Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Tony1/AdminWatch


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.  

The result of the discussion was keep - It is impossible to tell whether this will be a redundant process so long as AN/I (etc) are up and running; it's even more difficult to gauge what the effects of this process could be. It will either do well - proof that there was a legitimate want - or do poorly, which is proof that there wasn't. This particular MfD does not extend to this page were it moved to project space. Xavexgoem (talk) 01:12, 19 December 2008 (UTC) This is a fine line between two outcomes based on the precautionary principle: delete it and risk being seen by a healthy population as admins who have no interest in communicating (to that population I say assume good faith, of course); or keep it and let the same folks who think they're being ignored be heard.

User:Tony1/AdminWatch
Page is an attack page operating outside the established dispute resolution (specifically WP:RFC/ADMIN) system in violation of:


 * Attack page - On the other hand, keeping a "list of enemies" or "list of everything bad that some user ever did" is not constructive or appropriate.
 * User_page - Material that can be viewed as attacking other editors, including the recording of perceived flaws. The compilation of factual evidence (diffs) in user subpages, for purposes such as preparing for a dispute resolution process, is permitted provided the dispute resolution process is started in a timely manner. Users should not maintain in public view negative information on others without very good reason.
 * NOT - Wikipedia is not a place to hold grudges, import personal conflicts, or nurture hatred or fear. Making personal battles out of Wikipedia discussions goes directly against our policies and goals.
 * Requests_for_arbitration/Tobias_Conradi - They should not be allowed - deliberately, through passage of time, good faith, wilful allusion, or neglect - to create some kind of perennial "hall of shame" or list of "disapproved, shunned or negatively viewed users".

Please see prior MFDs of the same content that have been rejected by the community:
 * Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Tobias Conradi/admin right abuse
 * Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Travb/Tactics of some admins regarding copyright
 * Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:UBeR/Administrative watchdog
 * Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Requests for investigation

 MBisanz  talk 17:32, 17 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete, but emphasise this does not encourage the viewpoint of administrator infallibility. Sceptre (talk) 17:38, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * "Users should not maintain in public view negative information on others without very good reason." A curious anomaly that this doesn't apply to users' block logs, but is only brought into play when administrators are about to be held similarly to account don't you think? The assymetry is of course that a bad block sits forever in a user's block log, but the administrator making the bad block walks away without that decision also being recorded. Fair? --Malleus Fatuorum 21:30, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Not really. I'm all for expunging old blocks if a user doesn't get blocked for a certain long period of time (say, a year to eighteen months). Sceptre (talk) 22:46, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * ... and the probability of that happening is, I would estimate asymptotic to zero. In the meantime ... --Malleus Fatuorum 22:54, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Malleus, every admin has a log of all blocks they've made. For example, here's mine. Fair is fair. Glass  Cobra  13:32, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Perhaps you'd be kind enough to draw my attention to where the list of all the bad blocks you've made is kept? Or the record of other abuses of your administrative power? When you've done so then I may feel more inclined to agree with you that the present system is fair and equitable. Until then ... --Malleus Fatuorum 13:40, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
 * My point was that bad is extremely subjective, just as this page will be. There is no list of bad blocks that administrators have made, just as there is no list of bad blocks that users have had imposed on them. How exactly do you feel that the present system is unfair? Glass  Cobra  14:01, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete: per the previous discussions with similar pages. Because some users feel that they don't have to (or don't want to) follow the standard steps outlined at Dispute Resolution doesn't mean they are free to create and operate this type of page and vigilante process.  In my opinion, this page serves no purpose other than to allow users to attempt to intimidate administrators who they have had a disagreement with.  This is counter productive and should be deleted.  - Rjd0060 (talk) 17:39, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * (ec) Keep - I think it's a stretch to characterize this as an attack page. If it's responsibly run - which admittedly remains to be seen - it might serve as a low level pseudo mediation mechanism. I'm reassured by the strict rules of process that are in place; they should prevent it from becoming an enormous drama mill, and a place to deal with admin abuse in such a way as they don't become enormous dramas would be nice. If I had to bet money on this being useful, I'd want odds of at least 4-1, but it's at least worth a shot. If I'm ever written up there, I'll certainly give the process my full participation, and I'd encourage other admins to do the same in the spirit of experimentation. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 17:39, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I would tend to agree, but for the first case User:Tony1/AdminWatch being a forum shop from ANI earlier this morning.  MBisanz  talk 17:42, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Hardly a forum shop, simply a record of events. Do you dispute that record of events? --Malleus Fatuorum 23:00, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Whether MBisanz disputes the events or not is entirely irrelevant. The fact of the matter is that a user brought his complaints from one forum to another in order to gain a more favorable response; the very definition of forum shopping. Glass  Cobra  13:48, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
 * That is not what happened, there was no "forum shopping". --Malleus Fatuorum 14:19, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete While not quite an attack page, this is certainly not anything resembling legitimate dispute resolution, and I certainly would not acknowledge it as such. FT2 brings up very relevant points on the talk page, which Tony1 seems to largely dismiss; mainly, usage of his page as forum shopping, as well as the extreme subjectivity of what constitutes bona fide in terms of who can lodge a complaint and what complaints should or should not be accepted. This smells of extreme instruction creeping and even more red tape in a project already bogged with bureaucracy. MBisanz has listed above a number of previous examples that have already been rejected by the community, and while Tony seems to have a noble ideal in mind, this is not the way to go about it. Glass  Cobra  17:40, 17 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep This is long overdue. There is no basis for deletion in policy. Bstone (talk) 17:40, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete, redundant to the admin noticeboards and with no likelihood of actually working in practice as anything other than a gathering ground for people who have come out on the losing end of disputes. Guy (Help!) 17:43, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep This is a good faith effort to work within the culture and machinations of Wikipedia to reform administrator behavior that is seen by some editors to conflict with their priorities. It is a natural function of a community, and removing it further suppresses discussion about the divergent sets of priorities between groups of editors and admins. --Moni3 (talk) 17:44, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete - per WP:BURO. This is an excellent idea, but the way to do this is within extant WP:DR processes, not to create something totally new. I would suggest a retooling of RFC/U to have teeth, perhaps make that portion of RFC/U come under the auspices of ArbCom to a) give it teeth, b) streamline the ArbCom process when it comes to desysopping. // roux   17:45, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * RFC/U. Having teeth. Pick one. Seriously, you know a process is bad when its creator disowns it... Sceptre (talk) 17:49, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Well that's why I suggested a change, to give it teeth, at least in terms of admin 'abuse'. // roux   17:55, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Strong delete - While I have the bias of being an admin, I must protest against this "AdminWatch". Admins are in disputes every single day, whether it be by accident or intentional, not a single day passes when an admin has not done something to upset/annoy other users. It's practically a part of Wiki-life. And so, when an admin has intentionally abused their tools, we desysop them after discussion on one of the existing noticeboards. At these existing noticeboards, a broad cross section of the active community appropriately frequents them. In regards to this page, people who have had troubles with admins in the past would be the most active, this introduces a community bias into the proceedings. And, as such, an admin who might not actually be wholly in the wrong would be targeted and brought down by a minority of the community who hate admins in general. This is unavoidable in this current setting as it's too open to abuse by an angry mob. One last thing, seeing as we're all in trouble at some point, if this process grew larger than it is now, at the worst, it'd have the power to desysop admins via community consensus; after time, would we have any admins left? Scarian  Call me Pat!  17:54, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Admins may well be in dispute every single day, but that is not what AdminWatch is concerned with. It's concerned with administrators acting outside of the policies and guidelines laid down for them. To prejudge the process as being open to abuse by angry mobs is to mischaracterise it. --Malleus Fatuorum 20:20, 17 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Of course it's open to abuse by angry mobs! This page is essentially a shooting range for people who have difficulties accepting administrator decisions. It's as simple as that. AN and ANI are good enough for [dealing with] "administrators acting outside of the policies and guidelines laid down for them." - I refuse to acknowledge the legitimacy of this "unofficial AdminWatch". Do we have a "NonAdminWatch"? Scarian  Call me Pat!  22:20, 17 December 2008 (UTC)


 * The only "of course" is that it is your opinion that it is open to angry mobs. I'm just guessing, of course, but my guess is that you're not infallible? And neither am I, of course. So why not let's see how the process evolves before jumping to pass judgement on it? --Malleus Fatuorum 22:29, 17 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep. The Administrators noticeboard can be intimidating to new users and non-administrators alike, and its unmoderated and sometimes chaotic nature does not help.  A forum such as Tony1 proposes could be helpful.  There are no attacks yet, and there is no reason to delete this now.  There is nothing to lose by allowing this to go forward.  Kablammo (talk) 17:58, 17 December 2008 (UTC)  Quotes:  "Background and comments (keep it brief; no personal comments; be very civil; include only strictly relevant facts; disclose your own breaches of policy during the scenario, such as 3RR, where these have occurred, plus diffs)" and "This is the place for disciplined, focused discussion, where the admin at issue is given the opportunity to provide a rejoinder."  That does not look like an attack page.Kablammo (talk) 18:22, 17 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep. Having in the past seen "the established dispute resolution system" failing miserably when admin abuse was alleged, I would have to agree that something like this process is long overdue.  If it is going to be responsibly run, it could be of enormous utility; if not, it can be dealt with and shut down later.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 17:59, December 17, 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete Anything that uses co-ordinators has fundemental issues. This is just another in a long line of redundant bureaucracatic processes run by a small group of editors who should be doing something more productive with thier time. Current pages (AN/ AN/I) do the same thing without so much bloat. And if that's not enough reason to ditch it (which it is), it has zero chance of success, or even acceptance by the mainstream. RxS (talk) 18:02, 17 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep for now. I think the page makes it quite clear that this is not intended to be used to attack anyone, but to investigate whether complaints are legitimate and whether further dispute resolution might be necessary.  The process has not yet barely launched, so it is difficult right now to know whether this will work or not.  I think that if it does work this could be a valuable addition to dispute resolution; if the process does not work, it could be renominated for deletion then. Karanacs (talk) 18:14, 17 December 2008 (UTC) Note: The youngest of the example MFDs provided is almost 2 years old. Consensus might very well have changed. Karanacs (talk) 18:17, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Note It was launched earlier this morning: First case.  MBisanz  talk 18:16, 17 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete: What good is a cabal if we can't delete nonsense like this? --MZMcBride (talk) 18:22, 17 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete. I sympathize with Tony1's basic motives for creating this, but in practice, it can only function as a drama generation system. — Gavia immer (talk) 18:37, 17 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete. That its stated goal is to be "unofficial" pretty much kills it - complaints about admin behaviour should be raised through official channels, and going to some other mechanism if that fails is the definition of asking the other parent (although in this case "the other parent" is "some group of people who live down the street"). As it can't be a useful form of dispute resolution, it can only really serve as a Dwarven Book of Grudges - which isn't an appropriate use of userspace. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 18:56, 17 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep - This page is in draft state, open for input, and not launched yet (or in early trial). I say give this some time to see what comes of this. If after trying, it doesn't work, then it can be renominated for deletion later on or marked 'historical'. --Aude (talk) 19:30, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Quoting Mbisanz above: Note It was launched earlier this morning: First case. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Roux (talk • contribs)
 * As I said, let's give this some time and not be so quick to shoot down ideas like this. --Aude (talk) 19:35, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep per most of the above & particularly Sarcasticidealist - Ludicrous. -- Herby talk thyme 19:33, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * OK - let's make that an Extremely strong keep given the re-opening. How anyone can describe this as an attack page is simply beyond me. -- Herby  talk thyme 13:22, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Very strong keep The current dispute resolution process does not work. This is not an attack page either.  Majorly  talk  19:37, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep Because we don't delete things like this, it would be historically marked if it didn't get "popular" acceptance. If it ends up getting popular acceptance, it becomes policy (even if some don't accept it, since consensus/policy aren't all or nothing). It could end up being rejected and historical, or if enough people buy into it, it could have as much or more authority than the Arbitration Committee. Only time will tell. But we shouldn't delete, as things like status aren't sacrosanct. rootology ( C )( T ) 19:38, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * If this was a (proposed) project page, I'd agree. But it's not.  And that's part of the problem.  It's just a user page with a bunch of arbitrary rules used to collect grievances.  -Chunky Rice (talk) 19:57, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * That's what the Move button is for. rootology ( C )( T ) 19:58, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Then move it. Right now, it's up and running in User space.  Which is not an appropriate use of user space, in my opinion.  -Chunky Rice (talk) 20:00, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Done. rootology ( C )( T ) 20:22, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * If this stays in the projectspace without objection from Tony1, I have no opposition to letting the usual community processes for handling proposals handle the matter. My primary objection is to a userspace page run by coordinators, not a proposal discussed by the community.  MBisanz  talk 21:01, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Agreed. This is the point that many people seem to be missing here.  The question isn't whether or not some sort of admin complaint center or whatever this is, is appropriate.  It's whether or not it's appropriate for user space.  I don't think it is.  Now that it's in WP space and should be subject to our standard process approval, that's fine.  -Chunky Rice (talk) 21:51, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * If that was the only point that was being missed, then wouldn't it have been easier just to suggest moving the page, instead of initiating this vexatious MFD? --Malleus Fatuorum 21:58, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Maybe. It was unclear to me whether the page was ever intended to be a project page.  That was what concerned me about it.  It seemed more like some sort of private project with Tony in charge and doling out appointments.  -Chunky Rice (talk) 22:02, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * someone tried a project WikiProject_AdminRightAbuse but this was directly deleted, without any discussion. An admin right abuse in itself. 79.193.181.29 (talk) 19:55, 18 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep. To call this an attack page is an abuse of the English language. It is a good faith attempt to address the increasing acrimony between administrators and non-administrators over the apparently different standards that each are held to. --Malleus Fatuorum 20:02, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep Needed. We have both a meditation committee and a meditation cabal, so this is more unique than other dispute resolution methods. We need a way to deal with admin abuse that is not big enough for ArbCom. It seems Tony will be able to set it up so it can not be abused by vandals. It might get used as a weapon on the battlefield, but let's give it a chance. The outcomes will only be given as much importance as we choose to give it. --Apoc2400 (talk) 20:03, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Addendum: Doing this MfD while AdminWatch is discussed and linked at ANI is akin to canvassing. --Apoc2400 (talk) 20:12, 17 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Note Theres no sign that Tony1 put this live, and some random person shoved it live as a process. Based on the above conversation I moved it live here to Wikipedia space, so a user space deletion, if this is not supposed to be live yet, probably isn't valid for MfD. rootology ( C )( T ) 20:22, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I took and  as indicating it was live.  MBisanz  talk 20:26, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I missed those... well, unless Tony moves it back to user space, I have to stick with the Keep (for now). The community could well accept this as a valid process step, or not later. rootology ( C )( T ) 20:59, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. This is not an attack page. A "my way or no way" approach would be fine if RFC/U worked, but it patently doesn't. –  iride scent  20:57, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Keeep. I trust Tony1 enough to have confidence in this page. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:00, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep for now, to see what comes of it. Sssoul (talk) 21:50, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. The aims are pure, and the results of a discussion would be interesting.  HWV 258  21:55, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep Now it is no longer in userspace I think the grounds for deletion no longer apply. (While not necessarily feeling the proposal is going to be a good idea.) Davewild (talk) 22:09, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep and debate - don't stifle criticism. --Joopercoopers (talk) 22:20, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep - Although it seems kind of redundant to other methods, such as WP:ANI, it sounds like a good idea. My concerns as that it would lead to excessive bureaucracy, and it could be a drama-mill, but it has pretty strict rules so I'm willing to look past that. This is something that needs to be debated, not deleted. VX! 22:39, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * keep Is a bad idea. Is not an attack page. Is well within discretion with what users can have in their userspace. We must allow users to construct ideas and float them around even if they are unpopular. JoshuaZ (talk) 23:31, 17 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Procedural note: This MfD was closed in a non-admin closure, by Locke Cole, with the rationale that "Speedy Keep, we don't MFD proposed processes, we discuss them". I am overturning this non-admin closure and re-opening the discussion, with a request to have it run its full natural course. There is not an overriding, binding policy consensus that incipient/proposed policy pages can never be validly deleted, and there were valid non-trivial delete votes in the discussion above, so a SNOW-like consensus for keep is not a safe assumption to make at this point. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:14, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
 * It's explicitly not a proposed process / policy page anyway - it's an unofficial ombudsman by design. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 13:28, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. Clearly a kangaroo court in the making. ➨ ❝ЯEDVERS❞ takes life at five times the average speed 13:39, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. This MFD is an abuse of process. Lightmouse (talk) 13:52, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
 * (ec)Comment I think there was a case for allowing the closure to stand. I feel the MfD was a little premature, and since it opened this page has been bounced back and forth between user and project space, despite being incomplete, and quite frankly deserves better consideration. Personally I have serious reservations about the proposal, but I believe it's counterproductive to enforce process for process' sake. This would be better revisited for community discussion when it's finished. EyeSerene talk 13:54, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. It's a legitimate use of userspace. I do understand that many people who've written above don't like what it says, but "I don't like it" is not grounds for deletion and certainly not grounds for deletion from userspace. The nomination for deletion is not merely a statement of dislike, instead arguing for deletion; these arguments can be presented if/when the page is moved anywhere other than userspace. Hoary (talk) 14:01, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
 * The page is no longer located in userspace. Glass  Cobra  14:11, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
 * With respect it is. -- Herby talk thyme 14:14, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Indeed it is. -- Hoary (talk) 14:16, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Apologies, was in the process of amending my comment, but Internets are not cooperating quickly. :( Glass  Cobra  14:22, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep apparently back again in userspace. Absent some venting process, I suspect similar pages will appear like myrmidons from dragons' teeth. It, in itself, makes no attacks, etc.  As such, in userspace, I would not object to it. Indeed, lots worse stuff is found in userspace. Collect (talk) 14:18, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Comments by Tony1:
 * It is extraordinary that a process for the independent scrutiny of admin actions in relation to the policy guidelines is sufficiently threatening to attract two attempts in one day by admins to derail it.
 * Whatever the legalistic justification on the surface of this MfD, it is apparent that the notion of such independent scrutiny is very upsetting to some people even though it has not even gone live and is still undergoing surgery. (I note User:Rootology's comment, above: "if this is not supposed to be live yet, probably isn't valid for MfD".)
 * Whoever is moving it back to main space should desist. The page is in user space, where I returned it earlier today following the advice in the MBisanz's edit summary. I have removed the main-space title at the top of this page.
 * The attempt to file a notification earlier today in Stage 1 apparently sparked the first MfD, and was expunged a few minutes later. However, I'm pleased to say that even a few minutes on the page, static, has resulted already in the admin's avoidance of a similar conflict of interest, as required by WP:UNINVOLVED, and all friends. The unsatisfactory outcome of the prior so-called "Resolved" ANI yesterday that led to the complaint has now turned into a certain closure for the complainant and an increased understanding of the conflict-of-interest policy.
 * I have not been paid the courtesy of notification on my talk page of this re-run of the MrD. This notification is suggested in the template.
 * I welcome discussion of the page here.
 * MBisanz and I have since discussed the matter, so I hope he was consulted as to whether he agrees to be the signatory again, with the same opening text.
 * Since the frame of the MfD justification is in legally constructed terms, I suppose it deserves to be analysed in the same terms.

Analysis of the stated justification of the MfD.

Attack page - On the other hand, keeping a "list of enemies" or "list of everything bad that some user ever did" is not constructive or appropriate.
 * The policy says "An attack page is a Wikipedia article, page, template, category, redirect or image that exists primarily to disparage its subject." Please justify this in the light of the lead text and the process at AdminWatch. I don't think you'll be able to. The fact that it will operate "outside the established dispute resolution (specifically WP:RFC/ADMIN)" is no breach of policy; indeed, provided it is in good faith, such moves are entirely within the policy and pillars of WP: the essence of wikiculture. You have not demonstrated that the process would be in bad faith aside from what appear to be groundless assertions.
 * Admins are constructed as anything but enemies on the page. What is your evidence that the process takes this stance? Please cite the text of the page in support of your claim.

"User_page - Material that can be viewed as attacking other editors, including the recording of perceived flaws. The compilation of factual evidence (diffs) in user subpages, for purposes such as preparing for a dispute resolution process, is permitted provided the dispute resolution process is started in a timely manner. Users should not maintain in public view negative information on others without very good reason."
 * Examining evidence of possible policy infringement is not "attacking". The process is, if you like, constructed as a "dispute resolution procedure" (see the text in Stage 2). It will be necessary to maintain information on significant infringements of the admin policy, but there is indeed "very good reason" for this. I must point out that negative information on all users, including admins, is kept in public view, in block logs. If there is "very good reason" for that, I'd like to hear your case that there is not "very good reason" for this. While I do not want this to be construed as a tit-for-tat argument; neverthess, the analogy is telling. (The alleged duplication by AdminWatch of current procedures has already been covered: they are significantly different in process and intent, and in the view of many, many users, they do not work satisfactorily.) [Note: Since the previous MfD, the records concept has been removed. A seven-day holding bay for finished cases is retained.] Tony   (talk)  14:50, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

NOT - ''Wikipedia is not a place to hold grudges, import personal conflicts, or nurture hatred or fear. Making personal battles out of Wikipedia discussions goes directly against our policies and goals.''


 * Did you read this?
 * "Specific goals of AdminWatch are to:
 * build the community's respect for the admin system;
 * bring users and admins closer together in the pursuit of the project's goals; and
 * prevent the departure of valuable members of the community who might otherwise leave because they believe their grievance is being officially disregarded."


 * and this?


 * "Background and comments (keep it brief; no personal comments; be very civil; include only strictly relevant facts; disclose your own breaches of policy during the scenario, such as 3RR, where these have occurred, plus diffs)".

Requests_for_arbitration/Tobias_Conradi - They should not be allowed - deliberately, through passage of time, good faith, wilful allusion, or neglect - to create some kind of perennial "hall of shame" or list of "disapproved, shunned or negatively viewed users".


 * Critically, that judgement concludes:
 * "Nothing written above is intended to discourage recording support and evidence concerning enforcement of an existing sanction, where there is a real and foreseeable project benefit to sharing information. However such matters should ideally be on a case page rather than userspace, where one exists." (My italics)


 * If a site-wide policy (i.e., WP:ADMIN) is not "an existing sanction", can you tell me what is? You would need to argue that there is not "a real and foreseeable project benefit to sharing information" in AdminWatch.
 * Concerning ArbCom's observation that "such matters should ideally be on a case page rather than userspace"—it's hard to argue that project space is not the "ideal" solution in theory, but in practice, such processes are clearly regarded with contempt by many many users, because they are quickly taken over by admins and become a clearing house for sweeping complaints under the carpet.
 * Please point to where the page will create a list of "disapproved, shunned or negatively viewed users".  Tony   (talk)  14:35, 18 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Just to clarify, my above comment on being fine with the standard discussion process was predicated on the page remaining in the projectspace (maybe I wasn't clear enough), in any event, I don't object to the continuation of the MFD since it appears that good faith parties can and do disagree on the concept.  MBisanz  talk 14:49, 18 December 2008 (UTC)


 * It may be helpful if you were to now clarify whether or not you are still of the view that this is "an attack page", apparently the basis on which you opened this MfD. If that remains your opinion, then some proof needs to be presented. If that is no longer your opinion, then this MfD should be closed. It is not the purpose of MfD to debate proposed processes. --Malleus Fatuorum 19:47, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't think it's appropriate to call this a proposed process. Tony removed the "proposed process" notice from the page without comment when he moved it back to his userspace.  As far as I can tell, this is something that he means to be run out of his userspace.  -Chunky Rice (talk) 19:55, 18 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Whether it's run from Tony's userspace or anywhere else doesn't alter its nature or its intent, except perhaps to wikilawyers. And nor does it have anything to do with this MfD, which, to repeat myself, is not a debate on this putative "process", but about whether this particular page is an attack page, and therefore ought to be deleted. --Malleus Fatuorum 20:16, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Of course it matters. If this is something that is intented to be a Wikipedia process, with input from all, based on broad consensus, then it should be in project space.  If it's just Tony's pet project to collect greivances in his own little corner of userspace, then it should be deleted.  -Chunky Rice (talk) 20:25, 18 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, that's your opinion, presumably based on not having read the justification for this initiative, or not agreeing with it. Whichever, if you're to make a case for this being an attack page then it's now time to make it; your crystal ball may not be as reliable as you believe it to be. BTW, since when was material deleted because of what it might become, rather than what it is? --Malleus Fatuorum 20:32, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Why do you keep telling me that my opinion is my opinion? I know it's my opinion.  I'm not sure what you're talking about, crystal ball wise.  I'm saying that this should either be a proposed process, which would be fine, or it should be deleted because this is simply not what user space is for. -Chunky Rice (talk) 20:38, 18 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I recognise that I'm failing to make my point, but I'll make just one last attempt. You said: "If it's just Tony's pet project to collect greivances in his own little corner of userspace, then it should be deleted.". No argument there. But is that what it is? If it ever becomes "Tony's pet project to collect greivances in his own little corner of userspace" then that's the time for an MfD based on the premiss of this being an attack page. Until then, it's simply speculation, and what's worse, speculation that nurtures the suspicion that some administrators are unwilling to be held accountable. --Malleus Fatuorum 20:55, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Tony has already rejected an attempt to move this to project space and label it as a proposed process. My opinion isn't based on predicting the future, but rather, what has already occurred. -Chunky Rice (talk) 21:07, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Keep This is clearly not a "hall of shame"; additionally, this is still a work in progress. Tony has specifically stated that Adminwatch will be run in his userspace on a trial basis. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:09, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep I'm unpersuaded by the arguments for deletion, especially as it seems not to be finished. I note that I personally do not support Admin Watch in its current form. I encourage other contributors to this MfD to dissect their opinions about Admin Watch's worth as a concept from whether or not it should be deleted. --Dweller (talk) 14:54, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep, let's see how it works out for a while before deciding whether to delete. And its characterization as an "attack page" is laughably false. Mike R (talk) 16:30, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Strongest Keep, you should be applauding the guy not trying to delete his page!--Avg (talk) 19:28, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Note, see this:
 * WikiProject_AdminRightAbuse - through what kind of deletion process went that?
 * Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_AdminRightAbuse
 * User:Tobias_Conradi/2007-05_ArbCom_pro_censorship_ruling
 * User:Tobias_Conradi/admin_right_abuse
 * User_talk:Tobias_Conradi/RfA
 * All started by ex mass contributer User:Tobias Conradi (somewhere top 100 walking upwards) and look the beginning of his funny block log. (see bottom of block log) 3RR but there were no 3 reverts made by him. Then blocked for complaining. Then for emptying a userpage, but that was a joke agreed upon with the user concerned. Blocked for moving Eisenkappl to Bad Eisenkappl, because the blocker didnt understand that "Bad" is German for Spa. Blocked for complaining about repeated out of policy deletions. Then he was denied AutoWikiBrowser because he had a long block log! As said above, the blocks remain, but counter evidence or lists showing an annotated subset of these blocks do not. He collected evidence for an RfA - deleted. He was accused of sock puppetry and an admin claimed a checkuser was made, but later noone could find this CheckUser. He also claimed to even have called the foundation on the corruption matter and one member of staff there did whistle in the phone and talked in Hebrew to him. I write this, because I am a friend of him. And I think Tobias would like that I support the intention of Tony "prevent departure of valuable members of the community who might otherwise leave because they believe their grievance is being officially disregarded" and "bring admins and users closer together". I will tell User:Tobias Conradi about that page here. 79.193.181.29 (talk) 20:05, 18 December 2008 (UTC) PS: I see one cannot write on Tobias' talk page. Admins closed it. 79.193.179.96 (talk) 20:09, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. I reject the proposed deletion rationale of attack page - clearly it is not. I will reserve judgment on the process as a whole until I see it in action. At the momment this gives every appearance of being a serious attempt to address an oft-repeated complaint. I see no benefit in ensuring that the process is stillborn when even if unsuccessful it may provide useful lessons in however our existing dispute resolution processes can be improved. Xymmax So let it be written   So let it be done  21:26, 18 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Note to administrators: we didn't elect you our fucking rulers. Keep Skomorokh


 * Keep and mark historical/ failed proposal. This is a silly proposal that is contrary to the very basis of the project ideals and encouraged patently uncivil reactions like the one above my comment here.  Jerry   delusional ¤ kangaroo 00:31, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Wasn't it this MfD itself which provoked the "uncivil reaction" above? This MfD is based on the allegation that this page is "an attack page". Whether the propsal is "silly" or not is irrelevant. --Malleus Fatuorum 00:44, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete community discussion should be held in the community space, as long as this is the user space it should be deleted. Even then I see no purpose for this, we've got enough dispute resolution processes. If they don't work, fix them. Fair warning, if this gets kept I reserve the right to remove any discussion about myself, as I have no interest in being the subject of a moot court. BJ Talk 00:58, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
 * That's the spirit! Bugger consensus, bugger that this is an MfD alleging that it is an attack page, I'll just bluster along in my usual way. :lol: --Malleus Fatuorum 01:06, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep, this MFD is clearly an abuse of process. If you have a problem with a proposal take it to that proposals talk page. Deletion isn't for that. —Locke Cole • t • c 01:02, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.