User talk:David Levy/Tony Sidaway

From User talk:Phil Sandifer, User talk:Tony Sidaway and User talk:Ned Scott

Is there any particular reason why you feel empowered to overrule a bureaucrat's closure? —David Levy 21:03, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

I await your response. —David Levy 03:12, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

The suggestion that Kelly Martin might ever be unworthy of trust, to the extent that an invocation of the Snowball clause can ever be considered worthy of consideration following an application' bone fides, for adminship, is absolutely unacceptable. --Tony Sidaway 03:54, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

This wasn't an invocation of the snowball clause. It was a proper application of policy. Quoth Wikipedia:Requests for adminship: "Bureaucrats may also use their discretion to close nominations early, if a promotion is unlikely and they see no further benefit in leaving the application open." The suggestion that it's okay (let alone productive) for someone to unilaterally revert a bureaucrat's RfA closure is absolutely unacceptable. —David Levy 04:06, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

That's so silly I find it offensive. It isn't just anybody applying for adminship, it's Kelly Martin. If there are serious objections to Kelly Martin's adminship, I'm sure I'm not the only one who would want to see them. To see bureaucrats running scared before the disgusting rabble is not fun, but it should not be used as an excuse to stop the discussion. --Tony Sidaway 04:37, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

You claimed that the snowball clause was invoked, which was false. A bureaucrat exercised his discretion (as entrusted by the community) to end the debate early. Whether this decision was correct is not the issue. The issue is that rather than discussing this, Phil unilaterally attempted to overrule the bureaucrat (which couldn't possibly have accomplished anything beneficial). He now refuses to explain why he believed that this was appropriate (and removed my request and that of the bureaucrat).

I'm offended by your reference to "disgusting rabble." Certainly, some nasty comments were made, but a vast majority of opponents cited legitimate concerns in a reasonable manner.

I'm also troubled by your implication that Kelly Martin is entitled to special treatment. I realize that she wanted the RfA to run the normal length (and I wouldn't have objected to such an occurrence), but she was fully aware of the fact that such debates can be closed early at a bureaucrat's discretion. —David Levy 05:23, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

You falsely claim that the Snowball clause was not invoked, I show you this edit.
Kelly Martin is obviously not entitled to special treatment, which is precisely why this close was utterly incorrect. Any bureacrats who might have been involved should be, and I have no doubt are, bloody well ashamed of themselves. --Tony Sidaway 05:35, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

There is nothing in that edit summary saying it was a snowball close. The earlier one was, I think. The funny thing is, as I read through the closed RfA, I was thinking of supporting, then I was thinking of opposing, then I thought neutral would have been best. I wonder if !voting in all three sections would raise a few eyebrows? (Or if anyone would even notice...) Carcharoth 05:39, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

It was a snowball close. --Tony Sidaway 05:58, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Does it really matter whether it was snowed or not? Viridae^Talk 06:34, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

It obviously matters that the loonies closed it. --Tony Sidaway 06:38, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

The loonies being...? Viridae^Talk 06:39, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

How do you figure? What policy was ignored? —David Levy 06:44, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Again, I'm not debating the wisdom of the bureaucrat's closure. That's something that could have been discussed within the community (and still could be). I'm saying that unilaterally attempting to overrule it was improper and entirely without benefit.

Please explain how Nichalp (who was permitted by policy to close the debate) invoked the snowball clause. —David Levy 06:44, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

I know this has nothing to do with me, but I just gotta butt in here and support Tony and Phil. How is the community supposed to decide anything if they're not allowed to discuss it in the first place. The close was undone with good reason, snowballs or not. You don't have to agree with the reason, but have a little respect for it. It is not the end of the world to revert a discussion closure, and that too is apart of how we work. Discussion is a fundamental right, in a way, of Wikipedians, and unless there is some tangible evidence of disruption, we shouldn't be closing discussions. -- Ned Scott 06:55, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

It's part of the bureaucrats' job to close RfAs! Unilaterally undoing this most certainly is not a part of how we work.

And again, this has nothing to do with the wisdom behind the closure (or lack thereof). I'm not even certain that this was the correct decision. I just know that Phil's response (however well-meaning) was ill-advised and unhelpful. —David Levy 07:04, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

You're absolutely right to state that "It's part of the bureaucrats' job to close RfAs". Having witnessed the rabble in RFA attempting to dictate how the bureaucrats will do exactly that informs my comments.

You say "Unilaterally undoing this most certainly is not a part of how we work." That's pure bullshit. Every single edit on Wikipedia is unilateral. This is how we work because it is technically impossible for one single edit to be made by more than one person.

If Phil Sandifer could not challenge the action of another editor, then nobody could. We'd just have to give up and go home. --Tony Sidaway 07:17, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Bullshit. There is a difference between a crat closing an RfA and someone making a simple edit and you know it. Viridae^Talk 07:21, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

What is this word "crat"? Could you please explain what editing privileges you believe a bureaucrat possesses that another trusted editor does not?

By your comment above, it's evident that you think I know this, but I openly confess that I do not. ---Tony Sidaway 07:30, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

By "crat" I refer to their ability - entrusted in them by the community to make the decision to close RfAs. Which is not an editing privelage, its an administrative one. Viridae^Talk 07:36, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

If you cannot be bothered to write the word, don't bother to argue about the powers you have mistakenly vested the "crats" with. --Tony Sidaway 07:41, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

There is no mistake on Viridae's part, nor is there a need for you to mock the use of a common Wikipedia abbreviation. —David Levy 13:11, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

1. No, not "every single edit on Wikipedia is unilateral." Decisions can be made collaboratively. Phil, conversely, simply stepped in and overruled the determination of a user trusted by the community to make it.

2. When did I state that Phil "could not challenge the action of another editor"?! On the contrary, he could have done so via discussion (which might actually have accomplished something meaningful).

3. I await your explanation of how an action explicitly backed by policy was an invocation of the snowball clause. —David Levy 13:11, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

From what I saw it was a non-crat who did the close. Specifically because discussion is so important on Wikipedia, I think there is a certain amount of extra weight that tips the balance in these kinds of situations. We have a right to discuss things as a community. Judgement of a bureaucrat, just as judgement of an admin over an AfD, doesn't override the process without good reason. If you close a discussion without good reason, don't be surprised if someone reverts them, regardless of who they are, because we are very defensive about our right to discuss. It's not something to do often, for a number of reasons, but it certainly is understandable in this situation. -- Ned Scott 07:37, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

You might only have seen the earlier closure by Navou (which was an application of the snowball clause). Phil reverted the subsequent closure by Nichalp (a bureaucrat).

Though it definately was backed by policy, whether said closure occurred with "good reason" is open to debate. The problem is that Phil made no attempt to initiate such community discussion. Instead, he unilaterally decided to overrule the closing bureaucrat's decision. Regardless of whether the RfA should have been closed or should have remained open, there was absolutely no realistic possibility of this accomplishing anything beneficial. It was highly disrespectful toward Nichalp and the community that entrusted in him the authority to make such a decision. —David Levy 13:11, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

It is highly disrespectful to the community for Nichalp to have closed the discussion. We trusted him to have made a better judgement call, but he didn't. Given the activity of the RfA, the strong desire of the community to comment, Kelly's request to keep it open, and the lack of tangible disruption, the obvious thing to do was to reopen the discussion. To say that a crat can close a discussion does not mean that any close they make, even on a whim, is supported by policy. Don't get caught up in the exact wording of the policy, it's pretty clear that crats should not be making judgement calls when the community clearly disagrees with them. -- Ned Scott 20:38, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

I saw far more people calling for the RfA to be closed than calling for it to remain open. But that's beside the point. As I said, the wisdom of Nichalp's decision is debatable (and I'm far from certain that it was the right one). The correct course of action, however, was to discuss this (and perhaps call upon the other bureaucrats to act in kind), not to unilaterally revert. —David Levy 20:45, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

To be honest, I do understand your point. I tend to be defensive of situations where discussion is closed early when it wasn't a major problem. Now I'm getting all worked up about this, but Nichalp didn't really do anything bad, but nor do I feel Phil did anything that bad. But, yeah, this is something to try to avoid. -- Ned Scott 20:50, 2 October 2007 (UTC)