Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Deletion of VFD

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: 21:07, August 1, 2005 Gkhan (created page) {insert UTC timestamp with }), the page will be deleted. The current date and time is:, 29 July 2024 (UTC).

Let's see, does this rule apply? Take a look:


 * For disputes over user conduct, before requesting community comment, at least two people should have contacted the user on their talk page, or the talk pages involved in the dispute, and failed to resolve the problem. Any RfC not accompanied by diffs showing that two users tried and failed to resolve the same dispute will be deleted after 48 hours. The diffs should not simply show evidence of the dispute itself, but should show attempts to find a resolution or compromise. The two users certifying the dispute must be the same users who were involved in the attempt to resolve it.

I don't see any diffs down there, do you? Uncle Ed 17:08, August 3, 2005 (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.


 * (Ed Poor | talk | contributions)
 * This page is invalid, because no attempt was both attempted and failed to resolve anything. In fact, 2 minutes before I was informed of this RFC page, I had written "I might be wrong about deleting vfd. So let's all talk about it at Wikipedia talk:Votes for deletion. Uncle Ed 21:08, August 1, 2005 (UTC)".
 * Ironically, this was exactly one line above the RFC notice!
 * How about trying to resolve this matter before giving up and saying that attempts to resolve it have failed? This is improper procedure. Just ask Angela. Uncle Ed 13:30, August 2, 2005 (UTC)

Ed, while I take your point, the fact is that the broader issue of your unilaterialism is not new. There was the matter of your intercession in a minor edit war among admins earlier this year; you stopped it by de-adminning everyone involved. You nearly promoted Connolley despite a lack of consensus to do so. And though I forget the details, there have been other episodes. Every time, the community says to you, "Ed, stop, don't do that, Wikipedia has changed, wait for the community to decide." And every time the community is patient with you because you have been here longer than any other active admin, and because of the value of your ongoing contributions. And for heaven's sake stop the ruleslawyering claims about proper procedure. Take your lumps and this time don't do it again. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 19:45, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

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
On August 1st, User:Ed Poor, one of wikipedias oldest and most respected admins decided to completly ignore wikipedia standards and practices and deleted Votes for Deletion without any sort of discussion. This is a gross misuse of admin-powers and should not be tolerated.

Powers misused

 * Deletion (log):
 * Votes for deletion

Applicable policies

 * Deletion policy
 * A clear violation of the deletion policy


 * '''Don't disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point
 * A disruption that basically made Wikipedia read-only for a short time because of the complicated delete and subsequent un-delete

Users certifying the basis for this dispute
(sign with ~ )
 * gkhan 21:07, August 1, 2005 (UTC)

::I think this is beyond simple rules and structures and all of that. I think this was flagrantly disrespectful and a breach of trust. I have shared that opinion with Ed and by the looks of his talk page, he disagrees with me. I wish him a happy life, and to continue with bold edits, but I don't think this is what we should have in admins.--Tznkai 21:29, 1 August 2005 (UTC) All of my votes are invalidated. See my user page for my reasons--Tznkai 23:06, 1 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Note that despite the "rules" stating that The persons complaining must provide evidence of their efforts, gkhan has provided no evidence that he tried to resolve a dispute with [me, but] failed.
 * Rather, it looks like he's gaming the system by using a request for "comment" as an invitation to "rebuke". I thought Wikipedia had a Dispute resolution schema for users to follow.... Uncle Ed 18:47, August 2, 2005 (UTC)
 * He has 26 hours remaining to fix the problems with this RFC. Kim Bruning 19:00, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
 * And he has now failed to do so. Kim Bruning 21:22, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

Other users who endorse this statement
(sign with ~ )
 * The Uninvited Co., Inc. 21:53, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
 * VfD might well be broken, but unilaterally deleting it demonstrates a total disregard for the community and the principle of consensus. Ed Poor is not fit to be an admin, because admins are empowered to use their extra technical abilities to carry out the wishes of the community, not to do whatever the hell they like. Trilobite 21:56, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
 * More than half of those expressing an opinion, supported getting rid of VFD. How is that "doing whatever the hell I like"? Uncle Ed 18:50, August 2, 2005 (UTC)
 * Where did they express this opinion? If you're referring to Requests for deletion, that was only set up at 19:43 yesterday, exactly the same time as you deleted VfD, apparently inspired by an email somewhere off-wiki. I'm happy to see a debate about VfD because I consider it to be flawed, but the community obviously has to come to a decision before you decide to just go ahead and scrap it. As an administrator, you had the ability to delete VfD, but you certainly don't have the right until a proper revision has been made to deletion policy by the community and VfD becomes obsolete. &mdash; Trilobite (Talk) 19:05, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Since when is "more than half" consensus? Chuck 20:20, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
 * It seems to be "consensus" for deletion according toVfU.   Septentrionalis 01:56, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
 * I respect Ed Poor as an admin and do not want to see any punishment/discipline for this. However, I have to agree that he acted against the Wiki way in deleting the VfD main page, and that consensus to such a radical move should be reached before such a move is made. That said, it lightened things up for a change ;) Hedley 22:01, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
 * I've never talked to Ed before, so I have to assume respect. Shouldn't vfd have been vfd'd instead of speedied? It certainly is not a CSD. I heard about this on the mailing list and thought it was a joke, but, this is a little sad. I don't really see a problem with vfd, but some discussion could have helped! --Phroziac (talk) 23:25, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
 * This act was definitely out of order, and while I'm not calling for Ed to be crucified or de-adminned or anything, I would like to see the community make a clear statement that it is not acceptable to do something like this, even if you are a well-liked old-timer. And his glib response I'm not sure what this "dispute" is about. I deleted an unpopular page, and somebody else rather quickly undeleted it is incredibly foolish - the whole point of our deletion policies is to avoid the chaos that would ensue if any admin could feel free to "be bold" and delete a page, with the only check being that another admin might boldly undelete it. --Stormie 23:35, August 1, 2005 (UTC)
 * I can't add much more to what others have said. This was a ridiculous act, and the reaction to it by some is even more ridiculous. android  79  00:00, August 2, 2005 (UTC)
 * What everyone else said. This was unacceptably unilateral, the very recent poll on Requests for deletion isn't sufficient justification, and a workable system needs to be implemented, discussed, approved, and put into place before we do away with VfD. Nickptar 01:57, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
 * I would have urrged this act be undone promptly except that I didn't hear of it until it had been. This was way out of line. DES (talk) 04:27, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
 * I think the violation of WP:Point is the worse of the two offenses, given the scale of the disruption caused, though the page does list "Don't disrupt Wikipedia to make a point" as a guideline, not a policy. Nonetheless, it was a most aggregious disruption of Wikipedia.  Furthermore, the basis given for the act, that of VFD's unpopularity, is irrelevant in light of WP:NOT a democracy, as no consensus was reached nor wide discussion held prior to the act, and certainly not in a sufficient variety of forums that it could have been the widespread community decision needed rather than the decision of a like-minded minority of the total Wikipedia community.  The Literate Engineer 05:43, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
 * I have asked repeatedly: in what way is deleting vfd BOTH (a) disruptive AND (b) making a point? I did one deletion, and then stopped for comments: hardly a pattern of disruption. And what "point" am I supposedly making? People said they wanted to get rid of VFD, so I just boldly got rid of it. (It came back, so obviously it's not unanimious.) You are simply assuming the WP:POINT violation, as if it's too obvious for words, but you're neglecting the burden of proof. Uncle Ed 18:54, August 2, 2005 (UTC)
 * VFD is a major portion of the WP architecture; according to the deletion policy, it is the only forum through which articles not meeting the criteria for speedy deletion and not containing copyright violations may be deleted. As such, deletion of it is disruptive in that it prevents a normal function, the deletion process, from taking place.  Furthermore, the effect on the servers of making portions read-only, if in fact due to this deletion, is as literal a disruption as could be asked for.  A pattern of behavior is unneccessary to establish disruptiveness, given the magnitude of the disruption caused by the single act.  There are two "points" I accuse you of making.  The less likely, based in both in your initial action and your unapologetic responses since, is that the deletion policy and the consensus-gathering procedure for changing policy are both irrelevant and that administrators by fiat should be allowed to implement cataclysmic changes to the Wikipedia structure and methodology based on a non-consensus opinion gathered in a single forum indirectly connected to the Wikipedia space, the mailing list, without regard to discussion at the Village Pump or on any pages in the Wikipedia namespace.  Regardless, it seems clear to me (almost to the point of being "too obvious for words") that you were attempting to prove the point that the VFD process should be eliminated and Wikipedia will be better off without it.  The Literate Engineer 22:46, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
 * I agree with the comments above. I'd be in favour of desysopping, pending re-affirmation of his sysop status by the community on WP:RFA. There's no point in having rules pertaining to admin behaviour if you have no intention of enforcing them. -- Tim Starling 17:01, August 2, 2005 (UTC)
 * I can't help agreeing with Tim, who is one of Wikipedia's best and calmest. Just tell me two things: which admin behavior rule did I violate, and how hard did people try to explain it to me before the RFC? Uncle Ed 18:57, August 2, 2005 (UTC)
 * Don't play dumb, the two policies you violated are listed above, and we should hardly have to explain them to someone who has been here since 2001. You knew exactly what you were doing, you knowingly violated the rules to make a point. You did it in aid of what you believe to be a higher cause, but you should still be prepared to accept the consequences. -- Tim Starling 07:49, August 3, 2005 (UTC)
 * I believe Ed Poor showed a lack of judgement first when he deleted VfD without almost no earlier discussion. He should have known (and I can't help wondering if he did know) that his actions would be reverted. And again in his response below, suggesting that wikipedians would be largely in favour of his actions by pointing at a survey with at that moment only 10 "votes" (actually, quotes from the mailing list selected by him). I would have expected him to know that changing the deletion process so drastically would be highly controversial, and a proposal to that end would draw as many responses as the 3RR proposal (how many was it? over 100 at least). I find his laconic reaction very inappropriate. Eugene van der Pijll 17:57, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
 * I'm shocked and nearly speechless. it is mind-boggling to me that anyone, let alone a much respected editor like Ed, would delete the VfD page, with little or no apparent discussion and consensus. This is the first time I've every endorsed an RFC, and I'm saddened that it has to be in regard to this editor. Respectfully, Paul August &#9742; 20:28, August 2, 2005 (UTC)
 * This was an astonishingly bad decision, made worse by Ed Poor's Wikilawyering and disgenuousness. --Calton | Talk 00:24, August 3, 2005 (UTC)
 * This may or may not be an appropriate WP:RFC. I don't really care.  The point is, Ed Poor deleted a page that was not a speedy candidate without community approval.  There is never ever ever any justification for this.  That approval would have to come on WP:VFD page, whether he likes it or not.  Furthermore, to eliminate the policy of having a VFD page, a lot more discussion and consensus would be required.  Mailing list communication counts for none of this.  Ed Poor's actions were completely unacceptable, and this must end with a stern clear warning of such.  I don't believe punishment is necessary though. Superm401 | Talk 06:30, August 3, 2005 (UTC)
 * This is just ludicrous. I'm shocked by Ed's behaviour - ill-fitting for an administrator of such stature and responsibility - and his subsequent weaseling out of blame by accusing his accusers and pretending that the mandate of "being bold" can cover up blatantly disruptive actions. Ridiculous. jglc | t | c 17:28, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
 * I deeply dislike RfCs. But, if you are going to do something you know is wrong (or at least, should know is wrong), and then try to weasel your way out of it, expect the consequences. To go deleting the consequences only shows you can't take the consequences, ergo you should not have taken the precipitative action. If a more 'junior' sysop (and that itself is crazy notion) had done what Ed Poor did, they'd have been blocked on the spot, at the very least. It strikes me that some 'senior' editors wish the Wiki operated the way it did two, three, four years ago. It doesn't, and they really must learn to get on with the current way it works, and be prepared for ever more change. -Splash 17:44, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
 * This is related to Requests for deletion, a proposal to replace VfD which is currently far from anything even remotely resembling a consensus (at present 10 for and 28 against, with a further 14 calling the whole thing invalid). An incredibly disruptive action which appears to be backed neither by consensus, policy, or reasonable application of the "be bold" principle. Andrew Lenahan - St ar bli nd  21:04, August 3, 2005 (UTC)
 * --Grouse 18:02, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
 * -- I am hesitant to call it abuse, but I didn't like the nonchalantness and disregard for the seriousness that rogue deletions represents as presented in his reply. I believe the situation is the same as when a user decides to blank a page without bringing up discussion on the talk page to get a consensus for the change, which might ordinarily be considered vandalism. Except in this case, what has happened is many times worse than what happens with vandalism, because (1) The page was not just any page, but a page that has a function of the official policy. (2) His action prevented users from reverting his blanking by using the admin delete button to blank the page and hide its history. I believe this was done in a matter that was not the Wiki way: even if Votes for Deletion were to be made non-policy, the historical information should not be deleted.  It is to the detriment of Wikipedia and our efforts to write an encyclopedia to have admins hit the delete button so readily when there should be any doubt as to if it would be an appropriate use of the feature...  Surely people don't delete things just because they can, and because they think they have a few people agreeing? --Mysidia 20:05, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
 * I have issues with the present state of VfD, and I agree that it's often (ab)used aggressively. However, that is not an excuse for an out of process deletion, especially of such a significant page.  I am not sure that Ed should not remain a sysop, but I feel that this needs to be brought to the ArbComm's attention.  One of my deepest beliefs about WP is that sysop powers are to be used only in the service of the community.  If Ed felt that VfD was broken, he should have pursued the appropriate methods to fix or replace it.  A unilateral deletion is not such.  I did not respond earlier because I think Ed on occasion annoys me because we have political disagreements (see my user page...) but I am now comfortable voting since those issues are separate in my mind from this action. Pakaran 14:13, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

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.''

{Add summary here, but you must use the endorsement section below to sign.}

I'm not sure what this "dispute" is about. I deleted an unpopular page, and somebody else rather quickly undeleted it. Meanwhile, I've started Requests for deletion which is running 3-to-1 in favor of the deletion.

Somebody please tell me what remains "unresolved". Or is there a policy somewhere that says that actions taken in good faith to fix long-standing problems are de facto against policy? Uncle Ed 21:43, August 1, 2005 (UTC)

Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~ ):
 * 1) 67.182.157.6 20:54, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

Outside view
''This is a summary written by users not directly involved with the dispute but who would like to add an outside view of the dispute. Users who edit or endorse this summary should not edit the other summaries.''

As unilateral policy-making goes, this was a rather clumsy and ineffective maneuver. As abuses of power go, it was even more so. No harm, no foul. Can we just drop it? Eliot 21:59, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~ ):
 * 1) I'll drop it no problem. Hedley 22:02, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
 * 2) Robert McClenon 22:03, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
 * 3) Ed. I've got less respect for your longevity than everyone else here. Stop being a dick.  GWO 16:07, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

2nd Outside view
This is a summary written by users not directly involved with the dispute but who would like to add an outside view of the dispute. Users who edit or endorse this summary should not edit the other summaries.''

Pretty much same as previous outside view but does not see as abuse of power

While well intentioned and following the spirit of WP:BOLD Ed Poor's response to the downhill slide of VFD was an overstep because it was done without community consensus to do so, however was a good faith attempt to deal with a problem and was not an abuse of power and should just be dropped.

Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~ ):
 * 1)   Jtkiefer  T - 23:36, August 1, 2005 (UTC)

I have decided to strike out all my comments having to do the process of VFD and distance myself as much as possible from the current situation because I do not want to get involved in the pandora's box that this has become. Jtkiefer T - 00:30, August 2, 2005 (UTC)

3rd Outside view
''This is a summary written by users not directly involved with the dispute but who would like to add an outside view of the dispute. Users who edit or endorse this summary should not edit the other summaries.''

Deleting VFD with absolutely no discussion, and without an alternative already up, running and tested, was a bad choice. I don't consider it abuse of power, but it was definitely a misuse. This should not happen again. All policies and procedures should always be discussed first, and we should not follow WP:IAR quite this closely. As long as it never happens again, Ed should not be sanctioned in any way, other then being watched a little closer then normal. VFD is fine, and it does not need to be replaced. Requests for Deletion is a terrible name, because it can't be abbreviated to RFD. This would be confusing, especially for users from other projects, like Wiktionary, where this is what it's called. RFAr/RFA are already way too ambiguous. Ed's response is especially appalling, as he apparently sees it is not a serious problem. If this happens again, use of a clue by four is authorized.


 * 1) Phroziac (talk) 23:50, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
 * 2) Hedley 23:56, 1 August 2005 (UTC) Actually no. VfD does need replacing and RfD is a better name. Hedley 14:56, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Note that WP:RfD is Redirects for deletion and therefore can't be used. --Idont Havaname 03:44, 11 August 2005 (UTC)


 * 1) malathion talk 02:33, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
 * 2) DES (talk) 04:25, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
 * 3) - A Man In Black (Talk | Contribs) 06:33, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
 * 4) Pavel Vozenilek 00:40, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
 * 5) I would say that VfD could use some changes, but not a full replacement.  Other than that I agree with what you have to say. --Idont Havaname 03:44, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

Fourth Outside View
I agree that what Ed did was reckless. He used poor judgment. Many of us have occasionally used poor judgment. I do not think that what he did should be called an abuse of power, which should be reserved for episodes where wrongful intent can be inferred. That is why I am not signing Canderson's summary.

Now that his clumsy effort to fix the problem has been undone, I agree with Canderson that what is needed is serious discussion of how to revise the broken VfD procedure. Robert McClenon 01:43, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~ ):


 * 1) Mostly agree, save that there has to be a discussion, or at least a properly formulated statement, about how VfD is broken to start with. khaosworks 03:39, August 2, 2005 (UTC)
 * 2) Mostly agree as this is the closest to my opinion. The fact that Ed did something bold (but wrong, IMO) then backed off and said "maybe I was wrong" means that this is not an action for RfC. -  T&#949;x  &#964;  ur&#949;  20:40, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
 * 3) Reckless, yes, but not an abuse, for reasons given above. Friday 19:29, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
 * 4) Don't disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point. VfD is one of the most frequently used and visited administrative pages on Wikipedia. Ed should not play with it and disrupt it until clear consensus is reached (IMHO, consensus = 2/3 majority). Andrew pmk 17:29, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

Cross-References
It appears that Ed Poor's action was fallout from a previous RfC in which another admin was criticized for closing a large number of VfDs as "no consensus" when other Wikipedians thought that there was a consensus. For a discussion, see Requests for comment/Tony Sidaway. Could someone please provide a cross-reference to an actual policy discussion with a more detailed criticism of what is broken? Robert McClenon 11:30, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

Fifth Outside View
people make mistkes, hes apologiaed for this one, so why not accept the apology nd move on with things, surely there are more important things to do with our time then to keep focusing on such a nonissue.

users who endorse this. Gabrielsimon 08:45, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Where did he apologize? I missed that. Paul August &#9742; 13:49, August 3, 2005 (UTC)


 * 1) Radiant_ &gt;|&lt; 13:19, August 3, 2005 (UTC)

Outside view by Tony Sidaway
You're only supposed to blow the bloody doors off!

Thanks Ed, this certainly made me smile.


 * People who endorse this view.


 * 1) Tony Sidaway Talk  14:09, 8 August 2005 (UTC)