Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Snowspinner 2

In order to remain listed at Wikipedia:Requests for comment, at least two people need to show that they tried to resolve a dispute with this sysop and have failed. This must involve the same dispute, not different disputes. The persons complaining must provide evidence of their efforts, and each of them must certify it by signing this page with ~~~~. If this does not happen within 48 hours of the creation of this dispute page (which was: 06:36, 3 October 2005 (UTC)), the page will be deleted. The current date and time is: 06:13, 14 April 2024 (UTC).

Please note: This template is for listing disputes about actions that are limited to administrators only, specifically these actions:

protecting and unprotecting pages
deleting and undeleting pages
blocking and unblocking users

For all other matters (such as edit wars and page moves), please use the template at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Example user.

(Snowspinner | talk | contributions)

Statement of the dispute[edit]

This is a summary written by users who dispute this sysop's conduct. Users who edit or endorse this summary should not edit the other summaries.

Description[edit]

{Add summary here, but you must use the section below to certify or endorse it.

On October 2, Snowspinner, an admin, speedily deleted seventeen ongoing AfDs on the ground that the AfDs were invalid. He considered them to be so due to the AfDs all being based on notability, which he did not consider to be a criterion for deletion, and his rationale was being bold. These pages were deleted due to Snowspinner's own personal belief that they were invalid (which is not a reason to delete an AfD, whether or not they were), was completely ungrounded in policy, and wound up disrupting Wikipedia.

I disagree with these actions strongly. I believe that the appropriate action would have been to create a proposal allowing the speedy deletion of AfDs not grounded in policy, an action that was not taken. I also find it strikingly hypocritical that Snowspinner so blatantly violated policy in the name of defending it.

I do not think that any admin has the right to speedy delete things that are not covered under WP:CSD, especially not an ongoing discussion, as is AfD, and absolutely not based on such controversial ground as whether or not notability is a criteria for deletion. Speedy deletion is a last resort, not a first one. We don't delete things because we disagree with them, we talk about them.

On WP:ANI, Snowspinner encouraged other admins to follow his lead (diff: [1]). He doesn't seem to understand the problem, and later asked if simply unlisting them as speedy keeps would be better (diff: [2]). Though the greatest problem is his deleting pages, it would also be a problem for him to end AfDs as keeps just because he thinks so, or because of his interpretation of policy. As was said on WP:AN/I, Wikipedia policies are not our straightjackets. We can do whatever we want with them, we made them. If today notability is a criteria (which, de facto, it is, for many) then it is policy, even if it's unwritten.

Note: I'm adding this after some people have endorsed this, but I want to clarify: I do not, nor ever did, believe that Snowspinner was acting in bad faith. This has come up, so I figured I should be obvious about it.

Powers misused[edit]

Deletion (log): {list page or pages deleted}

Applicable policies[edit]

Deletion policy

The deletion policy says, under Procedure for deletion: "If a page does not fall into one of the categories listed under Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion, then you cannot delete it without it spending five days on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion (or the analogous pages for images and media files, categories, templates, redirects, miscellaneous) first." None of these pages fall under a criterion for speedy deletion.
Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion clearly states how to delete a non-mainspace article for deletion. The articles deleted were in a non-mainspace, but these procedures were not followed. It also states clearly that (bolding mine): "Nominating a Wikipedia policy or guideline page, or one of the deletion discussion areas (or their sub-pages), for deletion will probably be considered disruptive, and the ensuing discussions closed early. This is not a forum for modifying or revoking policy."

WP:POINT. This is not policy (but is a guideline), however, I believe it warrants mention.

This page states: "This guideline proposes that discussion, rather than unilateral action, is the preferred means of changing policies, and the preferred mechanism for demonstrating the problem with policies. This means that an individual who opposes the state of a current rule or policy should not attempt to create in the Wikipedia itself proof that the rule does not work, and that system administrators should not apply rules in a vindictive or excessive fashion in order to demonstrate the potential for abuse." Snowspinner opposed the current policy (that invalid AfDs are not speedily deletable), and went entirely against the deletion policy, disrupting Wikipedia in the process, to do what he wanted.

Wikipedia:Be bold in updating pages. Again, this is a guideline, not a policy, but I think should be mentioned.

This was his rationale for deleting the pages. However, WP:BOLD applies to articles, and says clearly "don't be reckless," and even goes into detail about it.

Evidence of trying and failing to resolve the dispute[edit]

(provide diffs and links)

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Large scale AfD unlisting (diffs: [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], [14], [15], [16], [17], [18], [19], [20])
User talk:Snowspinner#Deletion of AfD discussions, and formal request to give up adminship (diff: [21]) Note: This was declined here: User talk:Blackcap#Snowspinner (diff: [22]).

Users certifying the basis for this dispute[edit]

(sign with ~~~~)

--Blackcap | talk 06:36, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
--File:Ottawa flag.png Spinboy 20:12, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
--Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 20:15, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Other users who endorse this statement[edit]

(sign with ~~~~)

I'm not allowed to actually say anything negative about Snowspinner, but I guess I can still endorse something someone else wrote that's critical of him. Everyking 07:39, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Thryduulf 07:56, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This was purposely disruptive, snowspinner was well aware that his actions would be highly controversial (to say the least) and yet not only did it without discussing but used deletion instead of closing the AfDs (which would have been WP:POINT too, but less so since it's easier to revert). --fvw * 08:21, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Stormie 11:02, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
~~ N (t/c) 14:11, 3 October 2005 (UTC) My outside view below expands on this.[reply]
Xoloz 15:03, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Had i bveen logged in , and notice this, i would have been involved in trying to resolve this dispute by asking Snowspinner to revert these acts, and perhaps in other ways. I take a very serious view of this, which seems to me to be a clear abuse of admin powers. DES ^(talk) 15:46, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
A fundamental part of Wikipedia is building consensus and working harmoniously with those who disagree with you. These actions seem opposed to that spirit. Being bold is one thing, acting unilaterally in a way which you know will be controversial to support one POV is another. Gamaliel 18:53, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Disruptive, non-consensual action with a clear and unapologetic agenda. Bunchofgrapes 19:43, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The defendant's response shows that he is well aware of a significant opposition to his POV, yet he is willing to act unilaterally on a massive scale. I find his incompatible with the position of an admin. mikka (t) 20:35, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
With so little achieved by the actions and with those actions serving only to stifle debate and slap perfectly good editors in the face, I think there are better uses for a delete button. Snowspinner does write a cogent response, however. -Splash^talk 01:26, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I basically agree, but will be making an additional statement below. "Process" isn't at issue so much here as disruption, vandalism, and the erroneous assumption that "be bold" trumps "don't disrupt Wikipedia to make a point". --FOo 01:54, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
One of the Afd's delisted was one that I started. I not infrequently put things on Afd when I want another viewpoint...I figure something is not speediable, but nevertheless seems wrong somehow or "smells fishy", so I rely on the community to tell me if there is something I am missing. Sometimes the article will get revealed as a hoax and be deleted, sometimes somebody knows something that I don't, and it is kept. Either outcome is fine by me... I don't mind getting proved wrong. But Snowspinners astonishing presumption sought to short-circtuit that whole process in an entirely unacceptable manner. Fawcett5 05:05, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Disgraceful pointmaking by Snowspiner. Filiocht | The kettle's on 09:51, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Lately there has been lots of discussion about the usefulness of AfD, and there have been some rash actions (mainly from AfD's opponents) before, which have caused a lot of disturbance (Ed Poor's deletion of VfD comes to mind). I cannot believe that an experienced admin such as Snowspinner has missed all of this, and have to believe that he deleted these AfD subpages fully knowing that it would cause similar disruption, and that his decisions would not stand. I have to conclude he was just making a WP:POINT here, in the most unhelpful way he could find. Eugene van der Pijll 11:58, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is built on the assumption that The People, in aggregate, can write articles and make decisions about them. Short-circuiting that by telling them that they do not get to debate the following articles because a magic word ("notability") was used in the nomination is antithetical to the spirit and practice of Wikipedia. Doing so because one wishes to preserve the freedom of authorship is hypocritical beyond measure. The de jure deletion guidelines prevent unlisting and the de facto standard not only includes "notability" (by better and more explicable words) but always has. One does not make an inspiring point or an heroic stand by ripping up one of the discussion and debate areas of Wikipedia. Geogre 12:12, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Admins need to follow the rules. I have expanded a bit more on my thoughts further down as well as on the talkpage. Sjakkalle (Check!) 13:31, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Please do not do this again --TimPope 16:36, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
enceph alon 19:02, 4 October 2005 (UTC) I place my signature here to concur with the view that the actions under discussion were disruptive, and like similar actions in the past, do little to contribute any discernible improvement to the project. This is not to mean that they were done with an intention to harm; I seriously doubt that they were. I do not know what Snowspinner intended to achieve with his actions; as it may be said that nothing noteworthy has been achieved, we may safely conclude that these intentions were unsatisfied—a point which hopefully will discourage similar incidents and encourage more discussion and consensus-making in future.[reply]
Another example of recent misuse of WP:BOLD and WP:IAR, either to impose one's will on the community or to make a WP:POINT. Please—no more Ed Poor barnstars --Tabor 01:23, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
{Context: I'd nominated two of the AfDs affected.) I don't want to make too much of this (though I hope he doesn't do it again), and the suggestion that he lose his adminship seems unnecessary to me (I may have missed something, but did his admin powers feature in any of this?) — but, aside from the initial mistaken behaviour, he might respond better when other editors try to discuss the issue with him. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 13:40, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I may have missed something, but did his admin powers feature in any of this? He deleted 32 pages. I agree with your comment on loss of adminship being unnecessary. enceph alon 13:55, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Snowspinners' actions seems like a clear violation of policy. Moreover, they were disruptive of Wikipedia, and they were disrespectful of many fellow editors. They were unilateral and non-consensual, and stifled debate. And speaking as an anti-deletionist, I judge that these actions, while perhaps intended to further the inclusionist "cause", only hurt it. More importantly, they hurt our encyclopedia. Paul August ☎ 16:01, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
It's all said above me gkhan 15:21, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Violating policy because you don't like certain largely accepted unwritten rules = bad. Even if notability isn't a deletion criteria the pages should have been left anyway. Lord Bob 00:34, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Susvolans ⇔ 11:09, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Time for Snowspinner to hand in his badge. Grace Note 00:02, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Admin powers should not be used to try and influence debates about policy. Period. --Aquillion 03:43, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I hope Snowspinner realizes how much the community finds his actions distasteful. Andre (talk) 13:55, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This is a clear example of abuse admin powers. Snowspinner's complete disregard for the responsibility that goes along with those powers is unsettling, and shows a contempt for consensus-building. Nandesuka 00:43, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This is admin abuse pure and simple.Gateman1997 20:58, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Snowspinner is a problem user. Cognition 19:23, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Response[edit]

This is a summary written by the sysop whose actions are disputed, or by other users who think that the dispute is unjustified and that the sysop's actions did not violate policy. Users who edit or endorse this summary should not edit the other summaries.

I find the irony of deletionists accusing an inclusionist of violating the deletion policy according to a bunch of principles he laid out (m:descriptivism) rich.

Beyond that somewhat pithy summary, I will say only that if process creates policy, by extension one cannot move to put someone up against the wall for a first offense. Which is to say, if you're holding that notability has become a deletion criterion because it's gained popular acceptance, you are presumably also holding that we should not have arbcommed the people who first began using notability as a deletion criterion, back before it had gained popular acceptance, for disrupting Wikipedia or violating deletion policy. Saying that process forms consensus means that you have to tolerate good faith attempts to change process. I find it curious, then, that you have no reservations about desysopping someone who tried to change how fast-closed AfDs are handled. An interesting approach, to be sure.

Which leads me to believe this RFC to be more sour grapes than content.

A few more broad points - popular assent and consensus do not trump an understanding of the project. This was made clear with Jimbo's response to the hypothetical "What do we do if a thousand neo-Nazis show up and try to force consensus by sheer numbers" of "We don't let that happen." Frankly, the same approach ought apply should we get flooded by people who willfully ignore many of the principles on which this project is founded.

The fundamental misconception that people have is in understanding the word "Encyclopedia." Because, while we are an encyclopedia, we're also a radical redefinition of what an encyclopedia is. We are not the modern conception of an encyclopedia - collecting only the worthy knowledge. We are the original conception - the compendium of all knowledge. All knowledge. Ranging from Immanuel Kant to Exploding whale. Or to Greenlighting or Elf Only Inn or Cyrus Farivar, to deal directly with three deletions I vehemently opposed on the grounds that they were simply wrong, no matter what.

To be clear, I don't really care if Random Garage Band gets an article. I'm certainly never going to write one for them. But, and here's the other thing, I don't care enough to delete them either, assuming they can meet the policies of NPOV, verifiability, not being a dicdef, and the rest. They don't hurt me. They shouldn't be included in the Rock and roll article unless they're an exemplar of something that is in that article. (i.e. the Rock and roll article should mention the Beatles. Probably the Rolling Stones too. Maybe U2. Not so much Deep Blue Something. Definitely not Random Garage Band.) On the whole, my relationship to Random Garage Band is total apathy. What blows my mind - what completely melts my brain - is the people who make arguments like "This article exists on Comixpedia, so we should junk it." Or who claim that published, peer-reviewed academic articles shouldn't get articles (Or, at least, that their authors should, with all their articles mentioned and summarized). Or who want to delete something that got coverage on a major news site. It blows my mind that there are people applying the "is it worthy for inclusion" model of thought.

No article EVER has to prove its worthiness for inclusion. Some articles have to show that they are so useless that they/re worth holding an extended AfD debate, burdened with tons of stupid rules, just so we can get rid of them.

And, to clarify, I don't think the above is my personal opinion. I think the above is the very foundation of what Wikipedia is. I think the above is our mission. I think that people who do not understand the above are wrong, and that they absolutely must be stopped from having their way regarding inclusion debates.

Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~~~~):

Snowspinner 15:08, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Tony Sidaway ^Talk 17:17, 3 October 2005 (UTC) I tend to find myself in agreement with Snowspinner more than I disagree with him. He sails close to the wind, but that's in the interests of the wiki when some areas of Wikipedia have become the domains of factionalism and blatant disregard of longstanding policy. Tony Sidaway ^Talk 00:27, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
David Gerard 20:02, 3 October 2005 (UTC) "Sour grapes" is precisely what this is about. And I remember you as a deletionist, railing against those inclusionist feckwits ...[reply]
James F. (talk) 15:04, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Hipocrite - «Talk» 17:01, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Theresa Knott (a tenth stroke) 05:33, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with this but just because the cabal supports you shouldn't mean you can act with impunity. I find it absolutely astonishing that editors discuss articles in terms of "deserving" to be in Wikipedia though. Did they not notice that we were doing the sum of all human knowledge, and not just another Britannica? Grace Note 00:05, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
What Grace Note said, except she has said elsewhere on the page that she thinks you should step down, and I don't. --Jacqui ^★ 23:47, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
--Pypex 23:35, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Seems to be much to do about nothing. 172 | Talk 15:44, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Outside view[edit]

This is a summary written by users not directly involved with the dispute but who would like to add an outside view of the dispute. Users who edit or endorse this summary should not edit the other summaries.

{Add summary here, but you must use the endorsement section below to sign.}

Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~~~~):

Outside view by RN[edit]

I don't know Snowspinner personally all that well, but I have very little reason to believe the admin was acting in bad faith. One thing I that the admin should realize is that by speedying discussions like this it can be rather offensive to the people on AfD who take time out of thier days to carefully review each and every article put there and give thier opinion on the matter, which include Blackcap, me, and spinboy, as well as many other AfD regulars. Also, it can be disruptive to the process as well. However, I do not believe the admin should be desysopped, at least not yet. The process does have its flaws, and I think rather then simply trying to take charge of it this way the admin should instead try to articulate why the articles in question should be kept on the applicable AfD pages.

Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~~~~):

Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 07:12, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
~~Agree with: Acted in good faith, no deadminning.~~ Talk page now. - brenneman ^(t)^(c) 07:17, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Agree more below. - brenneman ^(t)^(c) 05:03, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
~~Agree that desysopping is not warranted or necessary--inks ^T~~ 07:44, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I think I'm in over my head on this one. Will just watch from the sidelines.--inks ^T 20:42, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I also agree that desysopping is not warranted by these actions, but would be if he continued to act in this manner before this dispute is settled. Thryduulf 07:59, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
~~David Gerard 09:02, 3 October 2005 (UTC)~~[reply]
As per Thryduulf. I think the wrong action was taken and to continue in that manner would be innapropriate. However, there are plenty of things for admins to do except for AfD and I would want Snowspinner to be strongly advised to either abide by the policy or keep away from that page, while raising his legitimate views elsewhere.The Land 09:48, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
When a nomination is outside of policy, votes will reflect it. AFDs should never be speedy deleted. I don't think this warrants de-sysopping though.. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:06, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Splash^talk 01:26, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I know this is way, way too late, but count me in here. --Jacqui ^★ 23:41, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Outside view by David Gerard[edit]

~~This verges on RFC abuse.~~ AFD needs a dynamite enema in general. The fetishisation of process over product is a great part of what makes AFD such a bad idea in practice. (Note that I strongly agree we need a deletion mechanism. It's this one that's sucking.) As such, I find it hard to consider this any sort of great offense in the context of the general AFD wars. I've given Snowspinner an Ed Poor barnstar, FWIW.

Note: Blackcap's responses in Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Large_scale_AfD_unlisting are an excellent example of process over product. This is not to question in any way Blackcap's good faith. But it's still the real problem IMO.

Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~~~~):

David Gerard 09:44, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I completely concur with David on this issue. The entire deletion process on Wikipedia is broken and needs to be replaced, but there will never be a consensus to do so. I tend to also agree with Tony Sidaway that the problem is self-correcting, however, as AfD will never scale effectively and will eventually become totally irrelevant in the face of ever-larger new article influx. We should therefore allow AfD addicts to continue to play in their increasingly irrelevant playground until they eventually become bored with it and leave. Kelly Martin 11:29, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
--Apyule 11:52, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I don't agree that this is even close to RfC abuse (if it is, we can just WP:IAR and speedy delete RfC :P ), but I agree that AfD is a hellhole that needs some shaking up, and I specifically second Kelly's comments above. -- grm_wnr Esc 12:34, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I've struck "This verges on RFC abuse." That would seem to be questioning Blackcat's good faith, which I'm not - David Gerard 13:00, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Strong ~~Keep~~ Endorse ➥the Epopt 13:39, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that AfD has become fetishised. Please see the standing Request for Comments against all members of the Associations of Inclusionist and Deletionist Wikipedians, those who ~~beat o~~salivate over AfD the most. Alphax ^τεχ 14:08, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
~~This endorsement is here for formal purposes only. If and when Snowspinner writes a response, I may review again.~~ I have endorsed Snowspinner's response, but want to comment on this outside view. I completely agree with David's view and Kelly's comment. The deletion process is broken to the point where some editors feel that it's wrong for someone to speedy a deletion nomination that blatantly contradicts the deletion policy. Process has triumphed over substance. --Tony Sidaway ^Talk 14:26, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
As a Wikipedia deletionist who had previously defended AFD, I now agree with David Gerard that it is rotten to the core. It will never stop producing silly disputes like this one. I'd like to take this as another opportunity to advance the pure wiki deletion system. --Ryan Delaney ^talk 16:06, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Snowspinner 17:07, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Rob Church ^Talk 17:15, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
As a frequent participator in the AfD process (usually as nominator), I'm seeing the same problems that David is describing, and my review of the 'case' leads me to believe that it's clear Snowspinner was operating in good faith. The system is broken, the WP:CSD should be amended to return AfD to something that allows community involvement. The RFC process is all the protection needed against a theoretical "speedy delete abuse" because the people pulling the trigger are held to a higher standard. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 22:11, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
— Laura Scudder | Talk 23:37, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Eclecticology 00:43, 4 October 2005 (UTC) I praise Snowspinner's efforts in this. The horde that keeps making these phoney deletion proposals show that they are guided by a desire to enforce their own POVs than any kind of constructive editing. If they can be driven away: Good riddance.[reply]
James F. (talk) 15:07, 4 October 2005 (UTC) I agree, absolutely. Snowspinner's actions are without question in the interests of the project.[reply]
Hipocrite - «Talk» 17:02, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
rspeer 20:14, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Outside view 2 by David Gerard[edit]

I should also note: for Blackcap to seriously think for a moment someone would deadmin themselves on request over an issue such as this shows less understanding and feel for the project than one should really have to discuss such matters in a serious and weighty manner - Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~~~~):

David Gerard 20:04, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
An utterly surreal suggestion in the circumstances. Policy is policy, you don't get deopped for upholding it, no matter how many people may wrongly believe that they have effectively changed policy by disregarding it. Tony Sidaway ^Talk 20:11, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Blackcap just doesn't know that Snowspinner is supported by the establishment obviously. He probably felt that behaviour that would get an ordinary user banned should not be tolerated. But it is. If you're Ed Poor, Tony Sidaway, Snowspinner, Raul, one of the boys in other words, you can do what you like. Taking Blackcap to task for thinking that the rules apply to everybody is well out of order. Grace Note 00:07, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I was one of the boys at one point in time. Guan aco 21:09, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Outside view by Nickptar[edit]

"Process over product" is a red herring. The brokenness of AFD, or lack thereof, is irrelevant. This is a simple case of an admin thinking he's above policy, resulting in reckless, disruptive actions.

Admins should not be allowed to unilaterally act, in contravention of policy, on their personal views. All this does is disrupt the project and piss people off. I think there are a few users Wikipedia would be better off without, even though they haven't committed any direct policy violations; should I block them and try to purge evidence of their existence? I think AFD works fine and the "deletion reform" proposals are a bad idea; should I unilaterally delete them? If I did either of those things, wouldn't I be in hot water, and quite possibly lose my adminship? The only difference between those actions and Snowspinner's, that I can see, is that "AFD is broken" is such a popular viewpoint that many people are willing to support anti-AFD disruption.

"Process" vs. "product" has nothing to do with this case. Snowspinner's actions were indisputably of line and disruptive. Speedy-keeping and delisting alone would have disruptive (though much less so), but his deletion of the AFDs smacks of a bizarre attempt to suppress discussion. I'm not for desysopping, but I do think this RFC should be a sort of "final warning" to Snowspinner that he can't cross the line again.

BTW, see the statements by myself and others at WP:AN/I#Consensus creates policy. Fubar Obfusco has much wisdom. Essentially, this is like the debacle on RFA when GordonWatts thought he was entitled to adminship and people violated policy by opposing him. Nowhere does policy say that AFDs can only be valid for certain reasons - if we could only delete articles in certain well-defined classes, there would be no point in the discussion that is AFD.

Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~~~~):

~~ N (t/c) 14:09, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Breaching AFD process because AFD has problems does not improve AFD, it weakens it still further because it makes people think that "if an admin can breach the AFD process, why can't I?". Sjakkalle (Check!) 14:12, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I endorse this as well. The Land 14:15, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Of course, the above is true as well. I don't necessarily disagree with Snowspinner on this, but raising such a stink should be frowned upon - our goal is creating (not necessarily writing!) an encyclopedia. Part of that is maintaining an atmosphere that makes doing that as tolerable as possible. In this case, I see lots of people on barricades with relatively little merit to the original action taken. In essence: IAR, but be prepared to take the backlash. This is the backlash. Was it worth it? -- grm_wnr Esc 14:30, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
As per Sjakkalle above. Process does matter, it is a guarentee of transparency and accoutnability in making key decisions. Ther is a reason why fundamental civil rights are said to be covered by a gurantee of Due process. While wikipedia is not a government, many of the same reasons why process is important apply here. DES ^(talk) 15:52, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Those who keep trying to break Afd are the only reason that people have the perception Afd does not work --TimPope 18:00, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Gamaliel 18:50, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
See new section lower down this page. Thryduulf 00:07, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
android 79 01:11, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 01:13, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
--Sean Jelly Baby? 01:17, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Splash^talk 01:26, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
User:Zoe|^(talk) 02:14, 4 October 2005 (UTC) Hear, hear.[reply]
File:Ottawa flag.png Spinboy 02:22, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Also second the comment of TimPope above. Xoloz 04:46, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Admins should never use their powers to enforce their own views, only the community consensus. moink 07:18, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely. Filiocht | The kettle's on 09:53, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Eugene van der Pijll 11:58, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly: There are whole fleets of red herrings swimming by in Snowspinner's and David Gerard's responses. "AfD is broken" is not the subject. "Ed Poor was right" is not the subject. None of that is on the table. Further, "Snowspinner should keep his admin status" is not on the table, as an RfC doesn't get to specify the injunction. Frankly, all of that hand wringing and bell ringing ought to be ignored. Geogre 12:18, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, this is correct. Deleting the actual AfD nomination pages seems iffy. With speedy keeps, this just isn't done, to provide a historical record and a transparent deletion process. Deletion of those nominations is a misuse of the sysop capabilities. Bratsche^{talk | Esperanza} 21:01, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
If one believes there is a desperate problem, WP:POINT still is not the answer. --Tabor 01:23, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
--cesarb 02:54, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, also see my talk page, which is how I found this page. I think his comments are deceptive. While notability may not be in the deletion policy, it is widely used in practice. Other users may have taken his comments without question because he is an admin. -- Kjkolb 05:41, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above all seems obviously true. The only question on the table is did Snowspinner violate policy. The answer seems to me to be, obviously, that he did. Only WP:IAR could be used as a valid defense (of course IAR can always be invoked by anyone who violates any policy) But I don't think IRA is justified here, and it looks as if a majority would agree. Paul August ☎ 16:28, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
AFD has many problems, but this did nothing to solve them. I feel Snowspinner knows this, and was not being bold to solve a problem, but was making a point. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 06:47, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Yes indeed gkhan 15:23, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Bravo. Lord Bob 00:46, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Susvolans ⇔ 11:07, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely right. Trying to piss off the deletionists like this is not a route to resolving the issues, and Snowspinner knows it. He just likes to throw his weight around. It's disgraceful that the arbcom are out in force to defend him. They'd be banning an ordinary editor for disruption if they did something like this. I am an "inveterate edit warrior" because I put a picture on a page in a dispute over consensus. Snowspinner is a hero of the people for deleting attempts to reach consensus. Grace Note 00:10, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I've always tended to see Snowspinner as more of a RickK type than a Guanaco, but this makes me seriously, seriously reconsider that view. Ambi 12:06, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. Andre (talk) 13:57, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Outside view by DES[edit]

It is my view that there is general consensus that a subject must be notable in order for it to have an article on Wikipedia. I point to the recent discussion at Wikipedia:Deletion reform/Brainstorming#Remove notable requirement where it was suggested as part of proposed reforms of the deletion process that this requirement be removed. The overwhelming agreement on those who have commented is that notability is now a requirement and that it should remain one. And I note that these discussions, as part of the deletion reform proposal, are likely to be disproportionaly viewed by people who think the entire current deletion process is "broken" -- but of course they are even more disproportionatly likely to be viewed by people who have a significant interest in the deletion process and deletion policy.

I cite additional support for my view that there is a consensus that non-notable subjects should not have articles, even if they are verifiable. There is a general agreement that bands not meeting the WP:MUSIC criteria should not be the subjects of articles, and that such articles, when they are created, should be deleted. Such articles are almost always deleted at AfD, and a proposal to make this a speedy delete criterion got majority supoort (but not consensus, in significant part due to issues about definition and explicit reliance on a non-policy page). Many such bands are verifiable, but the issue of verifibility pretty much never comes up in AfD debates on such bands, it is always an issue of notability.

The subject of WP:CSD A7 have been discussed elsewhere including on AN/I. It is new, and it has been somewhat contentions, and it IMO needs clearer support standards. But when there have been disputes they have been over what is or is not notable, or over what consitutes a "claim" of notability. No one has been arguing that biographies of non-notable people ought to be retained.

Indeed, does anyone really argue that verifiable but admittedly non-notable subjects should have articles here? To borrow an example recently used on VfU, my left shoe is verifiable, (I can send you a picture if you like) but does anyone really want an article about it? Consider a thunderstorm that occured in New Jersey in 2004. It is easily verifiable -- I can produce newspaper reports. But should there be an article on Wikipedia on every storm that got newspaper coverage? Or to be a little more reasonable, consider me. I was, earlier this year, an unsuccessful candidate for local elected office. This is verifiable -- there were quite a number of newspaper stories local and regional about the campaign. I have previously been the chair of a professional sub-orgianization (ACM's SIGAPL) and have published professional papers and edited professional conference proceedings. This is easily verifiable. Still I am probably not notable (I wouldn't meet my own standards on AfD) Should there be David E. Siegel? Would you vote to delete it on AfD? If not, why not?

I would argue that if a subject is not notable, an article about it is not encyclopedic, because an encyclopedia only has articles about notable subjects. It is is certianly policy that Wikipedia includes only encyclopedic articles. Notability is really just a shorthand for encyclopediacicty, or more accurately, it is one criterion for encyclopediacicty (verifibility is another, as is a factual tone).

So I think that notability is a current requirement for being the subject of a Wikipedia article, and it should be -- even though there is not always clear consensus on what constitutes notability, and like any other critierion of inclusion or deletion, it can be abused. Thus I feel that unilaterally deleting AfD pages where non-notability was cited as a reason for nomination, or ignoring AfD votes that site non-notability as a reason, is against consensus and therefore violates policy.

Therefore Snowspinner's actions are a violation of policy, in that the AFD pages did not meet any speedy deletion criterion, but more importantly that taking unilateral action to change policy or solve a policy problem, rather than acting through discussion, violates basic wikipedia policy.

Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~~~~):

Forgot to sign my own comments. DES ^(talk) 16:26, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Well put. --fvw *
Of course! Regardless of what some people are saying, non-notability is a deletion criterion, and it is because the community, by and large, believes it is. ~~ N (t/c) 17:08, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
There is an argument that notability is a contentious criterion for deletion, but neutrality/verifiability alone as a criterion for inclusion commands less consensus --TimPope 18:02, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Gamaliel 18:50, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I endorse this insofar as it repeats the points about discussion-rather-than-delete-button, but think that the questions of notability are tangential to the core of the RfC. -Splash^talk 01:26, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I endorse this view in full. The Literate Engineer 03:22, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
If WP ever drops notability requirements entirely, I'll have loads of fun writing verifiable articles on every one of my pimples, all of which have names, and some which have extensive life histories. If WP does sadly become an indescriminate collection of information (and this is where the notability requirement originates in my view, at WP:NOT), it might as well catalog every cell in my body. Xoloz 04:53, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:15, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 08:17, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Without consensus and non-notability as a cause for deletion, Wikipedia will never become a work of reference. Filiocht | The kettle's on 09:54, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Eugene van der Pijll 11:58, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Precisely: "notability" is just the magic word used by some to argue "it's not in the deletion guideline, and therefore there must be a keep." Notability = encyclopedic, and one must only wonder whether anyone would be complaining, and how, if any other admin decided to "be bold" and speedy delete every school article on the site, as they do not demonstrate notability. Would that be "bold," or would it be an offense? Would it warrant consideration of that person's access to the delete and undelete powers? In this debate, reason is more rare than passion and hypocrisy is more common than words. Geogre 12:21, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Well said - Tεx τ urε 16:49, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
· Katefan0^(scribble) 21:17, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Lectonar 11:58, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Again, bravo. Lord Bob 00:47, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Susvolans ⇔ 11:06, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Those who think notability has no place in wikipedia need look no further than the "-pedia" at the end. -R. fiend 18:27, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Anyone who has to deal with AfD knows that notability is an issue there. Article quality is another. In my experience, good articles about non-notable subjects survive; bad articles about non-notable subjects don't. Seems fair enough to me—if the subject is non-notable, who is going to bother to improve the article? These actions constitute a premature closure of debates about article qulity, which I cannot accept. Physchim62 20:18, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Completely hit the nail -- (☺drini♫|☎) 14:19, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Snowspinner, you have finally crossed the line. Ambi 12:06, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Outside view by Unfocused[edit]

Snowspinner's actions were disruptive and against speedy deletion policy. However, the actions were in support of the actual greater overall deletion policy, instead of established guidelines. And there is a growing view that AfD has become a forum where a small group of regulars enforce their view regarding deletion, calling it "consensus" even when only as few as three of the 450,000 editors participate. Enforcement of these guidelines, which are formed by in one small corner of Wikipedia by a small but very interested minority, must not be permitted to override the actual specific policies or lack thereof in the project as a whole. The overriding consideration we must apply is that there is no consensus to delete articles for lack of notability. Snowspinner was bold and he ignored all the rules but he was too much of a dick to deserve thanks for what he did. Please don't do this again.

Blackcap's response was obviously in good faith, and directly in line with policy regarding when to call a "Request for Comments". We should thank him for responding in the proper manner. However, everyone should note that the offense committed is not delisting AfD nominations made for lack of notability. The offense in question is speedy deleting discussions already in progress.

We need to have this discussion, especially as the interested minority that frequents AfD has started considering the precedents of the interested minority to be of nearly the same importance as the official policies (and lack of official policies) themselves. Un focused 16:50, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly. -- grm_wnr Esc 16:55, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
David Gerard 19:54, 3 October 2005 (UTC) Of nearly the same importance? They consider them of greater importance. In between driving off non-regulars then claiming they should be participating if they think the system is rotten.
BTW, could whoever removed my endorsement from here please not bloody do so. Thanks ever so much. - David Gerard 12:07, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. I share Snowspinner's views on "notability" and it never ceases to amaze me that people actually care what articles other people want to write, as though it were some personal insult that we have an article on some small-time band. However, if someone who wasn't well-connected made widescale deletions of ongoing discussions (or disrupted them), we'd be seeing them banned. An editor was disciplined, I seem to recall, just for making sarky comments on VfD, and again for "disrupting" VfU. Yes, I agree that a living, dynamic wiki can be strangled by insistence on process, but it's not much helped either by the creation of a hierarchy in which some can do as they wish and others are bound very strictly by rules that are incremented almost daily. Here Snowspinner is given free rein to disrupt others' conversations because he doesn't agree with their tenor; elsewhere, he is being empowered to block users for calling each other "fuckheads" and to check the IPs of those he doesn't like. Inveterate POV pushers act as they like because they are part of the gang; dissenters are punished and policed. Kid yourselves all you like that any of this has anything to do with creating a great encyclopaedia, but you are kidding yourselves. Grace Note 00:21, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Radiant's view[edit]

Well. We can spend all week bickering on whether we should blame Snowspinner, or blame the people who blame Snowspinner, or blame those who blame those... - well, you get the idea.

Or, we could consider that AFD is unwieldy, bureaucratic, factionalizing and generally unpleasant, and find some way to fix that. Looking over AFD it is obvious that the vast majority of nominations don't need the debate - many end up as unanimous deletes; many others get a plethora of keeps because the nominator overlooked something, or the article had a source added; and yet many others are actually nominated for NPOV'izing, merging, or renaming and don't need AFD.

In the spirit of the latter, I would suggest this extremely simple deletion system...

If you want some article deleted, for whatever reason, edit it to add {{subst:SomeDeletionTemplate|reason}}.
If someone else disagrees, they can edit the article and remove the template. End of story.
No edit warring - no user is allowed to place that template on the same article twice.
If the template remains in place for some specific period of time, the article may be summarily deleted by any admin.

To ensure that this works, the template should add the article to Category:Deletion 4-10-2005, and a bot should update the template each day to point it to the new date. Advantages? Less bureaucracy. Less room for violent debate. Less chance of a cabalistic subculture. Less backlogs. And it requires no software upgrade. Disadvantages? It doesn't work on articles that are sock-supported or controversial, and it may be necessary to have some process to get rid of those. That process should not be invoked until this simple process has been tried and failed a couple of times.

Similar processes have been proposed in the past, but to my knowledge none as simple as this. It makes deletion easier if nobody objects, and makes it harder in case of controversy. Both seem like a good thing to me. So this is my view of what is going on between AFD and Snowy, and what should be done about it. Anyone who concurs should feel free to turn this into an official proposal on some other page, and discuss and advertise it. R adiant _>|< 22:28, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia:Pure wiki deletion system is simpler, aside from the initial step of getting it implemented in software. But what you're describing is approximately how Experimental Deletion works right now in practice, except your proposal has more specific rules. rspeer 20:20, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Outside view by Thryduulf[edit]

Policy exists for a reason, and the reason AfD policy exists is to provide an inclusive and transparent method for discussing the merits of including or not including a given article in the encyclopaedia. Whether or not the policy is broken is irrelevant, just because some (but not all) people agree that a law is wrong or unjust does not mean breaking it is acceptable.

Only a tiny minority of AfD listings are made in bad faith, even if the nomination does not correlate exactly with policy the nominator might not be aware of the policy or alternative article improvement methods. In my opinion there should only be two occasions when articles should be speedily kept.

When the nomination is obviously bad faith (e.g. nominating an extremely high profile article like George W Bush, or when someone nominated Israel for deletion on the grounds that the government's (alleged) breaches of internation law had invalidated its existence).
When at least some of the first few people expressing an opinion call for a speedy-keep, there are no votes for actions other than Keep and nobody has stated they object to it being speedily kept.

In both these situations, the AfD page should be closed and kept. It would be up to the discretion of the closing administrator whether or not to make a record of the debate on the talk page of the article. They should mention it was speedily kept in the edit summary when removing the AfD tag though. I can see no situation where the deletion of AfD pages has any benefit to anybody. It also allows for accusations of cabalism by leaving adminsitrators wide open to accusations of trying to hide things. To my mind, Snowspinner acted improperly on this occasion but he did so in good faith. If he, or anyone else, repeated the actions before consensus on this issue is reached - whether the consensus is with my suggestions or not - would imho be a bad-faith breach of WP:POINT. Thryduulf 00:27, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Users who endorse this summary (sign with --~~~~):

OF COURSE. ~~ N (t/c) 03:27, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. Might I also remind people that one of the disruptive actions LevelCheck got reprimanded for was nominating Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Jesus for deletion. (Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Votes for deletion/Jesus). Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:19, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
enceph alon 18:47, 4 October 2005 (UTC) Beautifully—and kindly—said.[reply]
--Blackcap | talk 19:35, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Deletion of nominations is unnecessary and problematic. Bratsche^{talk | Esperanza} 21:02, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
DES ^(talk) 15:03, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, of course. I see no possible good reason for deleting an AfD page. (Whether Snowspinner's actions were wholly in "good faith" or not, I cannot know, but I'm willing to asume that they were.) Paul August ☎ 16:41, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I have now made this into a formal policy proposal at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Speedy keep proposal. Thryduulf 20:11, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Outside view by Gmaxwell[edit]

Although there are still open concerns about the quality of Snowspinner's judgement in deleting discussion pages (rather than a more easily undone speedy keep), this RFC should be closed because the parties involved have successfully taken it completely offtopic: This has become a discussion of AFD policies overall. Such discussions would be better held in the appropriate place so that they can reach the wider interested audience.

Gmaxwell 01:34, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Ifnord 00:11, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Outside view by Fubar Obfusco[edit]

This is getting to be a complex issue, largely because people are using it to comment on lots of the usual perpetual gripes. I'm going to see if I can get some relatively simple points out:

This isn't about inclusionism or deletionism. A number of people posting above (including Snowspinner) have tried to turn this into a branch of the perpetual faction struggle. There's nothing at all in the original complaint about inclusionism, deletionism, mergism, this-ism, that-ism. Bringing up this eternal hooraw is a distraction from the issue here -- a specific set of disruptive administrative actions; and the broader issue of disruptive administrative action.
Don't disrupt Wikipedia to make a point. It is in no case acceptable to screw up other people's work just so you can make a point about Wikipedia process or policy. So you think AfD is "broken" -- that doesn't give you any business breaking it further. So you don't like that articles get deleted for being "non-notable" and that AfD is "overloaded" -- that doesn't mean you get to delete AfD discussions.
"Be bold in updating pages" is a guideline for editing, not administrative action. A number of people have erroneously cited "the 'be bold' policy" as a defense of disruptive administrative action. But there's never been anything resembling a policy (or consensus) that administrators are supposed to "be bold" in the sense of running roughshod over their fellow editors.
Administrative action is subject to review by all editors. Several people posting above have stated or implied that calling for review of administrative action is wrong, misguided, or "insane". To the contrary -- it is utterly necessary. If an administrator is going to break things, that's a problem, and needs to be dealt with. In order for that to happen, discussion on administrative actions needs to be open and candid -- people mustn't be silenced by accusations that review is "insane" or that they're engaging in "conspiracy theory".
Deleting active discussions is particularly nasty disruption. Quite aside from the baseline issue of disrupting Wikipedia, the specific type of disruption here was pointedly troubling. Discussions (including those on AfD) are how we seek and try to establish consensus. They're essential to how we work here on all sorts of issues -- not just deletion. So deleting an active discussion is a particularly nasty kind of disruption, since it's an attack on the mechanism by which we build this project. --FOo 02:38, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Or, in brief, for those who've been affected by PowerPoint:

Disruption is bad, no matter who does it.
WP:DICK trumps WP:BOLD, especially for administrative action.
Don't delete active discussions, even if you think they're "invalid".

I think that about wraps it up. --FOo 02:38, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

android 79 02:40, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 02:45, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
User:Zoe|^(talk) 02:51, 4 October 2005 (UTC) Excellent response.[reply]
Exactly. --Blackcap | talk 02:53, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The Literate Engineer 03:21, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
~~ N (t/c) 03:28, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Xoloz 04:57, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
brenneman ^(t)^(c) 05:05, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:20, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for putting everything in perspective. Gamaliel 08:29, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
That makes sense, which is a Good Thing. Proto t c 09:00, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, Snowspinner's actions were a particularly nasty form of disruption. Filiocht | The kettle's on 09:57, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Agree in outline - but I think the word 'nasty' is unhelpful. Tell him not to do it again, and let's move on and try to fix the deletion process. --Doc (?) 10:14, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Eugene van der Pijll 11:58, 4 October 2005 (UTC). Agree, and with the word 'nasty' too.[reply]
Beautifully said and extremely concise. Geogre 12:25, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Well put. -Splash^talk 13:07, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
To the point, thanks. Bunchofgrapes 14:55, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Well said, Fubar --TimPope 16:39, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
My left shoe agrees - Tεx τ urε 16:47, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I Agree --JAranda | yeah 18:38, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
enceph alon 18:43, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Thryduulf 19:03, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
· Katefan0^(scribble) 20:15, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Agree in entirety. Bratsche^{talk | Esperanza} 21:03, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Ilmari Karonen 22:13, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Well said. --Tabor 01:23, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
--cesarb 02:57, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
--File:Ottawa flag.png Spinboy 03:35, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The summary implies all disruption is bad, but it's more complex than that. I fully support the long version of this view. --Gmaxwell 03:40, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Lectonar 11:59, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I fully agree. DES ^(talk) 15:23, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Very well put, I completely agree. Paul August ☎ 17:02, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
moink 20:19, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Very nice summary gkhan 15:24, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
WP:DICK is required reading for all... Secret london 17:09, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Very well put.--Sean Jelly Baby? 01:08, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Huzzah. Lord Bob 01:26, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Susvolans ⇔ 11:05, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Robert McClenon 21:09, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. The idea that admin action cannot be criticised has become far too prevalent. They're just ordinary editors, remember. Grace Note 00:25, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Nice statement. CarbonCopy 21:36, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Point 5 is especially valid. Joyous (talk) 02:57, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This sums it up nicely. --Aquillion 03:49, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Concur wholeheartedly. If only this were adopted by all parties to this mess. Ambi 12:09, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Andre (talk) 13:58, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely concur. Nandesuka 00:45, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
— Asbestos | Talk (RFC) 07:05, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Outside view by Zzyzx11[edit]

This dispute is a symptom of a number of enormous diseases that will eventually affect the credibility and reputation of Wikipedia in a very negative way. No wonder why many long time contributors such as RickK have left in droves. If we cannot get a clear consensus of our deletion policy, if we cannot stop admins from taking controversial actions, if we keep on bickering at each other, I fear this project will be doomed. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 20:01, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Outside view by Doc[edit]

As much as I cannot suport Snowspinner's actions, they like Ed Poor's, evidence a frustration with the deletion process that we ignore at our peril. The criterion 'notability' is contentious, and that is unlikely to change. However, the notability criteria is not afd's main problem. Snowspinner deleted 16 'notability-based' nominations out of 130 that day. (And some of the 16 nominations could have been made on other grounds - OR, verifiability etc). My anecdotal conclusion is that over 80% of afd's work has nothing much to do with notability. If afd cannot upscale with Wiki-growth, then we have a problem. Deletion reform is essential - notability is largely a sideshow. Consensus on reform might be possible, consensus on notability is not. We need to spend a little less effort on tribal point-scoring, wiki-lawyering, and unilateral action (all well evidenced in this debate), and more on trying to work together to constructively solve the problems. --Doc (?) 12:48, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Outside view by Mindspillage[edit]

The deletion of the AfD pages was a poor call; it removes the ability of non-admins to review the action fully, and it breaks the practice of usual practice of retaining discussion pages even when the actions they propose are soundly rejected. A speedy keep and delist would have also drawn attention, and not involved the use of administrative actions to handle an "invalid nomination" (whether or not they actually were invalid isn't the issue here: there does not seem to be consensus there and this incident has not resolved it). Ignore All Rules, yes, but not in order to perform an action that one can assume with some reasonable forethought will generate ill will and inflame arguments rather than provide a quick and elegant solution to them. Disruption is not necessarily bad (whether to prove a point or not), but the costs to the community of his actions outweighed the benefits and it was partially the use of administrative powers to do so that caused that. Be bold in actions that anyone can do; be conservative in using admin rights.

Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~~~~):

Mindspillage (spill yours?) 13:27, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Actions like Snowspinner's create unnecessary animus within the Wikipedia community, weaken its cohesion, and foster the notion that some editors think they are above others. Paul August ☎ 17:13, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Deletion policy is a difficult area, and there's a lot of people on different sides of difference fences here, without much agreement. Unilateral action like this is dangerous, and should probably be avoided. Time will tell whether this action ultimately benefited or harmed Wikipedia; however, a speedy keep would have had the same effect without involving the use of any admin authority. Eradicating all evidence of an AfD should only be done when the AfD was clearly brought in bad faith (e.g. deletion attempt of George W. Bush by an anon). These were presumptively good faith AfDs. Kelly Martin 17:54, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Certainly true. ~~ N (t/c) 00:29, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
--Blackcap | talk 00:55, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Sjakkalle (Check!) 06:40, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Gmaxwell 13:21, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Filiocht | The kettle's on 07:39, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Susvolans ⇔ 11:04, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Totally. Snowspinner did not abuse his powers to protest the discussions or to fix the deletion policy. He abused them to bully other users. This should not be supported by the establishment, even if you agree with the reasoning behind it. There are plenty of ways of disagreeing with the listing of articles for deletion. Grace Note 00:28, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Any misuse of admin powers is a bad thing, regardless of motive. Filiocht | The kettle's on 07:35, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
enceph alon 09:04, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Outside view by gkhan[edit]

Most all that needs to be said has been already, so my comment might be seen as piling it on. But I would like to make one point that isn't made often enough (and it's about more than just this case, so oh well...)

The only time I really see people invoke WP:BOLD is when they have done something destructive. That is not what the policy is about. You're bold when you feel that something needs to be changed, and you do something constructive, if perhaps unconventional about it. This was not constructive. Unilaterally deleting a number of discussions is not bold, it's arrogant. What wikipedia needs is not another (to borrow Gerards excellent, if rather graphic, phrase) dynamite enema, no, what wikipedia needs is for all of us to sit down and hammer out a policy that we can all find reasonable. The power of inertia is a strong one, but this is not the way to fight it.

In the future, can we all try to be less Malcolm X and alot more Dr. King. (note: I have nothing against Malcolm X, I'm a huge fan, but you get my point)

Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~~~~):

Susvolans ⇔ 11:04, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I respect Malcolm, but I respect Dr King more. Paul August ☎ 17:39, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion[edit]

All signed comments and talk not related to a vote or endorsement, should be directed to this page's discussion page.