "binary" decision to call it a keep."


 * Utterly untrue. I will keep in the case of no consensus because policy explicitly requires me to do so. --Tony Sidaway Talk  19:49, 11 August 2005 (UTC)


 * I'm not Splash. - T&#949;x  &#964;  ur&#949;  19:53, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Fixed. --Tony Sidaway Talk 22:36, 11 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Just so you know - I fully expect you to "keep in the case of no consensus". What I think is wrong is your stated intention to "happily close the discussion saying "keep"" when there are no votes to keep.  I think that is wrong and that it should be closed as "no consensus" if that is your opinion.


 * Your stated goal of following policy to the exact letter and quieting your critics by not saying the words "no consensus" fails if you say "keep" when no one voted keep. The policies are telling administrators not to delete when unsure but no where does it tell you to incorrectly report a vote result as "keep" when no one voted to keep the article. -  T&#949;x  &#964;  ur&#949;  23:06, 11 August 2005 (UTC)


 * The policy says I should keep if there is no consensus. I am not incorrectly reporting the result of a VfD if the result is to keep the article and I say that the result is to keep the article.  This applies even when no voters actually say "keep", if they can't reach a consensus on what should be done.


 * The policy says you should not delete. It says nothing about reporting the word "keep" when no one else used it.  It exactly says "Otherwise the page remains."  Nothing about reporting the word "keep" and it says much about "consensus" if you want to be exact according to policy. -  T&#949;x  &#964;  ur&#949;  23:35, 11 August 2005 (UTC)


 * The purpose isn't to quieten critics, but to apply policy more faithfully and with more clarity; then if there are critics it is clear that their problem is with the policy that says keep if there is no consensus. They should accordingly address the policy, not the person who interprets it faithfully and says keep when the result is that the article is to be kept. --Tony Sidaway Talk  23:21, 11 August 2005 (UTC)


 * I only say that because of your words: "Well as a result of the RfC I've rethought calling no consensus." You make many arguments saying that people will criticize you if you say "no consensus" so you plan to do this "binary" thing. -  T&#949;x  &#964;  ur&#949;  23:35, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

Not at all. In fact a search shows that the character string "criti" does not appear anywhere on that talk page. These are the precise words that I used:


 * "Well as a result of the RfC I've rethought calling no consensus. In future I'm emphasizing the binary nature of the decision by calling a keep unless there is a consensus to delete. The "no consensus" was really just a modifier, like the "not proven" verdict in Scottish law, and as such is easily misread as "not sure." If I call keep it's unambiguously because and only because there isn't a consensus to delete." --Revision as of 17:17, 9 August 2005

You can see that I don't say anything about people criticising me, I don't claim that I "plan to do this "binary" thing" or anything of the sort. VfD is a binary process, this is current policy. There are two basic outcomes: either we delete the article or we do not. Even when we called "no consensus" this was shorthand for "keep, because policy says we keep when, as now, there is no consensus on what to do." It is because this fact doesn't appear to be widely understood that I now move to a far less ambiguous call.

You've obviously completely misread my statements, which may account for your belief (which I find extremely puzzling otherwise) that I am acting not out of a wish for clarity but out of spite. --Tony Sidaway Talk 02:24, 12 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Actually, you are forgetting your statements. I quoted from this page for "as a result of this RfP".  You talked about avoiding criticisms on Wikipedia talk:Votes for deletion/Religious persecution by Jews (Where you declared the "binary" approach): "To me it's obvious that the only way to clarity is my current path--to call a keep a keep, especially when it is explicitly prescribed as a keep by policy. It is, in fact, my only defense against further attacks on me, to be absolutely clear that my actions are unequivocally directly derived from policy."


 * And, as I said above, this approach will not conform to policy. Policy does not direct you to announce a decision of "keep" but only tells you "Otherwise the page remains."  The policy makes many references to "consensus" which you now plan to avoid in the "binary" approach.  There is no reference to a result of "keep" in policy.  (The only thing you can really say is that there is no consensus to delete.  It is a deletion policy, not a keep policy, with a default to not delete.) -  T&#949;x  &#964;  ur&#949;  17:18, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

No, you're forgetting what you said further up in the page, and you're not really supporting your argument. Let me explain.

You're right that I do feel that adhering closely to policy is the only way to avoid further attacks by misguided individuals. However your argument is that I "make many arguments saying that people will criticize you if you say "no consensus" so you plan to do this "binary" thing."

You claim that it is I who "declared the binary approach" and yet you do not present a case against the common interpretation of VfD as a binary forum (indeed this RfC, which has been utterly rejected, was the first intimation that I had that there existed people who so misunderstood policy as to believe that Votes for deletion was in any real sense a forum where an administrator was expected to be bound by non-consensus opinions expressed by those involved in a discussion.

I can see how your belief that the binary approach (delete or not) is new may cause you some problems. Anyone who believes, for instance, that VfD is a forum in which a closing administrator has to merge an article if only 50% of editors suggested merge is going to have difficulty understanding someone who has read, and takes as a very seriously, the part of the policy in which it is made clear that an article is to be kept when there is no consensus.

You say: "And, as I said above, this approach will not conform to policy."

I say: you're wrong. See below.

You say: "It is a deletion policy, not a keep policy, with a default to not delete"

I say: you're wrong. "If a VFD discussion yields no consensus, the decision defaults to keep the article." The policy only does not preclude merging, redirecting and whatnot--and as you will observe, where I have found a consensus to merge I have merged and enforced it to the point of fighting a VFU.

The deletion policy certainly does not mandate any act for which no consensus exists; such a rule would be as silly as this RfC was. --Tony Sidaway Talk 01:38, 14 August 2005 (UTC)


 * In all this you do not address your original "binary" approach's problem. I pointed this out but I do not see a direct response.  However, you are actually moving towards the actual policy when you change from your original "binary" approach (from "delete" or "keep") to this latest version above where you now say "delete or not".  Now you have said what is in policy.  Rather than your original "binary" approach, are you now going to give results as "consensus to delete" or "no consensus to delete"?  ("delete or not" as you say in this latest response.) If so, we are now in agreement on what policy says and what admins should do. -  T&#949;x  &#964;  ur&#949;  04:55, 14 August 2005 (UTC)


 * (For anyone who hasn't been following the conversation, this means that a VfD that has no "keep" votes will never be called a "keep" result according to deletion policy. It can only be called, according to the admin's interpretation, "no consensus to delete" (or "not delete"). This prevents any confusion over calling a VfD with no "keep" votes as a "keep" decision, which it is not.) -  T&#949;x  &#964;  ur&#949;  05:01, 14 August 2005 (UTC)


 * No, you're still trying to see a difference where there is none. Policy says to keep where there is no consensus, not (as you put it) to not delete. Even if there were a difference between keep and do not delete which I fail to see, policy say to keep. It is policy which is binary.  You're mistaken if you believe that this is some new departure. ""If a VFD discussion yields no consensus, the decision defaults to keep the article."" It is precisely because the default is keep that I call a no consensus result for what it is according to policy: a keep. --Tony Sidaway Talk  16:17, 14 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Please read the Deletion Policy. The word "keep" appears twice and only regarding user votes, not regarding outcome.  Specifically, focus on the Decision Policy where the results determination is discussed.  It does not talk about "keep" as a result but talks about "consensus" or "no consensus".  You are making up new policy when you decide that "keep" is a valid result. It is not a result of the vote but merely an action by the administrator.  I am saying that the admin, when tallying votes, should follow policy and report consensus to delete or no consensus to delete.  Per policy.  Your claim to explicitely follow policy by reporting results as "keep" fails to appear anywhere on the policy itself. -  T&#949;x  &#964;  ur&#949;  17:20, 14 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Please clarify one thing. Are you chaing your "binary" policy from the original "delete" or "keep" to a "consensus to delete" or "no consensus to delete"?  If so, we are done arguing. Your words have been chaning.  This last one says "I call a no consensus".  Before you indicated that you would not use this as a result instead calling it "keep".  If you are now going to accurately call it "no consensus" then we now agree on how a result should be reported by an admin.  -  T&#949;x  &#964;  ur&#949;  17:23, 14 August 2005 (UTC)


 * I'm interested as to the insistence on a binary process where the participants in the process clearly don't vote in a binary manner. The mere fact that there is the option of "keep/delete/merge/redirect/delete+recreate redirect" means that those creating the process don't see it as binary. The letter of the policy becomes significantly less important when those operating under the policy routinely expand upon it: outcome is more important than means. You have endorsements for your binary outcome interpretation, but by no means a consensus and the other suggestions have endorsements aplenty too. Smoddy's "least conservative" view is perhaps better phrased as "least interpretive". To conclude that anything which doesn't say "keep" means keep is to (at best) second-guess what the voter meant. This RfC effectively rests on what to do about VfDs that get a small minority of keep votes. You said somewhere that you don't have the time to do merges and redirects and that's a valid point, but it would be better to instead allow the community to prevail and leave those VfDs for someone else, wouldn't it? As to the examples which are things like "4m-4r-0d-0k" well, I agree that the only thing to do in that case is declare a no consensus keep. The wording matters, since consensus does too. -Splash 16:51, 14 August 2005 (UTC)


 * My problem with Smoddy's proposal is that it necessarily involves substantially more interpretation than I feel is appropriate. He says:


 * I would define the result of a "no consensus" as being "do the most conservative option". So merge/delete becomes merge, redirect/delete becomes redirect.


 * That doesn't make sense to me. If half of those in the discussion say merge and half say delete, I don't understand how merge can be interpreted as "most conservative" because it is clearly an act of interpretation and gives an outcome for which there is no consensus.  The most conservative thing any closing administrator can do in such a case is to just remove the VfD tag, and then if the editors want to merge they can merge.  Not only that, this is what policy says we must do in cases where there is no consensus.


 * You say: " To conclude that anything which doesn't say "keep" means keep is to (at best) second-guess what the voter meant." Indeed it would be. However this is not why I keep where there is no consensus. I keep where there is no consensus because the policy says that I should keep where there is no consensus.  Even if there is not one single keep vote I have to keep, because this, and not ruling a merge for which there is no consensus, is the most conservative thing to do. No interpretation is involved, it's just a matter of policy to default to keep where there is no consensus. --Tony Sidaway Talk  17:25, 14 August 2005 (UTC)


 * I've been through this a number of times and I don't think there is more to be said. As I have discussed this matter I have become more convinced that my interpretation of policy is correct, and that those who support Smoddy's proposal have a somewhat flawed definition of the word "conservative".  I think that those who oppose my interpretation should openly campaign to have policy changed (or refined, if you prefer) to conform with their view--to me quite insupportable--that a merge should be called where there is no consensus to merge.  In all honesty I cannot find any way in which that view can be squared with current Wikipedia policy.  That, I would like to think, is my last word on this subject. --Tony Sidaway Talk  17:33, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

Separate discussion regarding votes to "delete"
Separate from the way no consensus is reported above, I will dispute that a vote where every single person voting said "delete" is closed without deleting the article. If 6 people vote "delete", 2 people vote "merge and delete", and 2 people say "delete and redirect", I believe the article should be deleted. Yes, it was 6 votes (that said no more than the single word "delete") out of 10 but clearly 100% to delete. - T&#949;x  &#964;  ur&#949;  23:06, 11 August 2005 (UTC)


 * I would probably agree with you there. Or else I might perform a history merge and delete the redirect, and then paste in the merged text. It depends on how much material there is to merge, and how persuasive the arguments for merge were. --Tony Sidaway Talk  23:23, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

Reply to User:Geogre
Geogre writes:


 * At one point, Tony tossed in (WP:AN/I) "Does everyone agree with 80% being consensus" and "Should results be binary." That's not the place for such a thing.  What I have been aggravated about is that his decisions were a change of policy. The fact that the policy wasn't written up with strict laws that could cover every possible interpretation is in keeping with the old practice of the site.  We have always avoided "lawyering" the policies to cover every potential abuse, because our administrators are supposed to be sensitive, trustworthy, and non-advocate in these matters.  If one has decided, contrary to previous practice that lack of consensus is a consensus to keep without further action (referring to clean up, putting on a merge tag, renomination to clarify the vote), then you should see community input.  It is the worst of things to invoke "consensus" when taking VfD tags off but to say that you don't need consensus for this invocation because the rules weren't set up in such a way as to prevent you.  By the way: why do I not close VfD's?  Because I know that I would not be fair about it.  I think more should be deleted, and I think I might abuse the process.  Others should know of themselves their own disagreement with community but, apparently, believe it is a reason to own the VfD clearance process.

I have the following responses:
 * 1) I do not recollect saying the words Geogre attributes to me in WP:ANI. In particular, I have not suggested, nor is it my opinion, that everyone agrees that "80% is a consensus". I have searched my comments on WP:ANI as far back as late June and I find no sign of this, nor of my asking the question "should results be binary" or anything of a similar vein.  I think he has his facts wrong, but I welcome clarification, particularly in the form of a diff.
 * 2) Geogre also says that he sees my interpretation as a change of policy. I utterly and completely refute this. As far as I am aware what I am doing is what the policy says, and if I found out that it didn't I'd change the way I do things.  I know of no other interpretation of policy that I personally would be satisfied is a more faithful interpretation of the expressed will of Wikipedia.
 * 3) George says "If one has decided, contrary to previous practice that lack of consensus is a consensus to keep without further action (referring to clean up, putting on a merge tag, renomination to clarify the vote), then you should see community input."  What the policy says is that no consensus implies a keep, but does not preclude other action.  In addition, cleanup, merges and renominations (all of which I do often perform in closing) are not the sole remit of the closing administrator.  As I put it: I am not your daddy.  If you think an article should be merged, cleaned up or whatnot, do it.  As a closing administrator I will never perform such actions as part of closing 'unless there is a consensus for those particular actions.  If I perform them after a close I make it plain that I am being bold. --Tony Sidaway Talk  23:13, 11 August 2005 (UTC)


 * I don't know what you may have said on WP:ANI but on this page here is your reasoning of consensus:
 * "Actually I have said that I will start contemplating consensus if I see 70%. I will nearly always count a consensus over 75%. 75% by itself is what I consider to be just on the edge. Count yourself lucky, I may just change my mind and go for the 80%, no appeals, that the bureaucrats use, and there is a lot to be said for 90%."
 * Bolding is mine. You have said repeatedly that you do not see consensus at less than 70% and not less than 75% on contentious issues. (Why do some issues have to have a higher percentage than others to mean consensus?  It leads me to think of some being "more equal than others")) -  T&#949;x  &#964;  ur&#949;  23:35, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

Yes, it's just possible that Geogre read that snarky remark here and thought that I was asking if there was universal support for an 80% figure. Actually I commonly treat 75% as a borderline and prefer to see higher than that. In between 70% and 80% I sometimes have to exercise my judgement on the arguments. A deletion call this close is necessarily contentious--clear deletes have no problem getting near unanimity. And my closing criteria have evolved with experience and discussion. --Tony Sidaway Talk 02:32, 12 August 2005 (UTC)


 * If experience and discussion guides your decision, will you take the current experience and discussion which, even by your supporters, says that you should reevaluate your decisions? Or, are you planning to stay unaltered by all this negative feedback and not change the way you make decisions?  The "binary" approach is not getting support and the basis you claim does not exist in policy.  Will you use this discussion and the experience of being told by many that "this is not an abuse but we don't agree with all the decisions" to change your closing criteria? -  T&#949;x  &#964;  ur&#949;  17:32, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

I think you should probably take a closer look at the RfC page. You may by missing something. --Tony Sidaway Talk 01:49, 14 August 2005 (UTC)


 * The binary approach to VfD is very obviously very biased towards inclusionism, encourages rules lawyering and is very contrary to the idea of respecting proper consensus. Please note that there isn't anything even approaching your own definition for consensus about this. / Peter Isotalo 10:39, 14 August 2005 (UTC)


 * I agree that Wikipedia policy is strongly biased towards keep; I'm convinced that this is probably the right balance of policy, but you may want to campaign to have the policy changed so as to be less biased in favor of keep.


 * I don't follow your claim about rules lawyering, and refute utterly the suggestion that my behavior is at odds with my definition of consensus: it follows directly from it. Policy is to keep where there is no consensus, therefore I keep where there is no consensus. --Tony Sidaway Talk  16:12, 14 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Tony, please clarify for us which of the following is your current definition of appropriate vote results an admin should report:


 * "Delete"
 * "Keep"


 * or


 * "Consensus to delete"
 * "No consensus to delete"


 * This answer will clear things up on what you have decided to report as VfD vote results. - T&#949;x  &#964;  ur&#949;  17:26, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

How an admin reports his results is a matter of personal taste. I currently report a keep if the result is to keep, a delete if the result is to delete, a merge if the result is to merge, a redirect without merge if the result is to redirect without merge, and so on. I think this is the clearest and most unambiguous way to call a result. --Tony Sidaway Talk 03:49, 15 August 2005 (UTC)


 * How an admin reports is a matter of policy, not "personal taste". I thought you wanted to follow policy?  There is plenty about reporting results in the policy but nothing about "keep" - only about "consensus" and "no consensus". -  T&#949;x  &#964;  ur&#949;  12:55, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

If you can convince me that your statement is true then I'll change my practice and recommend to all other VfD closers that they also modify their closing calls. --Tony Sidaway Talk 10:37, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

I might say that when I close debates, it is quite binary: KEEP or DELETE. That is the administririal decision. The "no consensus" flag does not in any way alter the keep result, but I personally mention it when there is less than 50% support for an outright keep, just to have make it clear that I haven't been ignoring the delete votes. When I close a debate as MERGE or REDIRECT, what I am really doing is closing the debate as a keep, and than, as an added service, make a fully reversible action as a regular editor when I perform the merge and redirect. The one result which does not fit neatly into the keep or delete binary system is the transwiki result. Whether an administrator chooses to say keep or no consensus on debates where there are, say 8 deletes and 6 keeps, is really a matter of style. But oh yes, I always count BJAODN in the "delete" camp, the GFDL is technically violated when merging the content into BJAODN without saving the history, but it has been reasoned that anyone pursuing ownership for BJAODN content will be laughed out of court. Sjakkalle (Check!)  10:48, 16 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Sjakkalle, are you only recently adding "(no cosensus)" or have you always added that behind a "keep" result when you close a VfD? That easily conveys that the result is "no consensus" and that you kept the article as a result.  Perhaps that is a good compromise so that a minority of "keeps" is reported as "no consensus" even when the article is kept for a lack of sufficient delete votes. -  T&#949;x  &#964;  ur&#949;  17:02, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

I often say no consensus when I call keep. The only change is that I used quite often to call no consensus and assume that everybody knew that the result was keep. It has become evident to me that this isn't the case, so I now call it keep. This is all that has changed. --Tony Sidaway Talk 23:56, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

Tony Sidaway: "VFU doesn't decide the disposition of speedies."
It has been pointed out to me that Tony said "VFU doesn't decide the disposition of speedies." when unblocking someone. Since this is wrong according to Undeletion policy which specifies what actions to perform when undeleting based on whether it was deleted during VfD or speedy deleted, I was wondering what this statement meant. I assume that if he did not know before, he will know now that VfU is for disposition of Speedies as well as VfD and cease any undeletes simply because they were speedy deletions. - T&#949;x  &#964;  ur&#949;  03:29, 15 August 2005 (UTC)


 * VFU is an appeal forum for non-administrators, no more, no less. Quite often an administrator will make a bad speedy call and another administrator (usually me) will revive it and expand.  It doesn't matter how many people vote "keep deleted" on VFU, an article whose status under the deletion policy is disputed (as is the case here) can be taken to VfD and discussed.  The article is now being discussed on VfD and looks to have a good chance of surviving.  The subject is a rather well known porn star who has scores of credits on imdb.  The first version of the article said she was a porn star but the deleting administrator obviously didn't check.  --Tony Sidaway Talk  03:47, 15 August 2005 (UTC)


 * The above is somewhat misleading. The speedy was a one-line stub that said next to nothing about its subject. The VFD is about a later-created substantial article spanning a page and a half. The initial speedy was valid, shouldn't have been taken to VFU and shouldn't require this much discussion. Creating a valid article in the place of a deleted stub is very good, and does not qualify for redeletion (CSD#G4). And doesn't have to be taken to VFD either. Both parties should have backed off from the discussion and simply written something productive. WP:NOT a bureaucracy. Radiant_ &gt;|&lt; 10:10, August 15, 2005 (UTC)

It's simply incorrect that the stub said "next to nothing about its subject." It said she was a porn star with 65,000 google hits. No more information is needed to produce an easily extended stub (as can be seen from the fact that upon resurrection I was able to produce a good stub within minutes).

Disputed speedies aren't taken to VFU, they're resurrected--indeed Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy. On two occasions editors independently decided to take it to VfD as was their right, so I don't quite understand what Radiant!'s point is there. Is there some hitherto unknown problem with VfD discussions? This is becoming quite surreal. --Tony Sidaway Talk 10:14, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
 * You are wrong. The first version of the article was only nine words, and didn't mention google hits. Consensus on VFU was to keep that deleted, so saying that it said "next to nothing about its subject" is a reasonable approximation and not "simply incorrect".
 * If by 'resurrect' you mean 'undelete', you are wrong. Simple undeletion of something that may or may not have been a valid speedy should be taken to VFU. If by 'resurrect' you mean 'write a reasonable stub article (or better) on the same subject', you are correct per CSD#G4. Whether or not the history is then undeleted is not particularly important.
 * My point? That the VFU discussion on that topic is unrelated to the article as it stands now. Radiant_ &gt;|&lt; 11:45, August 16, 2005 (UTC)


 * The discussion of whether or not it is right to undelete the original version is moot. History only undeletions can be made at any time without a discussion (unless the previous content is a copyvio), so if Tony chooses to first undelete, and then immediately expand it, or write an expanded version and then undelete the history behind it, is really an argument I don't think anybody should sweat too much about. Sjakkalle (Check!)  11:51, 16 August 2005 (UTC)


 * He's right that the first version written didn't contain a reference to google hits. Actually it gave the year she entered the business--much more encyclopedic.  Needless to say I'm rather proud of that article, and from here the complaints smack of sour grapes. I have no idea why Radiant! thinks I have to go trailing to VFU everytime I want to correct a bad speedy. --Tony Sidaway Talk  06:24, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

Tony, your original response was "It doesn't matter how many people vote "keep deleted" on VFU, an article whose status under the deletion policy is disputed (as is the case here) can be taken to VfD and discussed." This is not Wikipedia policy.  If you think it is can you point me to it? - T&#949;x  &#964;  ur&#949;  17:06, 17 August 2005 (UTC)


 * I absolutely refute the suggestion that VFU can prevent restoration of a bad speedy. At the most it can recommend its restoration.  VfD is the venue for decisions on deletion. --Tony Sidaway Talk  23:52, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

Comment on "Outside view by Zoe"
Zoe writes:

- deleted the deletedpage template, undeleted and unprotected the Monique deMoan article despite consensus on Votes for Undeletion to keep the article deleted. He did so without any discussion with any of the participants in the dispute and without discussion anywhere else. Zoe 00:13, August 15, 2005 (UTC)

He also unblocked, who was recreating the article in question who had been blocked for the behavior. Tony Sidaway did not discuss this unblocking with anyone. Zoe 00:19, August 15, 2005 (UTC)


 * After doing some research on Monique DeMoan, I resurrected the valid stub and extended the article, unblocking its author who had been wrongly blocked. It doesn't matter how many people vote "keep deleted" on VFU, the forum for deciding whether to delete an article is VfD. The extended Monique DeMoan article is now a perfectly good article and seemed to be heading for keep on both occasions when Radiant! prematurely ended VfDs called by two separate editors.


 * VFU seems to be getting a little out of hand, being used by some people to justify deletion rather than to discuss the possibility of undeletion. I shall in future recommend to all editors who dispute a speedy that they should put their proposal to an administrator who will be able to give a second opinion and may resurrect the article. This would be a lightweight and uncontentious way of correcting bad speedies. --Tony Sidaway Talk 10:14, 16 August 2005 (UTC)


 * That is WP:POINT once more. If you disagree with WP:VFU you should discuss that and amend it - not offer to unilaterally bypass it. Radiant_ &gt;|&lt; 11:46, August 16, 2005 (UTC)


 * Again, if Tony decides to make a real article at Monique deMoan, he is free to make a history-only undeletion below it. There is no "bypassing" of VFU there. Sjakkalle (Check!)  12:39, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
 * The particular action that Tony took was this diff (note the edit summary, too). That is a reversion to exactly the version that VfU was then unanimous on keeping deleted. It should not have been undeleted, whether or not a particular admin 'likes' VfU or not. If Tony had dropped his new article in over the unprotected page rather than just reverting to a VfU-upheld speedy, I don't suppose there would have been much more of a fight. It'd have gone to VfD, and that would have been all. -Splash 16:44, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

This has nothing to do with WP:POINT. It's just me undeleting an article and expanding it instead of getting bogged down in an irrelevant discussion on VFU. Of course the article should have been undeleted, it correctly described the subject and asserted notability, so it shouldn't have been speedied in the first place. Without that excellent, concise stub I would not have known who Monique DeMoan was and would not have written the article on her that is currently sailing through VfD. VFU is useful when it helps to save wrongly deleted articles, but trying to turn it into a way of bypassing VfD, by trying to use it to reinforce speedies, isn't going to get you anywhere. --Tony Sidaway Talk 22:07, 16 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Concur, appears to be WP:POINT. Choosing the path of maximum resistance is hard to explain otherwise.   brenneman <sup style="color:#2f4f4f;">(t) <sup style="color:#2f4f4f;">(c)  23:59, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Concur. Mr. Sidaway is going outside of process and against policy by trying to make a point. He should work to change the policy if he feels it needs to be changed to his view. -  T&#949;x  &#964;  ur&#949;  00:34, 17 August 2005 (UTC)


 * I am aware of no policy against undeletion in the case of a disputed speedy deletion. I do not undelete to make a point but to correct an error. --Tony Sidaway Talk  06:12, 17 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Stop wikilawyering. If an admin deletes an article in good WP:FAITH and you wish it undeleted, then you have a disagreement with that user. You should, therefore, talk it out, or get a third opinion, or seek consensus (e.g. on WP:VFU). Not act unilaterally. WP:WORLD. Radiant_ &gt;|&lt; 15:17, August 17, 2005 (UTC)


 * I'll stop doing what I'm doing when you stop falsely accusing me of wikilawyering. There's absolutely nothing wrong with correcting a bad speedy by undeleting and expanding. While I sometimes tell the original sysop that I did this, sometimes I don't.  This isn't a problem since I'm perfectly capable of turning it into a good article on my own. --Tony Sidaway Talk  23:59, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

Zoe also writes:

Tony Sidaway has now undeleted Francesca Easthope despite unanimous keep deleted votes on VfU. It is apparently his policy to decide all VfD and VfU votes on his own, without any interest or concern for the votes or consensus of others. Zoe 05:32, August 17, 2005 (UTC)


 * My purpose in undeleting was to ensure that the article was properly discussed at VfD, and my first act on undeleting was to list it on VfD. This could not be done at VFU because discussion takes place while the article itself is not visible because it is deleted. On undeletion it becomes clear that the article is not speediable by any existing criterion and thus a VfD is necessary--it should never have been speedied. This litany of petty complaints is becoming rather silly.  Editors should note that just because they disagree with my actions does not mean that it is I who am going against the spirit or word of policy. --Tony Sidaway Talk  06:16, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
 * The best way to handle this situation is probably to undelete, then replace the page with the -template and protect the page. Then people can view the article and make a fully informed decision on the VFU debate. Sjakkalle  (Check!)  06:22, 17 August 2005 (UTC)


 * VfD is the correct place to make decisions on whether to delete articles. We don't need to make up yet more instructions (and get consensus for them) about how to do stuff. If something works, do it. --Tony Sidaway Talk  07:55, 17 August 2005 (UTC)


 * The best way to handle situations like this is to have some respect for the decisions of other admins and attempt to work something out with them. I have yet to see any explanation of why the pressure to re-create Francesca Easthope was so urgent that it needed to be handled in this manner.  brenneman <sup style="color:#2f4f4f;">(t) <sup style="color:#2f4f4f;">(c)  07:04, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Of course, if a unanimous VFU consensus declares "keep deleted" the article should remain deleted, the tempUndelete solution is not meant as a way of allowing for undeletion of articles when there is no consensus for it, but to let everyone make a fully informed decision when casting the vote at the VFU debate. Still, there are some cases where even I would argue that the VFU debate is invalid, that the deletion was so obviously out of process that even an armada of "keep deleted" voters should not be able to refute that fact. The saga on "Historical persecution by Jews" for example, is one example of a VFU debate that I regard to be quite invalid at this point. (First ignoring the VFD result, and then have almost half the delete-voters turn up vote "keep deleted" on the VFU debate might be an effective way to circumvent process, but if this is a valid way of getting things deleted it opens a Pandora's box of possibilities.) Sjakkalle (Check!)  07:13, 17 August 2005 (UTC)


 * The most obvious problem with "keep deleted" votes on VFU is that they're usually cast in ignorance of the contents. I cannot believe that VFU is anything more than an appeals forum for people who don't themselves have the ability to undelete.  Administrators can go around deleting stuff and often make mistakes, which other administrators following behind them correct by undeleting.  Cluttering up that process would simply compound the errors made by administrators, one of whom I found today speedying an article about a web forum that should at most have been VfD'd.
 * So VFU is a forum for the "little people", those without the extra buttons. But when one of the "big people" thinks all the "little people" are wrong, that's fine, the "little people" have to learn to live with it. I should put nn-bio at the top of VfU. -Splash 16:23, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
 * The Historical Persecution case is a very interesting one. The discussion was closed with no consensus keep.  Were one to apply the interpretation advanced by some here, the current vote on VFU could actually overrule that on VfD, which would be absurd.  VFU isn't a forum for mandating deletion, it's just an appeals forum for people who want articles undeleted. --Tony Sidaway Talk  07:53, 17 August 2005 (UTC)


 * I have a question I've asked elsewhere, but I'd like to address to Tony Sidaway personally here: If we accept that an article may be mistakenly speedied, we must also accept that it may be mistakenly unspeedied. So, what's GodlikePowersAdmin's recommended course of action when EquallyGodlikePowersAdmin mistakenly restores his speedy? brenneman <sup style="color:#2f4f4f;">(t) <sup style="color:#2f4f4f;">(c)  08:03, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

VfD is best for dealing with such disputes. The reason it exists is to decide whether to delete articles. I don't recognise VFU as a forum for deleting articles, it's only useful for bringing bad deletions to light. --Tony Sidaway Talk 15:51, 17 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Tony, you are wrong. I agree with you that undeleting an out-of-process speedy can be correct, but when a vote for undeletion is already underway, then by undeleting the article before the consensus has formed you are poisoning the well:  you are issuing a slap in the face to everyone who is participating in the consensus-forming process by asserting, in effect, that your personal opinions are more equal than those of others.  As a user, I find this to be a great disincentive to participate in any of the Wikipedia "meta" discussions, for fear that you (and not just you, but any admin) will capriciously set aside the rules because you find them constraining.  Whether it is "legal" for you to disregard the consensus-forming process is beside the point.  It is bad for you to disregard it.  In my opinion, it damages Wikipedia.  Please note that I'm expressing no opinion on the VfD issues that apparently started this RfC, but I find your recent decision to run roughshod over VfU to be upsetting and disheartening.  I urge you to reconsider the high-handed manner in which you are approaching the undeletion of articles currently under discussion by the community.  Nandesuka 05:13, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

Suggestion
My first feeling on viewing the initial RfC was that it was absurd. In response I immediately called a RFAR on myself. It was refused. Some two weeks later I'm still seeing what I view as quite desperate, last-ditch attempts to find something wrong with some aspect of the various things that I do in a good faith attempt to improve Wikipedia. I still find myself inordinately proud of my work. I would therefore apply to arbcom for another RFAR but I'm afraid that they might still reject it.

Therefore I'm going to do this:
 * I am going to remove this RfC from my watchlist and cease reading it.
 * I urge all who still think there is a legitimate problem here to regard this as a unilateral cessation of attempts at dialog, and move on to demand an arbitration case.
 * I will continue to do what I have been doing in the belief that this RfC has overwhelmingly vindicated my actions as an administrator and I have done my best to placate those who have raise what they believe to be legitimate questions about my activities.

Best of luck. --Tony Sidaway Talk 00:07, 18 August 2005 (UTC)


 * I am saddened that Mr. Sidaway refuses to discuss the many problems pointed out in his actions.


 * If you read what he wrote, this is not so much a "refusal to discuss" as a tactical decision. Apparently he feels that the RfC discussion is not going to accomplish anything more -- perhaps because at this stage he would rather "agree to disagree" on any remaining points of contention -- and that the only way to accomplish anything more definitive (if there are remaining points of contention) would be via RFAR, which he has unsuccessfully requested.  Therefore, knowing that his "cessation of attempts at dialog" will look bad, he has given that bone to his detractors to make it easier for them to request an RFAR, which he in fact desires. Steve Summit (talk) 16:04, 25 August 2005 (UTC)


 * The large dissent on this page should make it clear that the RfC is not  "overwhelmingly vindicating" his actions and are instead questioning his reasoning and approach that disregards process and consensus.


 * I instead recommend that Mr. Sidaway alter his view to include himself in those that should follow process and stop unilaterally making decisions that the community is in the process of discussing. (VfU discussions, for example, that Mr. Sidaway chooses to ignore and interrupt by undeleting when the consensus is to keep deleted.) -  T&#949;x  &#964;  ur&#949;  16:57, 24 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Oh for heaven's sake, look at the RfC. The endorsements to the response are overwhelming.  You're plowing a lonely furrow. --Tony Sidaway Talk  02:08, 26 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Please note this is an RfC not an RfE. The comments have been wide-ranging and soundly ignored.  Even the endorsements say you've taken VfD "for a ride".  And this indicates that not only are you unwilling to act on other's advice, you're willing to be duplicitous about it.  brenneman <sup style="color:#2f4f4f;">(t) <sup style="color:#2f4f4f;">(c)  03:56, 26 August 2005 (UTC)


 * I believe that Tony's logic indicates that since there is no 70% majority in the endorsements votes on this RFC, that there is no consensus, and that therefore he can do whatever he wants to make his WP:POINT. Radiant_ &gt;|&lt; 08:55, August 26, 2005 (UTC)

Looking back at the RfC, I'm afraid I see no progress. I'm falsely accused of duplicity by one person and somewhat bafflingly accused of disrupting Wikipedia to make a point by another.

Aaron falsely claims that even my "endorsements say you've taken VfD "for a ride". I cannot help people who are unable to distinguish between the two dozen endorsements to my response and one of the endorsements to an Outside view by Kim Bruning.

It's just become an excuse to launch personal attacks on me because you don't agree with current policy as it is practised by sysops closing VfDs.

Looking at comments in my support here and elsewhere on Wikipedia, it's clear to me that there is no substantial opposition to my activities, while on the other hand there is substantial support. The RfC, brought in part by a former arbitrator before she ceased editing Wikipedia, has been described by a serving arbitrator as "a ridiculous attempt to drive away dissenting admins from VFD", by others as "Worst RfC ever", "a joke", "A waste of time for both the certifiers and Tony".

I have been described as "a trusted admin and editor doing a thankless task on VfD", "playing it safe". There are some two dozen personal endorsements to my response, in which I give an extremely detailed account of my actions in closing some twenty-five VfDs. Those endorsements are tempered with some criticism, which I take in good part. I accept that in dealing with Carnildo's edits I should have sought consensus that they constituted, as I believed, intentional vandalism. I have responded in detail to smoddy's suggestion that " in a vote where the options are clearly opposed to keeping the article in its current state, this [keep] is senseless." I think all now accept that current policy mandates keep in such cases, even if there are a few who think that it shouldn't. I took Kim Bruning's suggestion on board and am now of the opinion that a keep/delete decision is the best way of clarifying the purpose of VfD and leaving the editing to the editors. Elsewhere Grace Note has made some constructive suggestions that have led me to change the troll elimination phase of my closing.

And then there are a few who simply get their facts wrong. geogre incorrectly states that I asked in WP:ANI "Does everyone agree with 80% being consensus" and "Should results be binary." He says WP:ANI is not the place for such a thing. I agree. I never made any comment like that in WP:ANI. He should do his homework before making such serious criticism.

The criticism all became rather shrill, didn't it? Eager to accuse me (on what grounds I still know not) of disrupting Wikipedia to make a point, Radiant closed a VfD with keep, apparently not realising that he himself had cast the sole non-delete vote in the discussion. Gentlemen, this is not the way to conduct a RfC. Read the criticism and understand: your problem is not with any sysop performing a difficult and demanding but urgent task by closing VfDs, but with VfD itself. It has--cannot help but have--a strongly inclusionist bias. This is because it embodies the fundamental principle that nothing listed there is deleted unless there is a consensus to do so. If you think this is wrong, go ahead and try to change this policy, and best of luck. --Tony Sidaway Talk 13:17, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
 * It's really simple. Problems with VFD exist, are being discussed on Deletion reform. Problems with your misinterpretation of consensus, bureaucratically rigid application of policy, and not listening to other people's ideas are being discussed here. Such problems exist and your ignoring them does not make them go away. Radiant_ &gt;|&lt; 14:08, August 30, 2005 (UTC)

User:Ummit
writes: "From what I can see here, most of Tony's VfD closures have been proper, though colored by his own "when in doubt, keep" preference -- a preference which of course is supported by the very same guidelines he's trying to follow."

It's more than "supported by". It's demanded by Wikipedia policy that we don't delete when in doubt ("If in doubt, don't delete!"). This is the nature of Wikipedia. --Tony Sidaway Talk 02:05, 26 August 2005 (UTC)


 * And how does that cover "When asked to use the same procedures that others do, ignore it, insult the person making the request, and go to war over it?" Also, how does that cover "Undelete whenever you feel like it, but always make an insulting comment on the other admin's user page?"  Geogre 11:00, 29 August 2005 (UTC)


 * As should be obvious, Geogre, it doesn't cover it. This is a complex case.  I was specifically referring to "most of Tony's VfD closures", not all of his actions.


 * I might point out, though, that it takes at least two participants to make a war, and that plenty of people have been making insulting comments. Steve Summit (talk) 12:06, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

It would help if people read things
Generally, it helps if one reads an article: 

That is, if one consider wikipedians to be editors and not just robots designed for keeping indiscriminate information. 

Are you here to play with your un-deletion button or to research and build an encyclopedia? 

from the deletion log:

* 22:14, 17 August 2005 Tony Sidaway restored "Warren Benbow" (6 revisions restored) * 22:13, 17 August 2005 Tony Sidaway deleted "Warren Benbow" (To placate geogre I will delete and then selectively undelete only the parts I worked on.) * 22:03, 17 August 2005 Tony Sidaway restored "Warren Benbow" * 22:00, 17 August 2005 Geogre deleted "Warren Benbow" (THIRD undeletion without going through VfU by user:Tony Sidaway) * 21:47, 17 August 2005 Tony Sidaway restored "Warren Benbow" * 21:46, 17 August 2005 Tony Sidaway restored "Warren Benbow" * 21:05, 17 August 2005 Geogre deleted "Warren Benbow" (Improperly undeleted for the SECOND time. It has never been listed on VfU. List it, and I'll even vote to undelete. Until then, it is a speedy delete.) * 17:48, 17 August 2005 Tony Sidaway restored "Warren Benbow" * 13:31, 17 August 2005 Geogre deleted "Warren Benbow" (Improperly recreated. List on VfU.) * 21:48, 16 August 2005 Tony Sidaway restored "Warren Benbow" * 22:08, 15 August 2005 Geogre deleted "Warren Benbow" (content was: ' Warren Benbow Warren Benbow- drummer, songwriter, music producer and educator; b. New York, NY . Born December ...')

--TimPope 08:22, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
 * This certainly looks like someone using their delete button to prevent someone else from building an encyclopedia. Kappa 12:17, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
 * The delete button is part of building an encyclopedia. - brenneman <sup style="color:#2f4f4f;">(t) <sup style="color:#2f4f4f;">(c)  12:37, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
 * It's hard to see how deleting Warren Benbow again and again is part of building an encyclopedia, perhaps you could elaborate. Kappa 12:51, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
 * You mean "it's hard to see how following the procedures is part of building an encyclopedia?" Want to undelete something?  How do YOU do it, Kappa?  How do YOU undelete articles that you feel you could add to?  You just push a button?  That's what Tony does.  When asked to use the same procedures that you would need to use, he would far rather edit-war than comply.  How does ignoring all points of view but his own (and, apparently, yours) build an encyclopedia?  Geogre 10:57, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Well for an A7, if I made a stub and requested a history-only undeletion, it could be performed without needing a vote. (Actually now I realize that's a better idea than what I had been doing, LOL). Anyway if procedures are being interpreted and enforced in a way that hampers good articles being built, there must be something wrong somewhere. Kappa 16:27, 29 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Hampered how Kappa? I assume that you feel that you can't build good articles, since you don't have Tony's button?  Is that what's broken, Kappa, that you're not an admin, too?  You see, this is about using the procedures that bind you.  Tony doesn't obey them.  He has said that it's not for administrators.  You agree with him, it seems.  That's most peculiar, but you're entitled to support a wide difference in power between administrators and editors, if you choose.  All I did was use my same godlike powers to delete an improperly undeleted article.  And yet you feel that my godlike powers are bad, but Tony's are good?  Again, most peculiar.  Geogre 23:56, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
 * I believe Warren Benbow is a good article and its construction was hampered by being speedy deleted at least 3 times more than necessary. The procedure appears to be that if I want something undeleted I have to make a token stub and then find a helpful admin to restore the history. As far as I can see Tony was just skipping the "make a token stub" part. Kappa 00:39, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
 * That's if you ignore the whole community aspect; read the front page: Wikpedia — the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit. Not just Tony Sidaway or Kappa who decides what belongs. --TimPope 06:47, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Yes I believe there is a community forum for deciding whether controversial articles should stay or not, it's called Votes for deletion or something like that. Kappa 08:46, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Revert warring is harmful. That includes delete/undelete warring; it would have been reasonable to block both under the 3RR. If two admins disagree on whether something should be (un)deleted, they should talk it out, or bring it to VFU. That, in fact, was what Geogre was doing. Tony was ignoring the VFU process. Radiant_ &gt;|&lt; 14:10, August 30, 2005 (UTC)
 * Actually warn them both and deadmin on a repeat performance. Consider that if this is a valid article now, then VfU process might have a flaw. It's probably just a one-off glitch, but do watch out for any repeat of the situation. Kim Bruning 15:21, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Possible. However the best place for a disputed speedy is VfD, where it can be seen by all who discuss it, and improved during the VfD process.  I wasn't ignoring the VFU process; the VFU process is immaterial to the restoration of bad speedies. To describe this as a revert was is also incorrect.  geogre was rendering the article completely invisible to all editors.  It was thus placed beyond the reach of consensus--an action which my prompt nomination on VfD rectified.  Sysops really shouldn't delete non-speediable articles during the VfD process, nor should they complicate things, as geogre did, by deleting a VfD'd article and listing it on VFU.  --Tony Sidaway Talk  02:23, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

Special statement by Cyrius
Tony Sidaway has now abused his admin powers by blocking Carnildo who disputed Tony Sidaway's closure of Votes for deletion/Savoir-faire with a result of "no consensus". Carnildo attempted to reopen the VfD for further discussion, only to have it re-closed by Tony Sidaway with a comment of 'rv vandalism'.

In the past, articles have sometimes been relisted when additional discussion was needed to clarify an iffy decision. This has been, to my knowledge, completely uncontroversial. What is controversial is Tony Sidaway acting as if his decisions are law by blocking those who disagree and are attempting to continue discussion on the issue.


 * Update: Tony Sidaway claims that this edit constitutes vandalism. All I see is a dispute over the interpretation of the discussion.

Powers misused
User blocking:
 * 07:00, 3 August 2005 Tony Sidaway blocked "User:Carnildo" with an expiry time of 3 hours (Disruption, tampering with closed VfD, personal attacks. Was warned.)

Applicable policies
Blocking policy:
 * When blocking may not be used:
 * Use of blocks to gain advantage in a content dispute [...]. Likewise, users should not block those with whom they are currently engaged in conflict.

Deletion policy:
 * Limitations on renomination for VfD:
 * In general, if an article has been discussed at Votes for Deletion and the discussion did not result in a "delete" decision, the article should not be immediately renominated for deletion, because unless there is a good reason for people to change their minds, the second vote would be identical to the first one. An exception can be made if a vote has no consensus and a severe lack of votes.

Evidence of trying and failing to resolve the dispute
None. The severity of the abuse was such that I immediately unblocked Carnildo and blocked Tony Sidaway for 24 hours.


 * Update: Tony Sidaway has requested (via IRC) to be unblocked so that he can summarize the Carnildo situation on WP:AN/I. I have done so.

Users certifying the basis for this dispute

 * Cyrius|&#9998; 07:34, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Carnildo 19:21, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

Detailed description of my actions
When the results of the VfD on Savoir-Faire came to my attention, I noted that the result claimed by the closer seemed blatently incorrect (6 delete, 1 keep interpreted as "no consensus"), I re-opened it, posted a note on why I re-opened it, and asked for a second opinion on WP:AN/I. This is the exact procedure I have followed before on VfDs where I felt the conclusion the closer came to was clearly incorrect, and I have never had it considered vandalism before.

Also, according to Tony Sidaway, I was blocked for personal attacks. My best guess as to the "personal attacks" involved was my expressing a theory as to why the result of a VfD was "keep", and restoring that comment and part of the question it was replying to when they were deleted by Tony Sidaway.

--Carnildo 19:21, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

Response
Carnildo has edited closed VfDs under the guise of "correcting" them. However I should have taken this to WP:ANI instead of blocking him myself (I had warned him). I apologise to Carnildo for abuse of the BP, without prejudice for the future, should he resume his attacks on the autonomy of the VfD closer.

My points:
 * 1) Carnildo did not re-open any VfDs, although he claimed to be doing so in one of the two cases in which he tampered with a VfD result.
 * 2) Repeatedly tampering with VfD results is disruptive.  Carnildo had engaged in tampering with two VfDs in close succession.  I blocked him for three hours for disruption.  I should have gone to WP:ANI and asked someone else to perform the block.

In one case, Carnildo simply altered the result. In another he edited it to remove the result, claiming to be re-opening it, but did not place any tag in the article or add it to do VfD day log--not surprisingly given these failures, I do not think his claim to be re-opening discussion could be taken as legitimate.

These actions are not acceptable. A VfD should be kept unedited for reference purposes and comments should be made on the talk page. Neither of the VfDs in question had consensus. Carnildo did not wait for an explanation of the result, but acted unilaterally. He did not act in any way that would have opened the VfD again, only editing the text of the VfDs to add or remove material. He does have the right to question a VfD result, as do we all. His actions however seemed to be something else entirely: altering the result.

There is no question of my having acted to gain the upper hand in a content dispute. In one instance, Carnildo edited a VfD to insert his own closing result, with the edit summary "Correcting result":


 * Carnildo's edit to Sue Jones VfD

I reverted that and moved his comment to the talk page, where I responded to it fully and warned him about vandalism.

In the second instance, Carnildo completely removed my closing comments:


 * Carnildo's edit to Savoir-faire VfD.

I treated this as more serious vandalism and reverted and blocked. --Tony Sidaway Talk 09:57, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

Userbox RFC
User:Tony_Sidaway has had a field day in arbitrarily and unilaterally deleting numerous userboxes that deal with religion or politics. See http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=delete&user=Tony+Sidaway&page=. The userbox project is very upset with this Admin.
 * MSTCrow 10:49, 3 January 2006 (UTC)