- User talk:SQL (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)
User talk pages are not eligible for speedy deletion. DuncanHill (talk) 10:38, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
Just adding - unable to inform deleting admin because he has protected his improperly deleted talk page. DuncanHill (talk) 10:40, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Will also add that because the page is protected, it is impossible for editors with it on their watchlists to know that this DRV is happening. DuncanHill (talk) 10:06, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note added. You needed only to ask. --B (talk) 15:21, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you for adding it. It's a shame that DRV processes do not include such a mechanism as a matter of course. DuncanHill (talk) 15:25, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- You could either be bold and modify the text of step four at Wikipedia:Deletion review#Steps_to_list_a_new_deletion_review to include this instruction not only for pages that were kept, but for any page that presently exists (and to ask an administrator to do it if the page is protected) or you could discuss such a change on the talk page. That may be a little heavy on the instruction creep, though. Please understand that administrators are not your enemy and if you need something done (like adding this tag to a protected page), you need only to ask. It's not something that's necessarily going to occur to everyone simply because most pages discussed here are deleted redlinks anyway. --B (talk) 15:47, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- He's retired, why does it need to be undeleted? Stifle (talk) 13:05, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Because 1) he still has admin tools, 2) the history may contain information relevant to previous admin actions he has taken, etc and 3) no valid reason for deletion has been proposed. DuncanHill (talk) 13:34, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- That's nice for them, any chance mere mortals might be let in on it? DuncanHill (talk) 15:22, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- That link doesn't work - I think [1] is what he is really looking for. There isn't really any specific background there (nor would I expect there to be as obviously it was public at the time he said it.) Without wanting to give exactly what he said out of respect for his privacy, I would sum up what he said as "there is a good reason for it to be deleted". --B (talk) 01:38, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Very sorry about the broken link, and I agree with B's summary. I would also note that I could not locate any instance of SQL specifically invoking WP:Right to vanish at any point. I have also sent them an email to notify them of this discussion. — Satori Son 16:12, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong overturn as abuse of admin power and against guidelines. Admins are meant to be no different to other users and other users would have been denied a speedy delete and very probably denied deletion at WP:MfD, so this admin should have gone through MfD. If we start to allow one rule for admins one rule for everyone else we're on very dangerous ground. Additionally we don't allow user talk pages to be deleted in case there's anything of later use in the history. We have no way of knowing what may be of use so saying it isn't useful now isn't a persuasive argument. Yes if it looks like it would be useful in the future someone could come to DRV then but how many would a) know what to do and b) be bothered, therefore I think it's best if this is undeleted. I second DuncanHill's comment about being able to see his reasoning, at the very least someone should restore that conversation. Dpmuk (talk) 15:39, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn, because there's no reason why a retired admin's talkpage ought to be treated any differently from a retired non-admin's talkpage. Before that's done, though, please would an admin examine the history of that page closely to see that there's nothing in need of oversighting. Also, SQL's admin rights ought to be revoked for the time being. He should be able to request their return without a fresh RFA on satisfying bureaucrats about his identity. (The reason for this measure is because the nasty, cynical part of me is worried that an inactive admin account might have a commercial value.)—S Marshall T/C 16:23, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Why shouldn't a retired non-admin be permitted to have their talk page deleted? How is having his page restored going to preclude the possibility that his account could be compromised/sold/whatever? --B (talk) 01:08, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- No idea. But for whatever ridiculous reason, it's not done. According to WP:RTV, a user's talk page is only deleted after a MFD discussion, if at all, so an MFD ought to take place in this case as well. As for the possibility of a compromised account, I said two separate things in my remark and I think you've conflated them together.—S Marshall T/C 06:53, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, rules are rules isn't a reason. Obviously, I don't agree with that current language. As with many things on Wikipedia, it's a moving target - it did not used to be there and was added unilaterally without discussion in February 2009 [2]. I think it's a bad rule because it precludes someone who is undergoing harassment from being able to vanish without airing it in public. (Again, I have no idea if this was the case with SQL.) --B (talk) 13:06, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- As I recall, the language at RTV was changed to bring it into line with what SPEEDY already said, and with accepted practice. I do not recall such opposition in the past to requests to have improper deletions of talk pages overturned. DuncanHill (talk) 13:14, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- There is good reason for it not to be listed as an explicit criterion - so that mildly disruptive users cannot demand that their pages be deleted, then resume their antics under a different account. There are some things that are clearly appropriate to delete, but for which a firm rule cannot be created because of its potential for misuse. I consider this to be one such thing. We delete user talk pages from indefblocked users all the time (see Category:Temporary Wikipedian userpages). I would think we would want to be at least as polite with our good faith users. --B (talk) 13:47, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- You still haven't produced any specific reason why this out-of-process deletion should be allowed to stand. If you want the Criteria for Speedy Deletion to be changed to allow admins to speedy their own pages and then make themselves unavailable for discussion of their (entirely unknown in this case) reasons, then do so at the relevant page. DuncanHill (talk) 14:02, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think that in the absence of a pressing reason to ignore the rules, they should be applied. I also think it's DRV's role to see that they are applied. I agree with DuncanHill that the onus is on you to show why the rules should be ignored. The onus is certainly not on me to show you why the rules should be enforced!—S Marshall T/C 15:41, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- No rule should be enforced (or action taken) unless the benefits outweigh the harm. Wikipedia is not the US Congress - we have rules because they are generally agreed to be the best/most efficient/whatever way of doing things, but they aren't divine revelation and that's why we ignore them as needed. The benefit of restoring this page is that it's potentially more convenient to research someone's two-year-old contributions for a potential RFA. The harm is that it potentially violates SQL's privacy or makes it easier for someone to harass him. The potential harm seems to outweigh the potential benefit. --B (talk) 18:23, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- There is no right to privacy here, from the moment one hits "submit". This Bush-era "you don't need to know" cloak and dagger stuff is bullshit, to put it mildly. Tarc (talk) 18:28, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Surely, there is at least some slight difference between the level of accountability that should be required of our government and the level of accountability that should be required from someone who is potentially a 13-year-old kid. --B (talk) 18:43, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Well now, there's a can of worms. Yes, to my eternal despair, there are children among our admin corps. Tell me there's a child protection issue and I'll not only endorse the deletion but personally request oversight for the contents of the page. But aren't you also saying the page history is innocuous?—S Marshall T/C 19:45, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I went back two years and everything was innocuous. (I have no idea what SQL's age was and I guess/assume he is an adult - I have no reason to believe he is underage. My only point was that a demand of strict accountability from someone who is no longer editing is not a workable demand and it is certainly ridiculous to equate clandestine secrecy of the government - and that's both parties, not just the Bushies - to deleting a page on Wikipedia.) I do agree with you that persons who have not reached legal majority should not be admins and I don't particularly like allowing any editors who are not of legal majority, though I recognize that I am one of very, very, very few with this viewpoint. --B (talk) 20:05, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, I didn't say anything about governmental secrecy; Tarc's sometimes fond of hyperbole. I don't often agree with Tarc, to tell you the truth. (Stop press! Sky falls! S Marshall agrees with Tarc at DRV! Satan was unable to comment as he's taking an unexpected skiing holiday.)
But stripped of hyperbole, in this case Tarc raises a point that I do wish you'd take a little more seriously. Sometimes a matter "... depends not upon what actually was done but upon what might appear to be done." In this case, no matter how innocent the motive, the appearance is that an admin is to be permitted to disregard the rules without explaining in any specific detail why that should be allowed. And there's every reason to believe that no matter what you personally might wish, a non-admin would not receive the same privilege. This smacks of an unpleasant double-standard.—S Marshall T/C 23:56, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn-No reason for this page to be deleted. Even if he really must have the page protected, at the very least the history ought to be visible.--Fyre2387 (talk • contribs) 18:58, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn. User talk pages should not be deleted without a very good reason. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:24, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse per ""there is a good reason for it to be deleted". --B (talk) 01:38, 10 June 2010 (UTC)". We don't want to know the details. If B is satisfied, I am satisfied. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:36, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I should clarify and I apologize if this wasn't fully clear from my comment, I was summarizing his comments on his talk page as "there is a good reason for it to be deleted", not saying that "there is a good reason for it to be deleted" is my conclusion. I am NOT privy to the reason he wants it deleted and he did not specify what it was. I can speculate/assume/guess that he was being harassed and/or had a privacy concern relating to something in the history, and I fully support him leaving the talk page deleted so long as he does not return and reclaim the admin privileges, but I do want to make it very clear that "there is a good reason for it to be deleted" is my summary of his comments, not my analysis of the situation based on any actual information. I hope that's clear ... I didn't want to copy/paste exactly what he said out of respect for his privacy in case there is something in there he would like to have remain hidden. --B (talk) 03:44, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Probably more important than his reason for deletion is: Is there anything particular on the talk page that really shouldn't be deleted - ie something related to ongoing issues involving active editors? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:50, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't see anything ... I went back to mid-2008 and looked at each version prior to archiving. Most of the conversation was just stuff relating to his bots. I didn't see anything along the lines of wikidrama. The worst I saw was in June 2008, someone arguing about their bot being declined. There are exactly 200 edits since October 2008 (when he basically went inactive, returning sporadically until March 2009), and the majority of those from eyeballing it are various posts from bots (eg, delivering the Signpost). I'm not inclined to spend all night and look all the way back, but I don't see anything particularly exciting in the last two years. --B (talk) 04:06, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse - if he returns, the page can be restored. There is no reason that someone who is not active should be required to maintain their talk page. Plenty of Wikipedia users are harassed in real life because of their Wikipedia activities and if someone who has been retired for a year feels more secure by having his talk page deleted, so be it. --B (talk) 00:57, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
-
- Keep deleted per B and per Newyorkbrad, but should SQL return at any stage it should be undeleted without further notice. It would greatly help matters if SQL resigned sysop tools at this time. Stifle (talk) 08:34, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Newyorkbrad has actually said that there is no special circumstance requiring the page to be deleted. DuncanHill (talk) 10:00, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Restore the page - I see no legitimate or policy-based reason to allow a retiring admin to cover his tracks like this. If there are individual revisions that are for some reason problematic, then oversight can be requested. Tarc (talk) 14:04, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Cover his tracks? His admin actions are all still open to scrutiny by anyone - the only thing that is changing is his talk page history is only open to hundreds of people instead of millions. --B (talk) 14:55, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- No, it is impossible to scrutinize his actions without access to any justification or reasoning he may have given. It is now impossible for any non-admin to make reference to anything that may have been said on his talk page - whoever said it - so it is not only his behaviour that can no longer be assessed honestly, but also that of anyone else who contributed to the page. DuncanHill (talk) 15:09, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, my first thought is that this is an issue not unique to departed user talk pages. There are plenty of deleted pages with extensive histories (anyone remember Esperanza?) and we're certainly not going to undelete all of deleted Wikipedia just in case someone might have said something rude at some point in time that needs to be scrutinized. My second thought is that the content since October 2008 is mostly trivial (with the single exception of the conversation about the deleted talk page, mentioned above) and I looked back to June 2008 and found nothing controversial. Even if someone's contributions are being scrutinized, it's rare that anything more than 2 years old would be particularly relevant. My third thought is that if there is a specific request (eg, please review a particular user's deleted comments for this RFA or please look at SQL's talk page for a particular conversation about a bot that he mentions in a certain BAG request), that request can be accommodated by an admin. I think the unlikely potential for a two-year-old talk page to matter outweighs the reasonable right to privacy that we should afford our editors. No, I don't know what the situation is, but I can certainly imagine it. For example, I was harassed some time ago in the real world by an individual who was seeking to harass anyone associated with the deletion discussion of his article. If I were concerned about the possibility of that harassment continuing, I wouldn't particularly want years of talk page hanging around for this person or similar people to search through for more information about my family, etc. Forcing users to leave their talk pages here for all eternity only makes them more likely to be subjected to harassment. --B (talk) 18:01, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- On the Esperanza point, the slippery slope argument is a logical fallacy (specifically an informal fallacy). We're discussing the undeletion of a user talk page, not Esperanza or Daniel Brandt. On the harassment point, that's something that if true would outweigh DRV. But it does need to be shown to be true. If it's not so shown then the double-standard is the more damaging issue.—S Marshall T/C 19:51, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- No, it doesn't need to be shown to be true. Both the benefits of restoration and the benefits of deletion are hypothetical benefits. There is the hypothetical benefit that someone might want deleted content from the page for a legitimate reason and there is the hypothetical harm that someone might want deleted content from the page for harassment. Both are hypotheticals, not things that we have actual knowledge that they will happen. We do have an appropriate remedy for restoring the needed content if/when it is actually needed (get an admin to do it) but we do not have an appropriate remedy for stuffing the genie back in the bottle if we undelete the page and someone starts using it to harass this user. Nor do I accept that there is a double standard - my contention is that any good faith user should be permitted the same courtesy, so if there's no double standard from me. --B (talk) 19:58, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- B, the double standard is that admins can delete their own talk pages contra-policy and get away with it, and non-admins can't get their talk pages deleted at all, because it is contra-policy. As to "We do have an appropriate remedy for restoring the needed content if/when it is actually needed (get an admin to do it)" I'm sorry but you appear not to have noticed that non-admins have no way of knowing whether there is anything that need restoring! It is not a viable or appropriate remedy. We are left with the situation that one admin (you) claims that another admin (SQL) has nothing on his talk page that needs keeping - and you won't allow any non-admins access to the history and content to verify this. However honourable your motive, the effect of your position is to create an impression of admins scratching each other's backs and erecting barriers to non-admin participation. DuncanHill (talk) 09:44, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- You're assuming that admins are a monolithic group that all thinks alike. You can ask any of hundreds of other admins to look at it. There is also a new user group called researcher that we do not yet use, but could be implemented to allow trusted non-admins to review histories in the same way we now have non-admins with rollback, IP block exemption, or other formerly admin-only rights. I just don't agree that the only remedy for the hypothetical problem that someone might find something somewhere in the history useful is to restore it. If good faith non-admin users are not being permitted to have their talk pages deleted when they vanish, then that's a problem that needs to be resolved, too. --B (talk) 15:31, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Mike Godwin has already made it very clear that non-admins user-groups will never be allowed by the Foundation to see deleted material. As for good faith - I do not believe that an admin who deleted his own talk page contrary to policy was acting in good faith. How about you show some good faith in the non-admins participating here and undelete for the duration of this discussion? Or can't we be trusted to behave responsibly with the allegedly entirely inoccuous contents of the page? "I want it deleted" is nowhere near a strong enough reason to invoke IAR - which is apparently the only justification you can give for the deletion. DuncanHill (talk) 15:39, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I wasn't aware of that ... I wonder why they created the user group then ... strange. The issue isn't with you not being trusted - were it in my power, I would give you the ability to view the page right now. The issue is with making public whatever portions of it may affect SQL's privacy. I will do him the courtesy of sending him an email to (1) invite him here should he so desire and (2) ask his permission to restore it temporarily, with the possible exception of whatever part he may feel would be a violation of his privacy. --B (talk) 15:52, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The new user-group is for the "trial" of sighted revisions or whatever it's being called nowadays. It is in your power to make the page visible right now. Newyorkbrad has already confirmed that there are no special circumstances requiring it to remain deleted. As to asking SQL, I emailed him shortly after starting this DRV, another editor above has indicated that they have emailed him, so I don't see what good another email from you will do. You don't need his permission to restore either temporarily or permanently. If there are specific edits within it that are problematic, then Oversight is the correct way to deal with them. Anyway, I'm off to Scout camp for the weekend, won't be on here again till Sunday evening. DuncanHill (talk) 16:00, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- If Brad is comfortable with restoring it, please feel free to ask him to do it. I am not comfortable with it, but that's just me - I speak only for myself, not for anyone else. --B (talk) 16:02, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- (ec)SORRY! Just realised you were talking about "researcher" and I was talking about "reviewer"! Sorry about the mix-up. AFAIK, "researcher" is a closed Foundation user-group, but will look into that more closely after camp. DuncanHill (talk) 16:03, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Restore: or he resigns the admin bit. There's accountability and transparency behind the admin corps or there isn't. This is binary. --MZMcBride (talk) 17:53, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse. Or, let's say I don't really "endorse" the action, so perhaps this should be allow or leave deleted. While the filing of this DRV and the "overturn" position may formally be supported by the guideline against deleting user talkpages, the fact is that the idea of restoring this page is a solution in search of a problem. The amount of wikitime that we spend on process and guidelines for process and guidelines' sake, such as this one, instead of addressing real problems of current relevance, is staggering and is becoming untenable. ¶ Given that this user has not edited substantially in well over a year, it is not as if the deletion is interfering with discussion of any current wiki issue, or with discussion of user conduct. The fact that the user remains an administrator is more of an issue, and I would see a problem with leaving the full history of the page deleted if he were actively administering, but again, other than actions related to this page itself, SQL has no administrator actions for more than a year, and it may be that the main reason he has not yet resigned is that he is not checking his e-mail if anyone asked him to. ¶ The bottom line here is that SQL served Wikipedia well and honorably for a long time, and has decided, for whatever reason, that he does not want to be part of the project any more. It is understood that departing from the wiki will never involve eradicating all the traces of one's former presence. But here SQL has asked, as a parting wish, that we leave deleted the archive of two- and three- and four-year-old conversations on his talkpage, and I see no harm in honoring his wishes. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:52, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Disagree that disagreeing with admins giving themselves special COI benefits, such as arbitrary unilateral talk page deletions is bad, let alone untenable.
- However, with at least one admin in good standing prepared to say "I see no harm in honoring his wishes [talk page deletion]", I guess it is OK. Preferably, such deletions would be requested for another admin to perform. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:15, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
|
