Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Alleged admin culture of abuse and tolerance of abuse


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

The result of the debate was USERFY. I've moved it to User:Silverback/Alleged admin culture of abuse and tolerance of abuse. There seems minimal support for keeping this where it is, discarding the presumably irate anon. The fact is also that it wasn't certified, and such RfCs are routinely deleted. -Splash talk 21:43, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Requests for comment/Alleged admin culture of abuse and tolerance of abuse
Obviously, a highly unusual AfD, but I think in this case an AfD is proper. This RfC was deleted because of improper use of RfC process and, as is in my opinion more fatal, failue to have a second certification within the requisite 48 hours. I don't think it can/should be revived by a second certification showing up subsequently (quite a bit past the deadline); rather, it should be deleted. If Silverback wants to redo it, it should be redone from step 1 properly this time. Delete. --Nlu 16:08, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment this RfC was speedied by User:Radiant and cut-and-paste recreated by User:Silverback. As the edit history was no restored, it currently violates the GFDL. --Doc ask? 17:14, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
 * (After edit conflict with Doc) In addition, this was created by copy-and-paste; the odd format of the RfC will make it difficult to determine who said what without a history. This should be deleted without prejudice against a new properly filed and formatted user-conduct RfC, preferably without the unnecessarily long name. Now that the GFDL issues have been resolved, this should be Userfied without prejudice against a properly-formatted user-conduct RfC. a ndroid 79  00:45, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
 * WHBT WHL WSHAND. Radiant_ &gt;|&lt; 17:21, 7 November 2005 (UTC) I retract this remark as inappropriate. Radiant_ &gt;|&lt;  15:10, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
 * thread after this moved to talk page ... apologies for distracting Courtland 18:23, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment. I've looked back at the history of this page. It looks like User:Radiant! deleted two days of input by a number of  people on strictly adminstrative grounds.  I think that violates the spirit if not the letter of Wikipedia Guidelines and Policy.  The better course of action would have been to say "ok, this really isn't an RFC, so please move it into your user space (or move to XXXX)" rather than wiping out the input provided up to the point of deletion (101 edits at that point). It is understandable if admins scoff at the notion that there is anything remotely resembling abuse in their own culture, but this type of conduct merely fans the flames rather than helping to address concerns. Courtland 17:30, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
 * I've restored the history. Please note that the majority of edits were to disagree with the RFC, or to accuse its originator of trolling. Radiant_ &gt;|&lt; 17:53, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Thanks; appreciated. Courtland 18:00, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Don't thank Radiant! too quickly, he may have mislead you. Several of the posts/endorsements admitted some validity, and a couple were apologetic and understanding.  So there it is not just work of one user you are considering destroying.  Furthermore, if the history has been restored, is this page really still in violation of GFDL?--Silverback 23:39, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
 * User:Silverback, you do not advance your position by making personal attacks. Courtland 00:11, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Silverback, you should definitely read up on our licenses before blindly accusing me of anything. Radiant_ &gt;|&lt; 00:16, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Radiant! You are off target. I was criticizing your simplistic characterization of the article as the majority of the edits were to disagree. Courtland appeared to be relying upon that.  On the license issue, if anything I was relying on you, not disagreeing with you.  You stated you restored the history.  I thought the GFDL problem was because my cut and paste did not preserve the history.  Therefore my question, "is this page really still in violation of GFDL?", was asking whether or not your restoration cleared up that issue.  It sounded to me like you had fixed it.  So if I was "blindly accusing" you of something license related, I was accusing you of having repaired my damage.  I hope you can live with that accusation.--Silverback 00:27, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Okay, fair enough. And no, it's no longer in violation of GFDL. As to the majority issue, I was referring to the 17 endorsements to the views that disagree with you. Radiant_ &gt;|&lt; 00:32, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Yes, but 8 of those 17, were admitting I had a valid point, and suggesting I go about it differently. The other 9 were definitely negative, except that one of those 9 was me.  I didn't say you lied.  A too brief summary of a complex situation can be "misleading", although, I admit I could have phrased it in a less accusatory way.  Apologies.--Silverback 00:39, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Userfy. Malformed RFC, linked to from ArbCom evidence. --cesarb 19:00, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
 * I'm tempted to say "BJAODN", but it's not really the right sort of bad joke. --Carnildo 20:20, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete The page is clearly disrupting Wikipedia to make a point by virtue of all the fights the author has provoked on the page. 172 | Talk 23:27, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Given the nature of this particular RfC, a speedy delete would look like a cover up, and since it is in evidence, would also make that process more difficult, especially for non-admins. It becomes in effect "secret" evidence.  To quote one of the defenders of Kelly Martin, nothing "inexcusable" has really occurred here. Keep if it can be done without violating GFDL (apologies about that).--Silverback 23:45, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Given that you recreated it after it was deleted, I don't think you have standing to raise this claim. --Nlu 09:23, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Well, if you read the talk page from before the 48 hour deletion, you would have seen that there was some question of whether this RfC fell into the RfC/user category, and that even assuming that it did, that a possible second certifier had been identified, but just not active at the time. I think Courtland makes the point about the quick adminstrative delete of a lot of user efforts up above.  I've seen other RfCs go far beyond 48 hours without a second cert, so that increases the appearance of a coverup.--Silverback 10:53, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
 * I've seen other RfCs go far beyond 48 hours without a second cert – only because no one got around to delisting/deleting them. It's not like there's a bot that handles that particular janitorial task. A 48-hour-old uncertified RfC is no longer a valid RfC, whether it's still visible or not. a ndroid 79  13:58, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
 * The bot mustn't be sophisticated enough then, because look at, and only csloat and bishonen have signed attempts to resolve the dispute, and they are not the same dispute as required.--Silverback 14:27, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Re-read what I wrote. A bot able to handle such a task would be a great leap forward in artificial intelligence. a ndroid 79  14:29, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
 * I agree that artificial intelligence is not capable of that. But I also communicated with humans that were unable to properly analyze the situation, and the RfC stayed around. The 48 hour limit is enforced unevenly.--Silverback 14:32, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Userfy and encourage salient bits to be spun off into constructive suggestions as to new policies, guidelines and/or procedures; constructive output can of course come from the hottest of arguments, but only after those arguments have cooled a bit (not necessarily been resolved or forgotten, merely cooled). Courtland 00:11, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete or Userfy. Improperly certified RFC, past the 48-hour deadline. --Calton | Talk 00:57, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Userfy I have serious concerns whether this RFC was ever properly certified and if that's the case then it should be delisted as soon as possible. I'd be in support of userfication though since A) we don't want accusations of a coverup, and B) personal rants and essays have always had a home in people's userspaces.  Jtkiefer  T - 03:53, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep it is true, !
 * — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.35.197.181 (talk • contribs) 05:44, 9 November 2005
 * Keep Sam Spade 18:46, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Userfy per Jtkiefer. KillerChihuahua 15:41, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
 * I do believe userfy seems best. I should point out that some of the alleged abuse is the fact that a certain admin did not block a certain user over a 3RR (of course, neither did any other admin, so by that logic...) Radiant_ &gt;|&lt; 17:36, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
 * It was a peculiar complaint, anyway -- I'm surprised it's still bothering Silverback so much. Silverback walked into the middle of a battle against a dedicated sockpuppet team (see Requests for arbitration/Regarding Ted Kennedy; the reversions in question were against sockpuppets of the "fatboy anon". A 3RR block was in effect on the primary IP of the fatboy anon; I summarily reversed the sockpuppet's repeated insertions (including edit comments including personal attacks). Silverback had no familiarity with the context of events. I thought the issue was all over in August. Oh well. I don't care hat happens to this one or another. --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 17:11, 11 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Keep If its invalid, this is the wrong way to get rid of it. It currently has two certifiers, so may as well stand. Lawyering over the exact rules is Wrong. That said, I've signed up to This is absurd on the RFC. William M. Connolley 21:13, 15 November 2005 (UTC).
 * Keep, per WMC.--Sean|Bla ck 01:39, 16 November 2005 (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 article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.