Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:VigilancePrime/Admin Abuse

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 debate was Keep and rename (on my own initiative, I've chosen the name "Sometimes, admins make mistakes", but the editor is free to choose his own rename.) Xoloz (talk) 13:19, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User:VigilancePrime/Admin Abuse

A list describing good-faith actions which an editor does not happen to agree with as "abuse" in not conducive to building an encyclopedia. Possibly even speediable as an attack page? --Pak21 (talk) 16:25, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

• After much consideration, Keep. When I read the nomination, I expected the page to be a rant against administrators from a disruptive user nurturing grudges. We've all seen such pages, and accordingly I was preparing to give a Delete opinion (or even a speedy as an attack page). However, I then read the page, and was surprised to find a civil, well-reasoned critique of specific administrative actions. As the page itself explains its purpose: While we refer to these wholly wrong acts as abuses of power, we can safely assume that at least some of them were done in good faith. "Good initiative, bad judgement" is a phrase that has been used to describe these situations. In that vein, this page can be used as a reference of past bad decisions for new and even experienced administrators to read and from which to learn so that the same mistakes are not made again (or continually). So he is not attacking the administrators at all. If one reads the critiques of the two specific AfD closures noted on the page, they centre around Wikipedia:Don't_overuse_shortcuts_to_policy_and_guidelines_to_win_your_argument, an essay which every administrator should read before closing AfDs (indeed, I made a similar point in Wikipedia:Editors matter). I hasten to add that, in these cases, I disagree with VigilancePrime; I think that both those AfD closures were correct in policy (I read through both AfDs before commenting here). However, VigilancePrime has offered a good-faith critique, which the two closing administrators would be well-advised to read (and respond to). All admins should be prepared to explain their actions - not just through formal channels such as DRV, but also through informal channels. Accordingly, I respectfully disagree with the nominator that this page "is not conducive to building an encyclopedia". Dissent, disagreement and argument are highly conducive to building an encyclopedia; without them, poor decisions go unchallenged. Walton^One 17:13, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Further comment (sorry for the excessive verbosity) - I recommend that the page be moved to a less inflammatory title, such as "Instances of poor judgment by admins". The nominator is quite right that the term "abuse" tends to connotate an accusation of bad faith, which is clearly not the intention here. Walton^One 17:13, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
• Neutral Comment. I'm not sure I like this page. It's basically a listing of admin decisions he thought were wrong, so he labels them "abuse of powers". While the user remains civil on the page, the very idea of it strikes me as wrong, and if something like this gains acceptance, we could have an indiscriminate list of so-called admin wrongdoings that's mean, spiteful, or biased (there's no way he can get every single admin screwup on that list, so he's going to have to pick and choose which ones to add, which creates bias)...plus other lists of it's type may pop up. So why isn't this a delete? Because I can see some good coming from such a list too. A record of serious admin mistakes, kept in the spirit of documenting incidents (and not of humiliating them or making a statement) can be of use when spotting rogue admins and bringing a possible case against them. The trouble is, when is it clearly an abuse of power, when is it an error in judgment, and when is it simply a mistake? the first should be on a list like this, the second two, absolutely not. --UsaSatsui (talk) 18:37, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
  • After a few days of watching this page, it's clear to me that this user doesn't have any intention of using this page abusively. I still worry that others may take the concept, use it in that fashion, and use this MFD to justify it, but that's really a silly reason to hold back a keep. So put me down for a Week Keep and Rename...does anyone have any good rename suggestions? --UsaSatsui (talk) 17:20, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
• Keep As I see it does not disrupt Wikipedia it is the users opinion and the users are entitled to their own opinion... Look opinions are NOT "fact", and say them(or typing them) do not make them so. IF I said in my opinions "the world is going to end today"...will it end ...NO!....I do not have that Power...That is my opinion--Looktothis (talk) 19:53, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
• Rename to a title that accurately connotes what the page actually is, a list of admin actions that can legitimately be argued as flawed. Definitely beneficial overall to keep this. –Pomte 20:44, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
• Rename Per Pomte and (though he said keep) Walton. Hobit (talk) 00:55, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
• Keep and Rename per Walton. Civil page, but with an inflammatory title. DEVS EX MACINA _pray
• Keep and rename the actual contents is not the least inflammatory: two politely discussed AfD closings. The title should reflect it. DGG (talk) 05:23, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. Seriously, Pak21, an attack page? It's an opinion essay in a perfectly civil tone. Videmus Omnia ^Talk 16:50, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Perfectly legitimate essay. I don't see a civility problem at all. Disagreeing is not equivalent to being uncivil. Rray (talk) 03:56, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
• Keep It's quite legitimate to gather examples of questionable judgements, and this is done in a way that is neither uncivil nor disruptive. William Avery (talk) 17:05, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
• Keep it's one or more editors opinions. By nominating for deletion you are disagreeing with them and that's fine, but this page is a well intentioned piece of work. Pumpmeup 02:05, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
• snowball keep The editor's allowed his opinions, especially in his own user space. Merkinsmum 02:20, 26 December 2007 (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.