Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Requests for de-adminship/Snowspinner

 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. – ABCD 02:58, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Requests for de-adminship/Snowspinner
At Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_de-adminship, there is a 2-1 consensus against the entire proposed Requests for de-adminship process. I personally did not vote in that straw poll, but in going ahead with an actual de-adminship "vote", Netoholic is jumping the gun, ignoring consensus, and trying to unilaterally impose his own invention on Wikipedia. -- Curps 23:37, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * VfD has no authority over non-mainspace articles, no authority over cases of people ignoring "proposed process" in non-mainspace articles, and you haven't even tried to cite the part of the deletion policy that this is covered under, mainly because it isn't. Take your squabbles to the talk pages involved, please. Listing such things on VfD is a waste of people's time. Recommend unlisting. James F. (talk) 23:41, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Rfde-Adm has no authority over de-adminning sysops, the Arbitration Committee does. Listing such things on Rfde-Adm is a waste of people's time.  Should I go on? What's that you say... there's nothing in the deletion policy to cover this Vfd listing? Hang on a sec, maybe I'll do what Netoholic did and just write my own brand-new policy from scratch.  Maybe I'll even call a vote on my brand-new policy and then ignore the consensus. -- Curps 23:56, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * PS, who says pages in Wikipedia namespace are outside the jurisdiction of Vfd? Note that votes for deletion are merrily proceeding for both District Attorney's Office and Sacred Office of the Inquisition.  -- Curps 03:16, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * To be clear, this petition is not listed at WP:RFDA, since that procedure has not been accepted. This is a petition only. -- Netoholic @ 00:56, 2005 Mar 25 (UTC)
 * If that was your true intent you would have done this under Request for Comments or maybe Current surveys, not as a subpage of your Requests for de-adminship. -- Curps 01:52, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * There's no need to be bitchy about it. James didn't do it. And no, you can't, since two wrongs don't make a right, and two WP:POINTs don't make a line to cross. JRM 00:31, 2005 Mar 25 (UTC)
 * This is not a WP:POINT... Netoholic is trying to unilaterally bypass all existing mechanisms and push through the de-adminning of a sysop; I'm just proposing the deletion of a stillborn page. If I actually wanted to disrupt Wikipedia to make a point, I'd write up my own policy at Requests for de-usership and start mere "petitions" which by a remarkable coincidence would nevertheless have titles which were subpages of it. -- Curps 01:45, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * I'm fairly certain the VfD does have authority: compare the cases of Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Wikipedia:Don't be a dick and Wikipedia talk:WikiMoney, both of which were put before the VfD.  →Iñgōlemo←   talk  06:15, 2005 Mar 25 (UTC)
 * Delete. Bogus petition with no policy to back it.  RickK 23:43, Mar 24, 2005 (UTC)
 * Move to Netoholic's user space. --Michael Snow 00:05, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * While I was in favour of a policy (but not necessarily this version), I was in the minority. I would vote delete, but apparently it is outside the jurisdiction of this process. Would an RfC be the better way to go? Thryduulf 00:06, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * I don't believe this Vfd is outside the jurisdiction of the Vfd process, see above. Other pages in Wikipedia namespace are currently the subject of Vfd's. -- Curps 03:18, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * In that case, Delete. If it isn't trying to use a policy that wasn't agreed then its a personal attack. Thryduulf 10:14, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep - I am making no attempt to implement any action.  This page is only to gather signatures of those who would like to see Snowspinner's admin status re-evaluated.  I am not sure what will become of it, or what action (if any) it will result it.   It is inappropriate that a petition would be listed here.  -- Netoholic @ 00:29, 2005 Mar 25 (UTC)
 * I am making no attempt to implement any action. Good. Then this belongs in your user space, not with the bogus imprimatur you're trying to give it by putting it in Wikipedia space and creating a shortcut to it. --Calton | Talk 01:43, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. If it's just a petition, put it in your user space. --Calton | Talk 01:43, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * I've moved it to Netaholic's user space. Hopefully that's solved the problem and this can now be delisted from vfd Theresa Knott (ask the rotten) 02:24, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * I've moved it back, because it is important we establish that petitions are appropriate for Wikipedia: space, since it is a community issue. -- Netoholic @ 02:54, 2005 Mar 25 (UTC)
 * Well before you delist it, you need to call for a Vfd for this Vfd page. Unfortunately, there's nothing in deletion policy that covers the deletion of Vfd pages.  Of course, you can remedy that by just inventing your own policy.  Or you can start a petition to invent such a policy... remember to put it under a subpage of Requests for de-adminship, which is our new namespace for petitions. Actually, rather than delisting this Vfd page, what you should do is move it to Requests for de-adminship/Votes for deletion/Requests for de-adminship/Snowspinner, because contrary to appearances this was never a Vfd at all, it was just a petition, so it belongs in the petition namespace. Or maybe now the new petition namespace is in Netoholic's user space, so we should move this page to User talk:Netoholic/Requests for de-adminship/Votes for deletion/Requests for de-adminship/Snowspinner.  Maybe I'll go ahead and do that.  Oops, hang on.  Netoholic moved it back out of his user space just now, a minute ago.  Never mind. -- Curps 02:48, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Stop disrupting this vote. Moving this VfD page was improper. -- Netoholic @ 02:54, 2005 Mar 25 (UTC)
 * Delete. This misleading page has been created by Netoholic without regard for the rules he himself set down (it's not been listed on the main WP:RFDA page as required) and without regard to the palpable lack of consensus for his otherwise interesting and thought-provoking proposal. Moreover, in the absence of a clear consensus on policy, his singling out of a particular user constitutes a personal attack on that user.  The page should be deleted and he should be considered for severe censure--something that will stop him repeating this kind of very serious personal attack.  --Tony Sidaway|Talk 02:55, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. I would have favoured moving it to user space, but the originator clearly doesn't want that. This cannot be viewed as unconnected with the RFDA process, since it's a subpage. It's bad faith to proceed with the RFDA idea when it looks like being voted down.-gadfium 03:01, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Well, I have to give points to Netoholic for coming up with new and original ways of being a royal PITA without actually breaking any rules. Although I think both the policy proposal and the petition are without merit, I'm neutral about deleting this. older &ne; wiser 03:06, Mar 25, 2005 (UTC)
 * Well, since you're neutral and your only reason to post this was to berate me, I'll answer. All I did was create a petition to gather information.  I didn't make this VfD listing.  If someone objected to the location or page name, they could have contacted me first. -- Netoholic @ 03:13, 2005 Mar 25 (UTC)
 * Delete this disgraceful farce. Ban the responsible parties. (sigh) -Fennec (はさばくのきつね) 03:17, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, just plain outragious. - RedWordSmith 03:21, Mar 25, 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, conniving. silsor 03:28, Mar 25, 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, since Netoholic doesn't want it in his userspace. --Carnildo 03:36, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete as abusive disruption. --iMb~Meow 04:07, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Involvied party/parties should go sit in the corner. android↔talk 04:46, Mar 25, 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. If offended parties have a problem with any administrator, they should submit an RfC, request mediation, or file a case with the Arbcom.  This page serves no purpose whatsoever as a legitimate instrument of policy, until RFDA has been accepted by the community.   →Iñgōlemo←   talk  06:08, 2005 Mar 25 (UTC)
 * Delete Misleading and inappropriate place for a "petition".  Start an RfC, or find a less loaded place for such if there's really some deep and necessary distinction to be made from such.  Alai 08:13, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. No current policy provides that space with such a purpose. El_C 10:00, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Strong Move the page to RFAr talk: . Move to an RFAr subpage, but add large disclaimer as appropriate and protect it. I would have said delete, but this is evidence for the RFAr against Netoholic, so it needs to be preserved. His earlier behaviour was borderline, and I was actually thinking of writing an amicus arbitratorai (is that a real word? :-P ) in his favor, but this goes over the line by a very solid margin. Kim Bruning 10:06, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete as personal attack. Radiant_* 11:54, Mar 25, 2005 (UTC)
 * Strong Delete. This is a clear attempt to subvert the consensus shown in the votes at WP:RFDA. Since that proposal very clearly has no consensus for it, the issue should instead be considered within the current Wikipedia dispute resolution processes and more specifically as a Request for Comments. Or, if Netoholic really thinks that Snowspinner should be removed as an administrator, then he should file a Request for arbitration. On the other hand, if he just wants to create a Straw poll on Snowspinner as an admin, then it should be a separate page in the Wikipedia namespace (Snowspinner straw poll?) and not as a subpage of his current policy proposal Request for de-adminship.  Blank Verse   ∅   13:03, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Inventing policy is fun, but should not be encouraged, and this petition is plain insulting. (There are other ways to make such requests.) &mdash; Itai (f&t) 15:30, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Deliberate attempt to flout community consensus, force through policy, and harass individuals. Jayjg (talk) 16:29, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Just more harassment from an increasingly irrational and obsessive editor. KingOfAllPaperboys 18:31, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment User:KingOfAllPaperboys is likely a sockpoppet, see evidence at: Unfortunately this needs to be investigated quickly since he hasn't edited in 3 days, and I believe IP logs expire in 7 days.--Silverback 21:30, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * If RFDA is not a consensus-supported process, then this page is a personal attack. Remove personal attacks counsels the deletion of personal attacks. I think an administrator could simply delete or redirect it  However, if somebody wants the sanction of a VFD consensus to delete it, I add my voice for deletion.  --BM 22:02, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, since the policy is far from being adopted, this doesn't belong here. gcbirzantalk 22:17, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, this is just pure harrassment. Any rogue admins should be dealt with through the Arbitration process. --MPerel( talk 23:06, Mar 25, 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Pure, unadultered, grade-A idiocy. --Neutralitytalk 07:51, Mar 26, 2005 (UTC)
 * KEEP - The more stomping on Snowspinner, the better. Snowspinner seems like the perfect admin to test the new procedure on. -- John Gohde 22:35, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Please refrain from personal attacks. Thryduulf 23:39, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Please learn the difference between criticism and true personal attacks. -- Netoholic @ 23:46, 2005 Mar 27 (UTC)
 * from WP:NPA:
 * Be Civil - "The more stomping on Snowspinner, the better." doesn't seem particularly civl to me. From WP:CIV: "Civility is a rule here on Wikipedia. Where incivility here is defined as behavior that causes an atmosphere of animosity, disrespect, conflict and stress" (italics in original, my bolding)/
 * Stick to good Wikiquette. From Wikiquette:
 * Be polite.
 * Recognize your own biases and keep them in check.
 * Forgive and forget.
 * Discuss the facts and how to express them, not the attributes of the other party.
 * Never suggest a view is invalid simply because of who its proponent is.
 * I'd say that those two sentences consitute a personal attack under all of these. Thryduulf 00:36, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * I don't think John knows, no. Also, he clearly can't tell the difference between a real administrative procedure and a personal vendetta ginned-up to look official. --Calton | Talk 00:25, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Comments
 * Why are votes, straw polls, and elections appropriate for Wikipedia:, but not petitions? Is this vote really just about it being a sub-page of RFDA?  -- Netoholic @ 03:44, 2005 Mar 25 (UTC)
 * And he accuses Snowspinner of making up policy as he goes along... Surely there are better ways to propose &mdash;and implement&mdash; policy changes. Providing there is consensus for these, we should hope. El_C 10:00, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * An appropriate response to this vfd might be to transform it into a RfC. He already has two supporters so if they can agree on a single issue where they have evidence of unresolved grievances they can kick it off and have community discussion.  If a consensus arrives that Snowspinner should not be an admin by reason of abuse of power or for some other valid reason, arbcom could be directed to investigate (their charter directs that they'll take cases when ordered to do so by the community). --Tony Sidaway|Talk 14:00, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Page move

I have moved the page to Requests for comment/Snowspinner2 and reformatted it.

It is wholly inappropriate and unseemly to attempt to utilize a nonexistent mechanism that clearly lacks community support as a means of dealing with a personal dispute. The RFC mechanism is the means presently available for dealing with such matters, and so Netoholic's dispute properly belongs there. Since a major goal of the RFC process is to centralize such disputes to avoid having them scattered across the wiki, I have chosen to be bold in moving it there.

The Uninvited Co., Inc. 02:03, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Not only did Netoholic delete the redirect, he pasted it back in without the VfD header. The evidence of his bad faith and intellectual dishonesty is piling up. --Calton | Talk 03:29, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * This page is what it is. It is not an RFC, it is not a personal page of mine,  It's a petition on the specific subject subject of Snowspinner.  If the community votes to delete it, so be it, as long as they clearly understand what they are deleting.  I appreciate that everyone wants to help "handle this" in various ways, but the one way that was not explored was asking me first.  I'd have been happy to clear up the misconceptions early on.   -- Netoholic @ 03:42, 2005 Mar 26 (UTC)
 * Any "misconceptions" are of your creation, and it's hard not to believe they're not deliberate. This is, in fact, a personal, unofficial petition, so your user page is precisely where it belongs, Yet, you're hellbent on having this thing under the banner of your phony Requests for de-adminship policy page. Why is that?.
 * If the community votes to delete it, so be it Yet, you deleted the VfD tag in your latest revert. An actual revert wouldn't have done that, so it must have been deliberate. Why is that? --Calton | Talk 03:51, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * I'm not going to argue on this VfD page. Find a relevant talk page to bring this to, and stop talking to me in that manner.  -- Netoholic @ 03:58, 2005 Mar 26 (UTC)
 * I think, actually, the community has voted to delete it. The usual VfD term is of course 5 days, but in most cases the heavy turnout is the first day or two, and under these circumstances I really can't imagine why the overwhelming trend of comments would reverse itself. Perhaps instead of getting people wound up over whether the VfD tag is properly on the page, Netoholic could spare everyone the non-suspense by slapping a tag on it instead. --Michael Snow 04:04, 26 Mar 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.