Deletion of Votes for deletion shocks system
Longstanding dissatisfaction over Wikipedia's deletion process came to a head last week after Wikipedia:Votes for deletion (commonly known as VfD) was itself briefly deleted, sparking renewed discussion of possible reforms to the system. The incident also disrupted general editing for a few minutes as the database recovered from the shock.
Debates over closure
The immediate impetus for these events came from a disagreement over how Tony Sidaway handled the closing of a number of VfD debates. A request for comment was started by Aaron Brenneman and Ambi (the latter incidentally quit Wikipedia this week as a result of general dissatisfaction). The complaint, which prompted a vigorous debate, focused particularly on VfDs for which Sidaway had not deleted the article in question, even though there were few if any users voting "keep" (votes to merge or redirect were typically also present).
Sidaway responded that he was choosing the most conservative option available and leaving future solutions up to later editors, as the deletion policy says, "If in doubt, don't delete!" Also, he pointed out that when dealing with options other than deletion, such as a merge or transwiki, the administrator closing the discussion is not required to implement these steps, particularly when a consensus for them is not clear. Others pointed out that votes other than "delete" implicitly favor keeping the article in some form, even if only as a redirect.
A number of people indicated that while they might have reached different results in closing the same VfDs, the judgments being made were within Sidaway's discretion. The discussion also turned to the merits of the deletion system in general, with Kelly Martin arguing that "the entire VFD process is harmful to Wikipedia and should be discontinued immediately."
This sentiment found its way elsewhere as well, as David Gerard posted a message to the wikien-l mailing list calling VfD "completely pathological". As a postscript, he added the following:
- MOTION: That while VFD nominally performs a useful function in clearing crap out of Wikipedia, its current operation and subcommunity is so pathological and damaging to the Wikipedia community that it should be removed entirely. Remove it completely. Then talk and think how to come up with something that works without becoming an engine for rancor.
Ed Poor responded in agreement and, taking the "motion" seriously said, "I'm tempted to just Be Bold and just go ahead and delete vfd." To everyone's surprise he did so at 19:43 (UTC), and although the action was soon reversed by ABCD at 20:05 (UTC), the effect of VfD's lengthy page history and many links created some problems. With thousands of page revisions being archived and then un-archived, this caused some temporary database update lag, which automatically locked out edits for some users for a few minutes while the system recovered from the effects.
The community reacts
A number of people applauded Poor's boldness and echoed similar frustrations about VfD. Others were more critical as indicated by a request for comment started regarding this action. A poll to see whether people agreed with the action is running 4-to-1 against, with a number of people refusing to participate because they felt there hadn't been enough discussion and any vote was premature. However, most of those opposing the move conceded that VfD has serious problems, but argued that a workable alternative was needed before getting rid of the current system.
Efforts to brainstorm solutions to the situation produced a plethora of suggestions, which are collected at Wikipedia:Deletion reform. Proposals include: software changes to make blank pages show up as red links, so that blanking a page can substitute for deletion, an idea dubbed "pure wiki deletion"; using the article rating feature (which is not yet ready to be activated) to determine which articles should be removed (Wikipedia:Version System sketch); and the possibility of splitting VfD up into various categories, for which Visviva has proposed a deletion sorting project modeled on the stub sorting project. In the meantime, VfD has resumed its normal operation while possible reforms are being discussed.
Additional consequences
The aftermath of these events also produced some additional fallout in other areas. In an extension of the debate that started it all, Tony Sidaway got into a dispute with Carnildo after the latter tried to reopen some of the VfD listings he had closed. Since he considered this to be vandalism, Sidaway blocked Carnildo for 3 hours over the issue, prompting Cyrius to intervene and unblock Carnildo, then block Sidaway for 24 hours. After further communication, Cyrius reversed this block and the matter was hashed out on the administrators' noticeboard.
Also, the request for comment regarding Ed Poor's deletion of VfD was itself briefly deleted and led to a request for arbitration. Poor contended that the page should be deleted according to procedure because it had not been properly certified; Kim Bruning later argued the same thing. The attempts to delete it were quickly reversed, however, and a brief discussion on Votes for undeletion indicated that a number of people wanted the discussion preserved. A request for arbitration was also made, although the parties have since discussed the matter privately and indicated that they would attempt to pursue mediation. Poor has already conceded that the deleted discussion "was serving a higher purpose" and restored it to its original location.
Discuss this story
An excellent presentation. It confirmed everything I knew already and added a lot of stuff I didn't know. Consider me a Signpost subscriber from now on. :-) Uncle Ed 23:43, August 7, 2005 (UTC)
Comments by User:Tony Sidaway
You asked me to fact-check this. Here goes.
On a point of style, do you normally refer to people by their surnames? If you look at the RfC, everybody refers to me as Tony thoughout. Unless it's your house style to use surnames only, please do likewise.
"The complaint focused particularly on VfDs for which Sidaway had not deleted the article in question, even though there were few if any users voting "keep" (votes to merge or redirect were typically also present)."
No, we were all agreed that an article can only be deleted if there is a rough consensus to delete. In most of the disputed cases there was no such consensus. Most of them were cases in which I had determined no consensus instead of (as Ambi and Aaron for some reason seemed to think I should have) lumping the delete votes in as votes for merge, or redirect, and declaring a merge or redirect, or whatever.
"Sidaway responded that he was choosing the most conservative option available, as the instructions say, "If in doubt, don't delete!""
The wording of my response was "The most conservative option a VfD closer can make, if there is no consensus to delete, is to leave what happens next up to the editors."
"A number of people indicated that while they might have reached different results in closing the same VfDs, the judgments being made were within Sidaway's discretion."
Actually some
2223 people have endorsed my response to date. Only 4 people, including the complainants, endorsed the complaint. But your summary is correct as far as it goes: there is a general recognition that the dispute is over a legitimate difference of opinion on how policy is interpreted."In an extension of the debate that started it all, Tony Sidaway got into a dispute with Carnildo after the latter reopened some of the VfD listings he had closed. Sidaway blocked Carnildo for 24 hours over this,"
Carnildo did not re-open any VfDs. He did not tag the pages and he did not reinsert the VfDs into the day log. He simply vandalised the closed VfDs, in one case removing the closer's comments entirely. Having warned him, I blocked him not for 24 hours, but for 3. I was then blocked for 24 hours but the block was released within minutes. --Tony SidawayTalk 00:03, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comments by User:Kim Bruning
Well, the RFC was definately not certified properly, and there was no sane reason (IAR or no) why that should be allowed to pass.
The way you write makes it looks like I was cooperating with Ed Poor. That's not true :-/
I came to my conclusions independantly, and during this incident didn't communicate with Ed Poor at all up 'till the first time I blocked him. Kim Bruning 00:17, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comments by User:Aaron Brenneman
Great article. I must admit I'd always thought these Signpost objects were just made by magical elves or something.
The section
Is problematic for two reasons: it doesn't fully characterize the discussion, and doesn't support the subject of this article. Maybe something like "vigourous debate ensued (e.g. This page is 97 kilobytes long.)" would capture the
bitternesspassion without appearing to support any particular view?brenneman(t)(c) 00:49, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comments by User:Func
It might be worth mentioning that long time editor, administrator, and arbitrator Ambi has left Wikipedia over this matter, (at least for now). Func( t, c ) 02:03, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Database locking
The article formerly stated "The incident also forced the developers to briefly lock the database in order to recover from the effects." As far as I know this is inaccurate; deletion and undeletion of such a large, oft-linked page almost certainly caused some database update lag, which would have automatically locked some edits once it got beyond a certain threshold.
Somewhat later there was a totally unrelated server issue during which we had to manually lock the wikis while reconfiguring the database master. --Brion 07:03, August 8, 2005 (UTC)
Comments by User:David Gerard
The bits with me in look much as I recall the events - David Gerard 12:54, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]