Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Snowspinner 2

To allow us to channel discussion into constructive outcomes, I've created some discussion starters. brenneman (t) (c) 08:46, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Response to Snowspinner's response
After reading Snowspinner's thoughts on the matter, I don't think that he understands what the problem is. This isn't an inclusionist vs. deletionist debate. I did add in a last bit on descriptivism in my summary, but that's not what this is about either. I can't really see how this could be sour grapes, as the two AfDs I was involved in that he speedily kept I had voted "keep" on, and I don't really know Snowspinner (haven't had any contact with him up to this point AFAIK) and am sure he's a fine guy. What this RfC is about is whether or not it's O.K. for an admin to delete discussions (in this case, AfDs) right in the middle of them, because he says so. Yes, it is true that notability is not a deletion criteria, in terms of what policy says. But does that make it all right to simply axe debates that has that as a standard? Where does it say that that is decent behavior? Policy contradicts it explicitly: to paraphrase, any page that does not meet a WP:CSD can not be speedied, and must go through AfD or a similar system (IfD, MD, etc.). Is Snowspinner above this?

I'm not trying to have popular consensus trump Wikipedia. I'm not trying to have Snowspinner desysopped, either, although I think that a temporary loss of adminship is appropriate. Sometimes a first offense is a big offense, and sometimes it's not. The disruption caused by voting delete on an AfD based on notability is minor compared to the disruption caused by speedily deleting seventeen pages without discussion or backing policy. Nowhere is it acceptable (or polite) to end a discussion by erasing all opposing points of view. Here, on Wikipedia, it is also a violation of policies. --Blackcap | talk 16:39, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Response on invalid "notability" nominations
This is a response to Nickptar's query.

I wrote: The deletion process is broken to the point where some editors feel that it's wrong for someone to speedy a deletion nomination that blatantly contradicts the deletion policy.

Nickptar asked Show me the policy that says "AFD nominations are only valid if:

That isn't the only way to demonstrate that what I say is true. Deletion policy states explicitly that if the only problem with an article is that it's "Such a minor branch of a subject that it doesn't deserve an article" then it's one of the "Problems that don't require deletion". Instead it says that the editor should "Merge the useful content into a more comprehensive article and redirect". After Snowspinner deleted the invalid nominations, the mistaken nominators still had the option to carry out the merges. All that happened was that nominations that violated deletion policy were correctly destroyed. --Tony Sidaway Talk 17:42, 3 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Minor branch. What about things that aren't branches, but are just non-notable entities that someone feels do not deserve mention at all? N (t/c) 19:00, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Even your little brother's grunge rock garage band is a branch of rock music, so theoretically, if it was third party verifiable, it could be covered, perhaps in an article titled "Garage bands from _your city_".  Un  focused  19:19, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Entries for garage bands without a contract can be covered by unverifiability but if verifiable they shouldn't need to be deleted. Remember that our deletion policy requires us, if in doubt, to not delete. --Tony Sidaway Talk 19:24, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
 * At the risk of encouraging tangential discussion, I saw with interest this AFD Articles for deletion/Ashida Kim (2nd nomination) in which Jimmy Wales seems to be advocating for deletion on the grounds of both unverifiability AND non-notability. I realize in this instance he's just one editor out of many, but it is still interesting to me. &middot; Katefan0(scribble) 21:28, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

I have started an informal poll on this issue. N (t/c) 21:56, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

Moved from main page
For reference next time: if you move endorsements of outside views, please either remove the endorsements from ALL views equally, or simple copy the entire endorsement and comments in reply from each view, but leave a copy of the original endorsements where they were with a note saying that the comments in reply were moved. Otherwise, it appears that you're removing endorsements from some views but not others, introducing bias. Un focused  18:03, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Other users who endorse this statement

 * I'm not allowed to actually say anything negative about Snowspinner, but I guess I can still endorse something someone else wrote that's critical of him. Everyking 07:39, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
 * As long as you are endorsing this because you agree with it, not just because it is negative to Snowspinner (and I have no reason to believe it is anything other than the former), then IMHO this is acceptable within the spirit of the outcome of your RfAr. Thryduulf 07:56, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Of course - David Gerard 13:02, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Response

 * 1) David Gerard 20:02, 3 October 2005 (UTC) "Sour grapes" is precisely what this is about. And I remember you as a deletionist, railing against those inclusionist feckwits ...
 * May I ask whose sour grapes, and about what? --Blackcap | talk 21:57, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Outside view by RN

 * Rubbish. No he shouldn't. (Hence striking my endorsement above.) - David Gerard 09:52, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Are you saying that when administrators disagree with a procedure they should ignore it? The Land 13:18, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
 * I'd say that when people are blatantly doing things that are against policy, that's time for an admin to step in. That it's a bunch of them doing it in concert makes it greater cause for action, not less - David Gerard 15:42, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
 * If you have any evidence that the people who nominated those articles on AfD are 'a bunch of people doing things against policy in concert' then please show it. You're sounding a bit like a conspiracy theorist to me. The Land 16:00, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
 * A bunch of people are trying to push through "notability" as a deletion criterion when it's nothing of the sort, and even bringing a largely bogus RFC against someone for daring to treat policy as valid. What do you want? - David Gerard 16:06, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
 * I have never seen anyone seriously claim that notability should not be a requirement, or arguments against notability make any headway whatsoever in any debate, regardless of whether it was on AfD, VfD, or anything else. I'm not the most experienced user around, but saying we don't have a policy on notability seems ludicrous to me. The Land 16:16, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
 * I heartily disagree that this is a "largely bogus RfC." What's under question here isn't about notability, which, though not a deletion criterion, is held by plenty of people to ought to be one, what's under question is whether or not it's O.K. to simply delete pages that you disgree with, especially on such shaky ground as notability as a deletion criterion. And by the way, if you're going to say "bringing a largely bogus RfC," be honest and say you're questioning my good faith rather than saying two contradictory things. --Blackcap | talk 19:31, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
 * "Bogus" appears to be the correct word for bringing an RFC on an alleged consensus policy that is against the actual policy. What word would you prefer? - David Gerard 19:51, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
 * I thought I had spelled this out, but one last time to make this clear: this RfC is not about notability as a criteria for deletion. What this RfC is about, as I said, is that it is entirely against policy to speedy delete AfD pages in the middle of a debate whether or not they are valid. Show me the WP:CSD that allows that. Some of those AfDs were without keep votes. A speedy keep and unlisting would have been against policy. A speedy keep that actually deletes the AfD page is unacceptable. And note that I didn't say not to call this a bogus RfC. I said to be an honest man and say that you doubt my good faith. --Blackcap | talk 20:41, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Outside view by David Gerard

 * 1) I completely concur with David on this issue. The entire deletion process on Wikipedia is broken and needs to be replaced, but there will never be a consensus to do so.  I tend to also agree with Tony Sidaway that the problem is self-correcting, however, as AfD will never scale effectively and will eventually become totally irrelevant in the face of ever-larger new article influx.  We should therefore allow AfD addicts to continue to play in their increasingly irrelevant playground until they eventually become bored with it and leave.  Kelly Martin 11:29, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Wait a minute. You say "AFD addicts can continue to play", but then endorse the unilateral outside disruption of AFD? Consider: if there will never be a consensus to do something, then maybe we shouln't do it. Your opinion does not justify unilateral action. This is exactly what I meant in my outside view by when I said the only reason this abuse is tolerated is because of the popular anti-AFD viewpoint. N (t/c) 14:14, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
 * I'm willing to tolerate letting the AfD addicts continue to play in their little playground. But when their antics disrupt the process of writing an encyclopedia too much, any editor (whether or not an admin) is entitled to swat them out of the way and continue writing the encyclopedia.  Kelly Martin 16:06, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Good point. But what I said, in bold, about consensus? N (t/c) 17:06, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
 * I think we won't see consensus on what should be done about AfD, because there is still not yet consensus on whether "notability" is a deletion criterion. However, I think we have at least rough consensus that AfD is not an ideal deletion mechanism: that is, the damn thing is broken, but we don't know what to do about it. Kelly Martin 17:19, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
 * But, perhaps the problem is that the two issues are being confused. Leaving aside notability, afd has an important pupose of deleting hoaxes, inherent POV, and unverified articles. (I'd love to know what % of afds do concern notability - perhaps lower than we think). Thus allowing afd to 'wither on the branch' is extremely problematic, and will increase the pressure to widen speedies (which are too subjective and unscrutinised as it stands). On the other hand, seeking to widen afd participation is also problematic. When a silly editor (usually an anon) creates junk in thirsty seconds, how much time of how many reliable editors do we want spent on the deletion process of that article? I think we need to try to find a fix, that leaves notability to one side. Indeed I've tried to make a start here is anyone is interested]] --Doc (?) 20:04, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 1) This endorsement is here for formal purposes only.  If and when Snowspinner writes a response, I may review again. I have endorsed Snowspinner's response, but want to comment on this outside view.  I completely agree with David's view and Kelly's comment.  The deletion process is broken to the point where some editors feel that it's wrong for someone to speedy a deletion nomination that blatantly contradicts the deletion policy.  Process has triumphed over substance.  --Tony Sidaway Talk  14:26, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Show me the policy that says "AFD nominations are only valid if:" N (t/c) 14:30, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
 * I'll respond to that on the talk page. --Tony Sidaway Talk 17:35, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Deletion policy - if it's not a listed reason, it's a bogus nomination and should never have been put up. Or are you quibbling over the use or nonuse of the words "valid" or "invalid"? - David Gerard 15:13, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
 * I guess I am. That page says that articles can be AFDed if someone thinks they are "not suitable for Wikipedia". Non-notability is surely a criterion for non-suitability. And some of those AFDs had been heading towards "delete" - I think it's inappropriate for an admin to speedy keep an article for which nobody has said "keep". (This would be an example of the "policy doesn't trump votes" thing Fubar and I have been talking about.) And in any case, deleting the AFDs to completely blow away the discussion was utterly unjustified. N (t/c) 17:06, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 1) As a frequent participator in the AfD process (usually as nominator), I'm seeing the same problems that David is describing, and my review of the 'case' leads me to believe that it's clear Snowspinner was operating in good faith. The system is broken, the WP:CSD should be amended to return AfD to something that allows community involvement.  The RFC process is all the protection needed against a theoretical "speedy delete abuse" because the people pulling the trigger are held to a higher standard. - C HAIRBOY  (☎) 22:11, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 2) *Weather or not it's broken doesn't mean he should violate policy. --[[Image:Ottawa flag.png|20px]] Spinboy 22:34, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 3) **I agree absolutely, but I endorse this writeup because I WP:AGF Snowspinner's edits. Admins are held to a high standard and can be censured if needed.  This RfC, no matter what the outcome, proves that.  A de-sysoping for something that A:is done in good faith and B:reflects consensus is a "letter of" instead of "spirit of" situation.  WP:Justice is not served by the punishment suggested. - C HAIRBOY  (☎) 22:59, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Outside view 2 by David Gerard

 * 1) An utterly surreal suggestion in the circumstances. Policy is policy, you don't get deopped for upholding it, no matter how many people may wrongly believe that they have effectively changed policy by disregarding it. Tony Sidaway Talk  20:11, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Completely correct. You don't get desysopped for upholding it, you get desysopped for flagrantly violating it by breaking WP:CSD. --Blackcap | talk 21:12, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Absolutely not. RC patrollers violate WP:CSD on a daily basis. They're trusted sysops, we assume they know what they're doing.  Snowspinner is one of the best we've got, he knows what he's doing and, consider this, even understands the deletion policy well enough to enforce it in this way.  Because we trust him.  --Tony Sidaway Talk  23:14, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Is that the royal "we" or just you and your mates? Because I don't trust Snowspinner and on this issue I'm in very good company. Grace Note 00:35, 18 October 2005 (UTC)


 * I would say that speedy deleting seventeen WP namespace discussions is violating WP:POINT and WP:CSD badly enough to say that he is not trustworthy. As far as I know, he still thinks that this was a good move and should be done again (although his endorsement of Unfocused's outside view make me wonder). I don't trust an admin who thinks that he is THAT MUCH outside the rules. This is not just a stretching of a CSD, it's an entirely new CSD of his own invention. I haven't heard Snowspinner even acknowledge that this may cause a problem. I haven't heard him say he won't do it again or that he'll ask for concensus first. If I heard something like that volunteered, then I'd assume that he can at least recognize that these actions have caused a problem, but he hasn't and still seems to think that there's nothing wrong with them. --Blackcap | talk 00:40, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Snowspinner did not breach WP:POINT. That's disrupting Wikipedia to prove a point.  Read G Maxwell's explanation of why you're wrong here.  But more to the point, deleting out-of-order AfDs isn't disruptive because it supports the deletion policy rather than (as deletion nominations for obviously merge candidates arguably do) thwart it.
 * I don't think you'll find Snowspinner "acknowledging" that his stretching of CSD is problematic because it patently isn't. Sysops speedily deleted Homa Sayar and Pejman Akbarzadeh and half a dozen other articles without even a shred of support in CSD. Did it cause a problem?  Not a bit of it!  The articles survived.  No administrator has the last word. --Tony Sidaway Talk  21:58, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
 * I think we're just going to disagree here. --Blackcap | talk 22:20, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Really truly, it's a jawdroppingly clueless breach of all sanity for you to think this is material for a desysopping. What in God's name led you to the line of thought that it would? - David Gerard 00:37, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Forgive him, he doesn't know that Snowspinner has carte blanche. He has made the mistake of thinking that we are all equally bound by the rules. As you demonstrate here, we're not, otherwise you'd be blocking yourself for your lack of civility, something you rarely bother with displaying to the hoi polloi. Grace Note 00:35, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
 * For an arbitrator, you're really not very good at being civil. I thought that that was what happened to an admin who badly violates a strongly standing policy. If I'm wrong on that, I'm sorry. It seemed pretty reasonable to me: adminship is not a big deal, as they're always saying, and a temporary loss of it for a large violation seemed pretty sensible. If that's too much, I can honestly say that I didn't think so and I must just be "jawdroppingly clueless." --Blackcap | talk 00:44, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
 * There you go again, falsely claiming that Snowspinner violated rather than upheld a longstanding policy. --Tony Sidaway Talk  21:43, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Please show me the policy. It seems pretty likely to me that we're talking about two diferent things. --Blackcap | talk 22:17, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

Outside view by Nickptar

 * 1) Breaching AFD process because AFD has problems does not improve AFD, it weakens it still further because it makes people think that "if an admin can breach the AFD process, why can't I?". Sjakkalle  (Check!)  14:12, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
 * If people are blatantly working against policy, that's what an admin stepping in is for. And I don't really see that it matters that it's a bunch of them doing it in concert - David Gerard 15:40, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
 * I dispute that a person nominating an article for deletion is "blatantly working against policy". I do not endorse the "Non-notability is not a criterion for deletion" sentiment, although I am sometimes willing to be quite liberal in deeming things as "notable". If you disagree and believe that anything non-notable (but verifiable) should be kept, the correct way is to cast a "keep"-vote and state your point. Brutally ending the discussion by deleting the AFD debate entirely is disrespectful of others because it declares that your opinion trumps all others, and such a way of doing things leads to a chaotic AFD system which serves nobody. AFD is a very contentious forum on Wikipedia, perhaps the most contentious one after RFAr, and because of that I think the processes there need to be respected and that it is a poor place to ignore all rules.
 * Interest in upholding some law and order in the deletion system is why I fought so hard against the unilateral deletion of Historical persecution by Jews after I closed it as a "keep". The article itself meant absolutely nothing to me, and even if it had there would be nothing preventing me from printing it out several times and using it as wallpaper over my entire house. But I was very upset that another admin would try to subvert the deletion process.
 * Yes, at the page where are deepest philosophical and morals are revealed, I listed myself as "Lawful Neutral". Sjakkalle (Check!)  08:43, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 1) As per Sjakkalle above. Process does matter, it is a guarentee of transparency and accoutnability in making key decisions. Ther is a reason why fundamental civil rights are said to be covered by a gurantee of Due process. While wikipedia is not a government, many of the same reasons why process is important apply here. DES (talk) 15:52, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
 * And when a pile of people work in concert to violate policy, does that successfully steamroller process, or is it an abuse of process to be dealt with? - David Gerard 15:57, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
 * I've never had the impression that WP is the place for the iron fist of the law, I always thought that WP was the place for civilized, rational, discourse with the objective of consensus. The fact that many people are violating policy suggests that maybe policy should be looked at, rather that stifling the dissenters. You are advocating process here. Fine. So am I. Speedy deleting AfDs is not process, it is stifling. --Blackcap | talk 00:51, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

Outside view by DES

 * 1) Of course! Regardless of what some people are saying, non-notability is a deletion criterion, and it is because the community, by and large, believes it is. N (t/c) 17:08, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Most people who state that notability isn't a deletion criterion don't say that non-notable things should be included, they just think determining each article's notability isn't worth the hassle and would be arbitrary anyway, and it's better not to put such a subjective term into policy. The old "nn I've never heard of it" argument, you know. At least that's how I see it. -- grm_wnr Esc  17:36, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 1) There is an argument that notability is a contentious criterion for deletion, but neutrality/verifiability as a criterion for inclusion alone commands less consensus --TimPope 18:02, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Not sure what you mean here. Um, you're aware, I hope, that neutrality and verifiability are official policy of Wikipedia? Notability is conspicious by its absence from those policies, and no amount of spin-doctoring will alter that. --Tony Sidaway Talk  18:41, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Yes I am aware of those policies. I have reworded this response on the main page. The definition of what non-notable is is provided at Guide to deletion: "non-notable, nn or vanity mean that the user thinks the subject fails to meet Wikipedia's inclusion guidelines either due to its obscurity or lack of differentiation from others of its type." Is this a valid criterion from deletion policy? Deletion policy says: "Problem with page - Is not suitable for Wikipedia (see WP:NOT) → Solution – List on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion (WP:AFD)". Therefore deletion policy says we must look to What Wikipedia is not. It is explicity stated in this policy "That something is 100% true does not mean it is suitable for inclusion in an encyclopedia". Articles must be neutral and verifiable, but it is affirming the consequent to say that something which is neutral and verifiable must be an article. Policy currently contradicts that. Therefore, Snowspinner was wrong to speedy the afd nominations. --TimPope 16:54, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

Endorsements
Users who endorse this summary (sign with &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126;):
 * 1) Un  focused  16:50, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 2) Exactly. -- grm_wnr Esc  16:55, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 3) Snowspinner 17:06, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Actually, come to think of it, this is more or less how I feel. Well put. I'd add me as #4 if I could, but I can't.--Blackcap | talk 19:36, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Note: I disagree completely with the bit about AfD, but will take that to the talk page. --Blackcap | talk 19:39, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 1) David Gerard 19:54, 3 October 2005 (UTC) Of nearly the same importance? They consider them of greater importance. In between driving off non-regulars then claiming they should be participating if they think the system is rotten.
 * That's not really very accurate. What is said is that if the system is rotten, fix it. Go write a proposal that works, get it passed, and bam! we've got a better AfD system. Great, and congratulations to the person who did the job. It happens. But I've never seen anyone "drive off non-regulars" unless they're a sock puppet, and complaining for a better AfD gets us nowhere. --Blackcap | talk 20:34, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
 * User:Nickptar added a comment here. I have moved it to Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Snowspinner 2 and posted my reply.   Un  focused  19:16, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
 * They frequently accuse others of being suspected sockpuppets just for not being AFD groupies. - David Gerard 00:38, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Hmmm. I've never seen that. Would you mind showing me where? I've seen plenty of anons and users with less that 10 edits get marked as a sock, but never anyone else, and not just passers-by who are regular contributions to Wikipedia at large. --Blackcap | talk 01:07, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

Comments
For me, the offense is delisting as well as deleting the discussions; although the second is worse than the first, both are highly inappropriate. Regarding "interested minority" and "opposing deletion policy", please see my and Fubar Obfusco's statements at WP:AN/I. N (t/c) 17:15, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Delisting was bold and likely to be reverted pretty quickly and easily. That would have been disruptive enough.  Deleting was being a dick and inappropriate.  Regarding "consensus creates policy", when you're referring to core policies of Wikipedia, consensus through repeated action creates nothing more than established procedure that has the illusion of being policy.  (I think it's appropriate to move these comments to the discussion page, so I have done so.)   Un  focused  19:16, 3 October 2005 (UTC)


 * I agree with Nick, everyone knows about AfD and has the right to vote there. The fact that they don't doesn't make those who do some kind of AfD-obssessed cabal. If they don't (because it's too time-consuming, because it's unpleasant, because it's boring, whatever) then they are freely giving up their vote and have no right to complain. No one is not allowed to vote on AfD, save the blocked, banned, or ArbCommed. They can always write a proposal to change it. People do. Those who don't have that right as well, but they can't gripe about it. As for it being broken, show me something that works better and we'll talk. I don't think that this is a solution, at least not a good one. --Blackcap | talk 19:47, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

That isn't how it works. People who participate in a discussion cannot establish the policy by acting in contradiction to existing policy. Moreover a cursory look at the debates on AfD will reveal that notability is not a criterion unchallenged on AfD. Far from it. If you want to establish a policy, do it properly. --Tony Sidaway Talk 20:04, 3 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Remember what this RfC is about: a sysop who decided his views beat existing policy on speedy deletion. --Blackcap | talk 20:12, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
 * I don't buy it. For every administrator you can get to support you, I'll show you an administrator who has speedied articles against the deletion policy.  If we asked them all to desysop themselves, we would have scarcely any admin left on RC patrol.  --Tony Sidaway Talk  20:35, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Maybe they have. I don't regularly check administrator's deletion logs, so I don't know who they are. If they did, whether or not they deserve an RfC would depend on the articles speedied. My guess would be that there's a lot of stretching of A7 and some others. However, deleting AfDs is a different ballgame, and in this case, I know about it, and can and have done something about it. This is obviously disrupting Wikipedia to make a point. And anyway, what else could this be about? Notability? Snowspinner didn't violate any notability policy, there isn't a notability policy. He violated WP:CSD, and with gusto. --Blackcap | talk 21:12, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Yes, and with WP:POINT in boot. Ryan Norton T 21:14, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
 * And by the by, who are you talking to? It looks like you're starting a new topic, but your sentence reads like a reply. --Blackcap | talk 20:29, 3 October 2005 (UTC)


 * I was directly responding to your misrepresentation of the process by which policy is made on Wikpiedia. --Tony Sidaway Talk 20:35, 3 October 2005 (UTC)


 * O.K. Thanks, that wasn't entirely clear. --Blackcap | talk 21:17, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Radiant's view

 * Endorsements


 * 1) Radiant_ &gt;|&lt; 22:28, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 2) Don't know if it'll work, but it reveals an ever-refreshing willingness to consider solutions instead of continuing to bicker. --Tony Sidaway Talk 23:18, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 3) I've been working on something simillar - but it now seems I was re-inventing the wheel. My thoughts are here, if anyone is interested. --Doc (?) 23:34, 3 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Disdorsements


 * 1) Useless in 99%. Do you think the original author will sit there and look at this "YourWorkIsGarbageYouMoronTemplate"? (This is how it will be perceived however polite you phrase the text.) mikka (t) 00:14, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Perhaps not, but 60% of vfd's are uncontested - which means that even the original author can't be bothered commenting. Many orignal authors of nonsense seem to depart the scene quickly. Of course, we'd need to have a process for dealing with 'contested deletions' - see my comments above. --Doc (?) 00:31, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
 * I stay partially corrected, by AFD 100 days. However I noticed something fishy there.
 * "AFD outcomes" table gives 60% deletions, while "Article voting patterns" gives 58.2% unanimous deletions. I find it hard to believe that only 1.8% of entries were disputable deletions.
 * for the issue at hand the 58-60% number is skewed, because I believe the overwhelming majority of deleted articles are created by users who have no right to vote yet. mikka (t) 00:54, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 1) I do agree with the above unfortunately. Maybe if you have a preset message like "A wikipedian has nominated this page for deletion. Feel free to remove this tag if you disagree.", even then you've got time issues. Plus subst-ing it just makes it harder to remove.... it's subst-cruft!!!! Ryan Norton T 00:28, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

Outside view by Thryduulf
Endorsements: Disendorsements:
 * 1) Thryduulf 00:27, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 2) mikka (t) 01:12, 4 October 2005 (UTC). I endorse you "speedy kept proposal" However the second clause may still require a reasonable wait time; say 48h: it is fairly easy to astroturf "speedykeeps". (On the other hand, this time-based precaution may be unimportant, since I am not aware of vandal mafia among editors with voting rights.) mikka (t) 01:12, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 3) [[Image:Ottawa flag.png|20px]] Spinboy 01:46, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 1) "Policy exists for a reason" - you mean the one they were breaking with "delete nn"? "even if the nomination does not correlate exactly with policy" - and what if it's 180&deg; from policy? "I can see no situation where the deletion of AfD pages has any benefit to anybody." - When the nomination is so jawdroppingly bogus it's ridiculous to let it stand and perpetuate the illusion that this is actually with policy rather than against - David Gerard 00:34, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Really, policy is not all that clear that nominations can only be done for certain reasons. And policy is even less clear that voting a certain way can contradict policy. If that were the case, we wouldn't need AFD, would we? N (t/c) 03:54, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
 * I agree that where the nomination is "so jawdroppingly bogus" the nomination shouldn't be allowed to stand. However, the AfD page should not be deleted. If it is recorded at Articles for deletion/Isreal that it was speedily kept for being in bad faith (or whatever) this might discourage the clueless and the bored/idle (because you'd have to edit the template to do a /2 or /3) from going head with the nomination. It wouldn't stop a vandal, but then we have lost nothing more than the time it takes to type SPEEDY KEEP. ~ at the top of the page and  at the bottom and press save. There would be no need to edit the article talk page unless you felt it of benefit - in which case presumably you feel it worth your time. Thryduulf 17:16, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

Outside view by Gmaxwell
I disagree yet agree. It has gotten off topic, but shouldn't be closed until its resolved. -- Spinboy 01:47, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
 * If you'd like to save it, you might consider moving all text not directly related to his actions over to the talk page. Refactoring discussions is sure to upset some people, but ... When I read the page it was very difficult to wade between people who were discussing Snowspinner and people who were discussing the AFD. As a result when someone states their view on Snows actions I can't tell if the view is because they actually think he did or didn't make a mistake or if they think it does/doesn't matter because there is controversy about AFD in general. At this point it looks like there is a lot more talk about AFD than Snowspinner. Part of the challenge in refactoring it is that the focus shift to AFD starts in Snowspinner's reply. :( --Gmaxwell 02:30, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

WP:POINT
Offtopic, but this page seems to show a fairly common misunderstanding of what wp:point is about. Taking an action that you think is directly right (even if your judgement is bad) is not WP:POINT. Doing something annoying which you probably disagree with yourself just to show others what extent their argument could be taken to is WP:POINT. For example, If Snow thinks that notability shouldn't be a criteria, closing down AFDs on NN is just his view (although it might be disruptive), a WP:POINT problem would be running around and AFDing the trivia math articles on numbers or niche quantum physics stuff because it's "not notable". Another example, I think notability *is* an important criteria for creating articles (as opposed to just being included in another article), so if I were going to violate WP:POINT, I'd grab the FCC tower database and start a bot making hundreds of thousands of articles "FCC234253 is a radio tower in ...". In short WP point doesn't just require that the the person be disruptive, or that they have a point, but also that they are causing disruption to attempt to prove something. --Gmaxwell 02:19, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Well, disruptivity is bad whether you have a point or not. N (t/c) 03:42, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
 * I don't know that I agree there. Many positive things start out, initally, as disruptive. We must endeavor to minimize uneeded disruption, but we shouldn't be afraid of causing a little dust in the name of progress. WP:POINT covers a special case which we are more vulnerable to because we are not (and perhaps can not be) internally consistant with our decision making. When disruption happens we want it to, at least, be because someone is trying to improve things, and not just because they want to make a point. The case of unneeded disruption due to poor judgement is why we have RFCs. --Gmaxwell 12:58, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

There is but one issue...
Snowspinner believes that admins, and specifically himself, are higher class of Wikipedian. Until such time as his friends are no longer members of the ArbCom, or Jimbo himself gets involved, we lesser Wikipedians have no recourse because Snowspinner has no interest in changing. Because Wikipedia neither a "hands-on" leadership level nor a system by which the community can review admins, we're at an impasse. Untimately, these fundamental power structure problems, if unresolved, will result in continued fracturing of the project's community. I wish us all luck. -- Netoholic @ 03:35, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
 * I may neither agree with Netoholic's assessment of Snowspinner's actions nor believ Snowspinner should be dead minned, but I still agree with this. We don't have an effective way to bring rouge admins into line.  ArbCom takes a l o n g time and there do exist outstanding instances where desys opping should have occured. -  brenneman (t) (c)  03:40, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Hell yes. There absolutely needs to be a process for de-adminship. Although I don't think Snowspinner deserves it for this one incident. N (t/c) 03:41, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Umm, Mr. N, there is a process for that already. We just don't use it much. -  brenneman (t) (c)  03:55, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Where? Requests for de-adminship lists no formal process, just a bunch of failed proposals. N (t/c) 04:00, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
 * What a surprise. Now you, Mirv, and Everyking have all weighed in against me. At this rate, I expect to wake up tomorrow and see that the sun rises in the east. Snowspinner 03:48, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Excuse me? Where have I "weighed in against [you]"? My only comments on this whole flap have been to point out that similar attempts to deal with the problems of AfD have already crashed and burned. This time I agree (surprise!) with the goals (though not the methods)&mdash;not least because they were not going to solve any of the problems, but were going to set off an enormous shitfight. &#8212;Charles P. (Mirv) 03:56, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
 * This isn't a tribunal, it's an RfC. The point of it isn't to weigh in against people, the point is to hear the opinions of the community regarding a problem. --Blackcap | talk 04:10, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Indeed. And certain members of the community's opinions are, shall we say, predictable. Snowspinner 04:25, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Could you at least be civil about it, whether or not that's true? I can't see how your saying that their opinions are simply predictable helps anything. It's just bickering and plain uncordiality, and those sorts of comments are extremely frustrating when they're said about one's self, especially when they're made with such sarcasm. --Blackcap | talk 05:12, 4 October 2005 (UTC)


 * I politely suggest you look at Requests for arbitration/Netoholic 2, Requests for arbitration/Everyking 3, and User:Mirv/Snowy before making judgments like that. Snowspinner 06:00, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Hmmm. I see what you mean, but I think that reviving that here was not needed. --Blackcap | talk 06:21, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Snowspinner, despite your attempts to poison the well, I think those links are part of a larger body of evidence against you. As I implied in my statement above, you have lots of friends in ArbCom, so I doubt that it comes as any surprise that you get favorable results in cases that you bring against people who speak out opposing your inappropriate admin actions.  I know that it is annoying for people speak negatively about you, so you really have few options. Step down, stop being controversial, or continue acting with smug authority.  I hope that your friends choose to eventually distance themselves from you if you choose to continue. -- Netoholic @ 07:09, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
 * The opinions of those who think that Snowspinner is a rogue admin are predictable because he never changes! He is supported by the establishment, so he is never caused to change, and lo, here they all are once more backing him when he's pissed off the community. Grace Note 00:41, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

An addendum to Blackcap's view
This is what I would like to see out of this RfC, if possible.
 * 1) Some acnowledgement or understanding from Snowspinner that his actions were disruptive to Wikipedia, whatever else they were.
 * 2) Some acnowledgement or understanding from Snowspinner that his actions were in violation of WP:CSD and WP:POINT, regardless of whatever else they were.
 * 3) Some statement from Snowspinner saying that he will not speedy delete/keep ongoing discussions in the future where that is not the consensus, whether or not they are in his eyes valid, that he will first try discussion, or, that he will create a proposal that, if it passes, will allow such speedy deletions/keeps of an AfD if a sysop decides that the AfD is inappropriate.
 * 4) If Snowspinner disagrees that his actions were disruptive or in violation of WP:CSD or WP:POINT, then some statement from him saying why, and showing how he is not with policy. If this occurs, we can proceed from there.
 * 5) Some consensus from the community as to what actions should be taken regarding Snowspinner now, and
 * 6) Some consensus from the community as to what actions should be taken if this occurs again.

This RfC has turned into a discussion over AfD and the deletion policy in general. While that discussion needs to occur, this is not the place for it. Please direct further comments not directly related to Snowspinner to another page where they will be more appropriate, such as the proposal section of the deletion policy. You can find that page here, and I encourage all of you who have ideas on the subject to go there. I hope you find something that works, and works well.

Snowspinner, I think that it would greatly move things along if you would answer or acnowledge these asks individually, maybe in some kind of a list, and then add your comments below your reply. If you reject this for some reason, please understand that this is the reason I created this RfC to begin with, and I'm just trying to actually start the RfC, which is a difficult thing to do in the middle. I'm sorry to ask you to do things in such a structured way, but I'd like to get something accomplished with this RfC rather that have it just be another unneccesary, irrelevant, stupid, deletionist/inclusionist bloodbath. Thank you. --Blackcap | talk 05:40, 4 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Well done! Whatever regard I held you in before, consider it lifted by 8%. Ten points to Slytherin!  brenneman (t) (c)  06:36, 4 October 2005 (UTC)


 * I concur utterly - the point of this RFC isn't AFD good or bad, it's "you can't do that just because you're an admin". N (t/c) 15:47, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
 * I too agree completely and appologise for being one of those who strode further into off-topicness with this. Thryduulf 17:18, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
 * These all seems like reasonable requests, and a reasonable course of action. Paul August &#9742; 18:20, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Spot on, Blackcap. Well Snowspinner, when can we expect a response to theses very reasonable questions? Filiocht | The kettle's on 07:18, 6 October 2005 (UTC)


 * I have said to Snowspinner here (at the bottom) that I am (personally) going to let this go. I think that this RfC has done all that it's going to, and to try to keep it going will neither be effective nor work. The de facto concensus is to not do anything now, and I respect that. If anyone else wants to keep it going, I hope you feel free to do so, but I am going to hold my peace unless this happens again. --Blackcap | talk 18:03, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
 * To clarify: I haven't changed my mind about anything I've said here, necessarily, but I don't think that my efforts to move this RfC forward are productive anymore. I think that I've done what I wanted, which was to get the community's opinions, and since Snowspinner has (apparently) decided to no longer respond here, I am going to let this go until the next time rather than frustrate myself and achieve no real result. --Blackcap | talk 02:10, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

On the substantive issue
Snowspinner is accused of breaking only one Wikipedia policy.

Ironically it is precisely the policy which he upheld.

The accusation says:
 * Deletion policy
 * The deletion policy says, under Procedure for deletion: "If a page does not fall into one of the categories listed under Criteria for speedy deletion, then you cannot delete it without it spending five days on Articles for deletion (or the analogous pages for images and media files, categories, templates, redirects, miscellaneous) first." None of these pages fall under a criterion for speedy deletion.
 * Miscellany for deletion clearly states how to delete a non-mainspace article for deletion. The articles deleted were in a non-mainspace, but these procedures were not followed. It also states clearly that (bolding mine): "Nominating a Wikipedia policy or guideline page, or one of the deletion discussion areas (or their sub-pages), for deletion will probably be considered disruptive, and the ensuing discussions closed early. This is not a forum for modifying or revoking policy."

As I have noted, the CSD clause is commonly ignored by all sysops involved in RC patrol. *When* challenged, I *shall* provide copious statistics.

The Miscellany for deletion section clearly does not have anything to say to administrators about how they are to clean up the fallout of failure to follow policy. Snowspinner used his discretion, and in the circumstances he acted well. Non-notability is explicitly outruled as a reason for deletion in the deletion policy. --Tony Sidaway Talk 22:14, 4 October 2005 (UTC)


 * I don't get it. The policies you cite are precisely those Snowspinner violated - he deleted non-CSD pages without letting them go on MD - especially bad given that the section you bolded says that even nomination of those pages would have probably been considered disruptive. N (t/c) 22:19, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Actually, that's my original bolding, just so you know. --Blackcap | talk 22:46, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

I find this argument, um, incomprehensible? - brenneman (t) (c)  23:25, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

Snowspinner violated no policy, in an attempt to retain information whose deletion would be against the deletion policy, that is not violated daily in removing material whose deletion is against the deletion policy. There was no disruption, only the massed gnashing of teeth of those frustrated by a legitimate move to enforce the deletion policy. I'm looking at the RfC and smiling--at least three active arbitrators explicitly support Snowspinner's actions and the award of an Ed Poor barnstar to Snowspinner. This case ain't going nowhere. Syonara. --Tony Sidaway Talk 23:33, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Tony I'm deeply disturbed by the tone of this. Requests for comment is a way for us to gather consensus.  We talk, we ask question and we expect that the participents respect each other.  I point out exactly that is happening at this RfC.  Both your view as this as a "case" and your mention of arbitrators demonstrates a judicial view of mediation.  Your self-congratulatory air is missing some love, too.  brenneman (t) (c)  05:15, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

The table of problems requiring deletion has as its first entry in the List at Articles for Deletion row, "Is not suitable for Wikipedia (see WP:NOT)". In light of that and WP:NOT section 1.7, "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information," and taking into account that the word notability appears nowhere on Deletion Policy, I'd really like to know how you come to the conclusion that "Non-notability is explicitly outruled as a reason for deletion in the deletion policy," especially as it seems to be implicitly, if not explicitly, included under the "is not suitable" clause. The Literate Engineer 04:43, 5 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Also: Wikipedia is not only determined by written policies, followed to the letter. The notability criterium, though not explicitely written down, is widely used, and has become a de facto policy. The following text, that I copied from a random user's user page seems appropriate here:
 * ''Wikipedia policy, or, at least, what exists of it in a codified fashion, is exceedingly well written, flexible, and, on some occasions, manages the rare feat of being funny as well. In general, though, official changes to policy are slow to come, and are most effective when they follow from things that are already semi-common practice. In other words, policy is descriptive, not proscriptive, and practice may change before policy.
 * ''There is a school of thought within Wikipedia that there exist policies that are not written down. I am a firm believer in this school of thought. The rules of Wikipedia are not a suicide pact, and attempts to slavishly follow the rules when one of the rules is to ignore all rules is an exercise in absurdism.
 * If you disagree with an unwritten rule, argue against it. Do not just assume the rule does not exist because it is not written down. Eugene van der Pijll 07:47, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Speedy keep policy proposal
I have started a formal policy proposal regarding speedy keeps at Articles for deletion/Speedy keep proposal. Thryduulf 20:17, 4 October 2005 (UTC)