Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Administrators cannot vote

 This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was DELETE. mikka (t) 21:09, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Administrators cannot vote
A rather spurious policy proposal intended to prevent admins from voting on 'requests for adminship'. It was created by an account that has existed for two days, and seems only to exist to stir up trouble (e.g. filing a RFC in petty revenge, and spurious voting on RFA). Thus, please delete this nonsense. And yes, admins can vote on this VFD. Radiant_ &gt;|&lt; 14:11, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)
 * And I shall gladly vote. Delete. Linuxbeak | Talk | Desk 14:15, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)
 * If an RFC ever becomes needed, we should keep this. Apart from that, this is about as spurious as the Death penalty, and should be deleted sooner or later. Sjakkalle (Check!)  14:16, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * There already is such an RFC (Requests for comment/64.62.161.12 seems related, I've asked David for a sockcheck) and this user has done enough weird things that we don't need this particular evidence. Radiant_ &gt;|&lt; 14:23, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)
 * Is this the right way to handle this? Shouldn't we all just argue against it, it doesn't become policy, and then we can delete it without further ado? DJ Clayworth 14:18, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * If it were a serious proposal, we could discuss and vote on it. Rejected proposals are archived, never deleted. Since it's nonsensical, however, I see no reason for archiving it. Radiant_ &gt;|&lt; 14:23, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Troll magnet. If it needs to be kept for Evidence purposes, I suggest that it be Userfied to User:MARMOT/Administrators cannot vote, or something similar. --Deathphoenix 14:32, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Uselessly disruptive. If ever needed for an RFC it could be archived on a talk page, or undeleted if need be. - Taxman Talk 14:53, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete for all the above reasons. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 15:37, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Might I add that user accounts that have only existed for two days have absolutely no business coming in and proposing new policy. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 17:05, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, created solely for disruption. --cesarb 16:07, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, troll. -- Arwel 17:27, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep or userfy (if I am eligible to vote) per Deathphoenix above. It clearly states that it is just a proposal. There probably is no real foundation for deleting this under VfD policy. 205.217.105.2 17:44, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Not a serious policy proposal. --Carnildo 18:17, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. (1) The title fails to mention it's with regard to RFA votes. (2) Admins aren't the arbitrators of the community. (3) I would rather encourage others to vote instead of disallow people to vote. (4) Creator doesn't seem to understand the community. (5) If it's needed as evidence it can be undeleted. - Mgm|(talk) 18:54, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. - Mustafaa 19:04, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Userfy per Deathphoenix for the time being, and delete from WP namespace: nonsensical trolling "policy proposal". Barno 21:00, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete - while I believe that anyone should be able to propose policy changes and constructively discuss them, there are ways and means and this isn't it. -- Francs2000 | Talk 21:22, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * What are the "ways and means" you mention for a new user to propose policy? Where is the policy/guideline?  Village pump?  Some of the discussions there develop into policy proposals, but many of the items there are simply announcements for already proposed policies.  This person followed the procedure on How to create policy.  The only guideline he didn't adhere to is the first, but as a guideline, I don't think there's a requirement to meet all of them.  -- Un focused 13:24, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * See my response to Everyking below. - Taxman Talk 13:25, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment. Author must try harder? I don't understand what purpose this is supposed to serve? Maybe it's because I'm prone to bias and furthering my own petty interests only? JRM · Talk 22:40, 2005 Jun 16 (UTC)
 * Delete. Don't disrupt Wikipedia. Adminship should not be a big deal. Admins are just editors with extra "powers". Suggest that the person who proposed this get a clue, as this policy would negate several other important policies. - Ta bu shi da yu 23:35, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete Are administrators allowed to vote in the VfD? :) Pburka 02:31, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. Letting the proposal stay does not in any way force us to agree to it or even acknowledge it. It does however give people who favor such views the opportunity to develop them and put them forward so that others can see them. Everyking 02:42, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * The issue is the name this article was created under is misleading and not helpful. The proposed policy is not being able to vote on adminship, while the title is the inflamatory not being able to vote at all. After all that, the proper place for the discussion about whether admins can vote for nominated admins is not a policy page in the Wikipedia space, but the Requests for adminship talk page. Bottom line is, sure we can have a discussion on whether admins can vote on requests for adminship. This just isn't the place. - Taxman Talk 13:25, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)
 * So the proposal was titled poorly. We all understood what it was meant to be by reading it, and could have moved it in an instant, right?  Why on earth would someone bury a policy proposal in the "Requests for Adminship Talk Page"?  This was posted in exactly the right place.  I respect yet disagree with those who voted delete because they think this is nothing but a troll, but "wrong place to post a proposed policy" is contrary to the posted guideline on how to create policy.  -- Un focused 01:02, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Again, it was titled in an inflammatory manner and written in an inflammatory, and poorly formatted way by an editor with a large number of disruptive edits. What about that would lead anyone to believe it was created in good faith? Hmm bury a policy proposal on the talk page of a very highly watched page that is specifically about voting on new administrators? Sticking it at a page in the Wikipedia namespace with almost no links to it is burying it more. Besides How to create policy even tells you that of 70 proposed policies, only 4 have been accepted. That would tell anyone thinking about it that there is a better way to get what you want accomplished. Finally it's not really even a new policy, it's just a change to the voting policy at requests for adminship. Requests for changes to that policy should go on its talk page. The fact that there is such strong consensus to delete this page, and as of yet, no one has brought that discussion up there is further evidence this page was created in bad faith. - Taxman Talk 18:23, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Beyond the simple disruption issues - heaven forbid a large group of people on WP who have made enough consistent edits to be elected by a consensus of editors (admin or not) to admin status should actually have an opinion on what it is that they do! If the original author wants it published and available for comment, besides the comments of this VfD forum, there is always their user page. Fire Star 04:08, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Trolling. Mel Etitis  ( &Mu;&epsilon;&lambda; &Epsilon;&tau;&eta;&tau;&eta;&sigmaf; ) 11:12, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. I can't see what is wrong about making a policy proposal, even if you disagree with it, it is only a proposal.     19:07, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Reluctant Keep. Simply deleting this is contrary to "Assume Good Faith".  In addition, ideas don't care who has them.  This one is worthy of discussion; it would certainly help prevent the formation of administrator cliques, which is a present and growing problem here on Wikipedia, in my perception.  Although I expect this to fail spectacularly, I think it is worth of a discussion.  Heaven forbid we actually allow a new user to open a discussion here!  It seems I'm voting with the anons, new users, and possible socks, but there's a principle here.  -- Un focused 19:57, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * The corollary to "assume good faith" is "don't be a sucker". A user attempting to create a policy such as this on the third day of their account's existence sends up so many red flags that it feels like flag day in the PRC. -- Cyrius|&#9998; 03:16, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * And what about letting a discussion proceed is "being a sucker"? I feel that the idea itself is worthy of discussion, and even if you don't agree, what is the harm in allowing it to continue?  If I had an idea, I would have posted a proposal on my first day.  I waited nearly six months to register an account, so I had an idea of how things work, and I know I'm not the only one who registers with some experience.  It's a discussion, not a hand grenade.  "Red flags" are a warning to take a closer look, but when I look, I find no danger here, except what I suspect is a whole new use for VfD.  Are we going to VfD the RfCs we don't like next?  -- Un focused 13:11, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Letting oneself waste time on a fairly obvious troll is being a sucker. And on that note, that's the last I'm going to say about this. -- Cyrius|&#9998; 13:30, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * A primary rule of the prevailing wiki-thought is that if someone suggests an idea you don't like, it's trolling. It's nauseating. Good faith is dead. Everyking 13:34, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Your zeal would have been better spent on drafting a new formulation of the proposal that is a lot less clumsy and inflammatory. That, in turn, seems to be more productive than lamenting the lack of good faith in others. Is suggesting that people are calling this trolling because they "don't like the idea" supposed to be good faith, then? It's quite obvious why people assume this is a troll, and it has not so much to do with the concept as with the way it's expressed. A proposal that outright states that admins often further "their own petty interests", true or not, relevant or not, is not the best way to encourage constructive discussion. As an aside: meta-squabbles over who can call whose evaluation of the situation bad faith, now that we might truly call "prevailing wiki-thought". And that's not really helping either. JRM · Talk 13:51, 2005 Jun 18 (UTC)
 * I don't favor the proposal so I have zero interest in helping develop it. Also I think I can say with near certainty that almost all users, with a handful of exceptions, would be subject to accusations of trolling if they put forward a proposal like this, so I think the way it's expressed is not fundamental to the opposition. Everyking 14:01, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * An audacious assumption, which I do not agree with. The point will probably remain moot, however, since no similar proposals will likely be forthcoming any time soon. JRM · Talk 14:46, 2005 Jun 18 (UTC)
 * being worthy of discussion is besides the point. There are places to have the discussion, this just isn't it. As mentioned above, the Requests for adminship talk page would be. - Taxman Talk 13:25, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)
 * Isn't patent nonsense speedyable? (DELETE) Snowspinner 01:42, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)
 * Yes. However, it makes perfect sense to me, and judging from the other votes I think you may be the only one who doesn't understand it. Everyking 13:32, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete - there's no reason to leave this troll lying around cluttering up the already-cluttered Wikipedia namespace. -- Cyrius|&#9998; 03:16, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Trolling. jni 13:55, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Magic 8 ball says: Troll. Holy TrollSlayer +6 is glowing blue. Stars are aligned. Project2501a 23:48, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * I can't imagine what somebody would think of Wikipedia if they weren't a troll and got this kind of treatment. Everyking 15:57, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * How many of the voters for deletion are non-admins?
 * "There are 20 votes for deletion, of which 16 are by admins." MARMOT 21:26, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * It doesn't really matter how many of them are admins... admins vote on VfD's fairly often and keep the VfD's clean of votes by sockpuppets and vandalism such as a user changing another user's vote. I see ABSOLUTELY nothing productive that could come from this idea of not letting admins vote. Delete.--Chanting Fox 21:32, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Jonathunder 22:29, 2005 Jun 19 (UTC)
 * Ex-ter-min-ate!. Mackensen (talk) 01:49, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. User:MARMOT is trying to make a WP:POINT, and even if he were not, this still isn't a good idea. There is nothing wrong with proposing new policies, but I see no evidence that MARMOT did this in good faith, and ultimately, it is nothing more than a troll magnet. func (talk) 14:50, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * "User:Marmot has made many good edits under various IPs, including this account." Unsigned comment made by MARMOT, 13:15, Jun 20, 2005
 * You do know your contributions list makes it really easy to see you have made very few useful edits and that your RFC page makes your disruptive ones even more clear right? And if we gave you credit for positive edits you claim to have made anonymously, we'd have to credit all the disruptive ones you seem to have made too. - Taxman Talk 18:23, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)

"Thanks for that. I'd sum it up as pointless." Marmot
 * keep. The idea of somehow restricting the power of admins is not new. Kept, this page may be a good historical argument and reference for both positions. The motives of its creation are irrelevant. Judge by merits of the page itself. mikka (t) 21:06, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages.  Please do not edit this page .