User:El Sandifer/RfC Snowspinner 4

In order to remain listed at 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: 17:14, 14 January 2006), the page will be deleted. The current date and time is:, 29 July 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 Requests for comment/Example user.



Statement of the dispute
''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
Snowspinner dissrupted wikipedia to prove his point, by reverting Template:User wikipedia to his favorable revision and then protected the template, his edit summary was "Revert to non-meta template version. Breaking user pages is preferable to meta-templates - simply put, they don't actually matter very much."

Powers misused

 * Protection (log):
 * Template:User wikipedia

Applicable policies

 * Protection policy
 * Admins must not protect pages they are actively engaged in editing, except in the case of simple vandalism.
 * The protection of a page on any particular version is not meant to express support for that version and requests should therefore not be made that the protected version be reverted to a different one.

Evidence of trying and failing to resolve the dispute
(provide diffs and links)
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Snowspinner&oldid=35157574
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ASnowspinner&diff=35159552&oldid=35157574
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:AzaToth&diff=35160882&oldid=35158061

Users certifying the basis for this dispute
(sign with ~ )
 * →Aza Toth 17:25, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Other users who endorse this statement
(sign with ~ )

Response
''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.''

If this somehow gets certified, I will make a response. Phil Sandifer 03:30, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~ ):

Outside view by FCYTravis
WP:AUM clearly and specifically deprecates the use of meta-templates as a major drain on Wikipedia server resources. Given that resources are already limited and in short supply and that meta-templates should not be used even in articlespace, it makes no sense at all to allow anyone to insert them in something so utterly unimportant and minor as userboxes. Snowspinner is properly enforcing policy by protecting a page against an edit which has the potential to do serious harm to the server infrastructure of Wikipedia. To quote policy, the question to be asked is, "Is the end product essential to Wikipedia, or is it a primarily decorative feature? Meta-templates that are not essential should be avoided." There is absolutely *nothing* essential to Wikipedia about a userbox - they are purely decorative features. Hence, this RFC is frivolous in the extreme. The alternative to protecting the page against the offending edits is blocking the offending user - a measure I hardly think the RFC filer would prefer.

Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~ ):
 * 1) FCYTravis 20:23, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) Carbonite | Talk 20:24, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 3) Exactly. I should point out that Jamesday recently asked us (once more) to not use meta-templates unless necessary. Radiant_ &gt;|&lt; 21:06, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 4) Although it would be desirable as well not to fix the ensuing ugliness in the following user pages, it is not required, either. This RFC is not only frivolous in the issue itself, but that this could have been raised in the third RFC. Elle vécut heureuse  à jamais  (Be eudaimonic!) 03:43, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 5) Carnildo 06:14, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 6) David | Talk 15:36, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 7) Typically, Snowspinner strikes me as a rogue admin, but this was well within policy. --Blu Aardvark | (talk) 09:30, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 8) Disagree with Snowspinner on just about everything, but not on this one. Sjakkalle (Check!)  09:35, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 9) Rd232 talk 10:00, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 10) the wub  "?!"  RFR - a good idea? 12:12, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 11) To all the people who haven't looked at it:  The template was horrific syntax-wise, and was certainly a larger drain on the server than it had to be.  If you want it the way it was, use different templates for each.  Snowspinner was in the right on this one.  Ral315 (talk) 13:17, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 12) Another frivolous RfC. SlimVirgin (talk)  16:09, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 13) I don't usually take part in these, but this one... sannse (talk) 17:25, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 14) This was a poorly designed template. Sometimes you need to break something in order to fix it. Quaque (talk &bull; contribs) 18:56, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 15) feydey 19:51, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 16) &mdash;Viriditas | Talk 12:46, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Reply
This has nothing to do with userboxes, this has to do in editing a template to his favorable edit and then protect it. He was fully aware that we are in a progress to remove the meta templates and that was a temporary solution, but ignored it. This has to do with abuse of admin priviledges, nothing else. →Aza Toth 21:11, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
 * That would be a valid argument in a regular edit war between various user opinions. However, if one side is supported by strong consensus, or as in this case by official policy, it does not apply. Also note that Snowy wasn't actually involved in the earlier edit war. Radiant_ &gt;|&lt; 21:30, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree completely with AzaToth's position here and find the outside view above disingenuous at best. However, the very things which make FCYTravis's summation of the situation untrue have also made this RfC irrelevant... the template's functionality has now been completely replaced. Contrary to the claims above, this dispute had nothing to do with who was and who was not following WP:AUM. AzaToth was working diligently to bring the User wikipedia template into compliance with AUM. Claims to the contrary are belied by the fact that this has now been accomplished. Because of AzaToth's work it was possible for Commander Keane to replace all the existing calls to that template with calls to simple templates... created by AzaToth. The only result of Snowspinner's change and page protection here was that for about a day four hundred or so user pages displayed the wrong information. Had Snowspinner done nothing the end result would have been exactly the same, but the changeover would have caused no disruption and AzaToth would not have been subjected to false accusations and unwarranted threats.

Accusing a user of violating a policy that they were clearly in the process of doing alot of work to implement is uncivil and/or a 'personal attack'. Threatening to block a user solely for trying to follow policy in a way which doesn't cause needless aggravation is completely unjustified. Breaking hundreds of pages to make a point is disruptive and wrong. Using admin page protection powers to enforce your view over that of others, particularly when the only difference is that your way may serve to annoy people, is also completely wrong.

There was no need for this. It was disruptive, bullying, and insulting for no good cause. Snowspinner succeeded in harassing AzaToth and disrupting a few hundred pages for a day... and that's all he accomplished here. --CBD &#x260E; &#x2709; 12:41, 16 January 2006 (UTC)


 * You sure you don't want to endorse the RfC? Phil Sandifer 17:50, 16 January 2006 (UTC)


 * As I understand it... I can't; not having been involved in either the initial dispute or attempts to resolve it (both listed as pre-reqs for people endorsing). Further, what purpose would it serve? The pages which you broke have now all been repaired and the meta-template fully phased out. The only remaining possible goal would be to let you know my views on the situation... and those can be found above. --CBD &#x260E; &#x2709; 18:45, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
 * The RfC will be deleted if you don't would be the main reason. Phil Sandifer 19:00, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

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