Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:What Were They Thinking?

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 a clear consensus to delete based on solid reasoning. Daniel (talk) 07:32, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:What Were They Thinking?

Disruptive and inflammatory page, WP:POINT, WP:NPA, WP:CIVIL, WP:NPOV, etc. There's a clear agenda to this, and it does not serve to build up the encyclopedia or help editors. This kind of thing isn't even appropriate in userspace, let alone projectspace. What will we entertain next, some user coming up with WP:EDITORSTHATPISSEDMEOFF? This is even more disruptive than it was the first time around. Tijuana Brass (talk) 00:57, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Note: Author has canvassed several other user pages for this MfD: [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12]. Tijuana Brass (talk) 01:29, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Following up on the input from other editors at WP:AN/I, I realize that a block which I issused to this article's author as a result of the above mentioned canvassing may be misinterpreted as a conflict of interest, since I also began this MfD. This was not my intention, and while it shouldn't affect the outcome (XfDs run for five days, so a 24 hour block still leaves plenty of time for commentary here), I apologize if I've given the wrong impression by not asking another admin to handle the response. Tijuana Brass (talk) 20:39, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Note: WP:CANVAS: "Neutrally worded notifications sent to a small number of editors are considered 'friendly notices'" (notice indicated vote for Support or Opposition, hence neutral, and sent to every editor in prior discussion regardless of comments from discussion).

The page already survived an Deletion review. It was a UNANIMOUS KEEP. Since then, even, it has undergone the name change, elaborated even more on the positive aspects of admins, and is looking for examples of the abuses admins endure. Nominating it again is barely short of an attack, considering the nom blocked me last night (and yet allows those making personal attacks against me to go scot-free, even when pointed out). Why the abuse of me? Note, the WP:WWTT link pointed here also, and thus the name/link/location hasn't changed. This is nothing more than a feeble second attempt at deletion against something I don't like. VigilancePrime (talk) 01:32, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

• Clarification: It survived a previous MfD — it has never gone through a deletion review.--12 Noon ^2¢ 17:53, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

  grr, it was only judged as a keep a few weeks ago and someone is putting it up for MfD again? At least leave it another month or two. Merkinsmum 01:14, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

  Comment The editor that put up this MfD is also the admin who blocked this editor for canvassing. I'm concerned about the intersection of these two actions, although I explicitly trust the judgment of both these editors. It presents the kind of appearance of impropriety that can lessen confidence in the administration of the project. --SSBohio 19:30, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

• Keep Per VigilancePrime. This possibly even qualifies for a "Speedy keep", since it was a unanimous keep before, and there is no reason to think consensus has changed. Rray (talk) 01:19, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
• Still keep, same arguments as last time, but strongly suggest a rename to the title proposed by the closing admin of the last proposed deletion. Hobit (talk) 01:20, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
• Comment: Please note, nom blocked me last night, I pointed out that it was (IMO) an illegitimate block, and pointed out grotesque behavior on part of others that has gone unnoticed. Possible retribution MfD nomination? I'd like to hope not, but will not declare either way. I think it is relevant to note, though. VigilancePrime (talk) 01:22, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

  Comment Note that Rray and Hobit should delare an interest; they were involved in one of the AfD debates featured in this essay, and see this discussion as another opportunity to get back at the admin that closed that debate. --Gavin Collins (talk) 18:37, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

  Good grief. I voted the same way before that issue made it here (last deletion call). Hobit (talk) 01:37, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

  Gee whiz. Assume good faith. I have exactly 0 interest in "getting back" at anyone. I shouldn't even have dignified this comment with a response. Heck, I don't even remember which article it was or which admin closed the debate. Rray (talk) 03:31, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

  Okay, I looked at these. The only AfD listed on that page that I had a hand in is one in which I disagreed. It's listed in the section praising admins for amazingly good explanations of their behavior. How could I possibly be trying to get back at that admin by voting to keep an article praising him? Rray (talk) 04:20, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

• speedy keep or keep was what I meant to add.:) Merkinsmum 01:29, 20 January 2008 (UTC)*
• Delete. Inflammatory, accusatory page detailing instances of "admin abuse". Serves no real, useful purpose. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 02:06, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
• Keep the uncalled for renomination of this page and banner at the top is why this page is needed. Lobojo (talk) 02:13, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
• Weak Keep. My argument hasn't changed since the last one (which was, y'know, less than a month ago)...while the page could be used in an improper and abusive way, there isn't any indication that is has been or will be...and it could be useful, as well. It should be kept but watched. And do we really need the SPA banner? --UsaSatsui (talk) 02:19, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete as unhelpful in wikipedia space. Thanks, SqueakBox 02:31, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

  You bring up a good point. Wasn't this in userspace before? --UsaSatsui (talk) 02:33, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

  Yes it was. Thanks, SqueakBox 02:36, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

  Then Move back to Userspace, possibly speedily. This really has no place in the WP space at all. --UsaSatsui (talk) 13:09, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

  If that happened we could shut this down right now. Thanks, SqueakBox 16:37, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

• Move to User space from WP space. Discussions of policy and personal views and advocacy are permissible in WP space; pages like this, making strong verdicts upon individual actions on individual articles are not. They are personal comments. I agree with some of them, and I would support the right of anyone to maintain a page of administrative decision they do not agree with in user space. But it does not belong where it is--it is indiviual judgments of disputed questions. What is in WP space can be individual views, but not to this degree of particularity. If it remains here, we can all add our own opinions of closing we disagree with--i can think of dozens, and could probably find a few hundred if I went about it systematically. And a few hundred other people could do the same, and add them in. the place for these views is either in the framework of Deletion Review, or in user space. The unanimous keep referred to was when it was in user space--I'll say that again, if it gets moved there. it is not inflammatory beyond what is permitted there. But if the ed. concerned insits on having it in WP space, it should be deleted from WP space. DGG (talk) 02:33, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete. This is apparently just a soapbox for VP to complain about admins who closed deletion debates in ways he didn't like. If deletion debates are closed out of process, the proper place is WP:DRV. If an admin has abused his tools, the proper place is WP:AN/I or an RFC. If VP just wants a forum to complain, the proper place is blogger.com. I used to close out contentious deletion debates, but I stopped because I got tired of taking so much abuse, which you get no matter how you rule. A good example is the first entry on this page: I closed a contentious deletion debate because it had been 3 weeks and no admin was willing to make the call and take the abuse for it. I deleted the image because it violated our NFC policy, and VP didn't like my decision. He didn't take this to DRV, because there's no way the deletion would have been overturned. He didn't start an RFC, because no one else would have certified that my actions were abusive. Instead he created this page to make personal attacks against me in Wikipedia space, and he canvassed people he thought might support him when it was nominated for deletion. (He didn't notify me, obviously, even though attacks against my character are the very first "example" on the page.) "What Were They Thinking?" it asks, "Were They Thinking At All?" Is this how we want to treat admins who work on backlogs? I hope this personal attack page isn't kept. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 03:20, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
• Weak Keep (if moved to User Space). AfDs are not decided by flawless logic and there is an element of personal decision-making, so this type of commentary is not a ridiculous idea. There is enough of an sharp edge to the arguments included here that it should be confined to User space. The present wording of the nutshell seems intemperate, with its reference to ego trips and abuse of power. The essay would be stronger and more persuasive if the unnecessary attack language were taken out. (If that were done I'd change my !vote to a full Keep). Pomte's recent changes were a big improvement. EdJohnston (talk) 03:51, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
• Move to user space. I concur with the statement by DGG, with one addition, and that is: a page like this has the potential to become an attack-page if not edited carefully. So, with the caveat that it does not become an attack page with any sort of uncivil comments or stalking by focusing on individual editors or admins, keep and move to user space. It does not belong in Wikipedia space. If it morphs into an attack page, it should be re-nominated for deletion without delay. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 04:08, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
• Keep and move to user space per general consensus above. It is absolutely legitimate to criticise administrative actions; we as administrators have to be open to unrestricted criticism of our decisions, and labelling such criticism as "personal attacks" is not helpful or productive. However, I firmly agree with DGG that a page like this does not belong in projectspace, since it represents only one editor's opinion; keeping something in projectspace tends to imply some form of acceptance by the community, which this doesn't have. Walton^One 08:47, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
• keep and move to user space- I didn't realise until someone said, that this has been moved. Can't one of us just move it back?:( Merkinsmum 13:35, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

• Userfy. It's not a bad idea per se, but the afds chosen are clearly biases of the author, and as such the article should be userfied. Wizardman 16:40, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
• Moving it back to userspace just encourages its soapbox nature as one person's dislikes, which doesn't help with encyclopedia building at all. Keeping it here is more likely to encourage discussion and opposing viewpoints, so VigilancePrime or anyone else may recant their views. –Pomte 16:42, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
• Re-userfy per DGG and others above. If Pomte's concerns materialize over time, then "Hello MfD #3". VigilancePrime should be aware of the boundaries as interpreted by the community for this particular page. Ceteris paribus, it appears appropriate only in user space, and even then only if it refrains from attacks. However, it still needs a name change. With all that being said, if it were to become less of a finger-pointing rant, and underwent massive peer review, it could possibly be salvaged in WP namespace as a useful "How to address administrative sanctions" by providing means of action by an accused or abused user, ala Wikipedia:Sock puppetry/Notes for the suspect. I am unaware of any such page existing. --12 Noon ^2¢ 17:50, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
• Userfy. The page creator is entitled to his opinions, and this is more usefully presented than the usual "Admin X is a commie nazi" pages that are uncontroversially deleted here all the time. On the other hand, this sort of "political" page shouldn't be in the project namespace. — Gavia immer (talk) 18:35, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
• Keep - It creates a more level playing field among editors. Administrators have all sorts of places to discuss their fellow editors and keep record of them, such as IRC, mailing lists, etc. There have been huge controversies arising from each of these. I can only think that sunlight is the best disinfectant and a place for the community to opine about their administrators would be both equitable and responsive to community needs. If Keep isn't supported by consensus, then userfy, but userfication is not what I would do if it were up to me. --SSBohio 19:30, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

  Er, administrators aren't exempt of dispute resolution and can be subjected to it, like all other users. There's many more widely read forums to discuss admin conduct and behaviour than this; adding yet another noticeboard will not help with visibility, it will decrease visibility. This particular page, in my opinion, would work best if it focused on long-standing, deep-rooted, frequently repeated problems, or individual incidents that work as educational examples of What To Do or What Not To Do. Please don't turn it into a noticeboard, however; People jusr don't have the attention span to follow zillion pages. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 23:41, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

  That admins can be subject to DR is true in theory; However, in my experience, one admin is loathe to go against another. I was involved in a situation where an admin used his admin tools to do a history deletion and effectively prevent reversion away from the version of an article that matched his prejudices. One administrator reversed him, but made no objection when he deleted it again. Another administrator stepped in to reverse the deletion, but was forced to back down. For us ordinary editors, bold, revert, discuss works admirably; we're severely disadvantaged when an admin takes action using his tools; he can be bold, but we can't revert. In effect, we're having a debate, except the admin is allowed to bring a shotgun to the table, which changes the terms of the discussion. How could I use DR to address this issue? No one seems willing to even look at the problem, much less do anything about it. --SSBohio 17:11, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

  What you say is true; however, I should note that the reason admins are wary of going against one another is entirely due to the poor judgment of ArbCom in the past. Generally, ArbCom is quick to desysop anyone for "wheel warring" (even if the admin action reversed was out of process and wholly inappropriate), whereas they rarely desysop admins for biting new users, making unnecessary blocks, or making controversial deletions without prior consultation. They value peace and harmony over common sense. Walton^One 08:30, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

  As Walton One says, basically the situation is simple: Admins generally shouldn't unilaterally revert one another, because no one wants a giant dinosaur fight in the city centre. However, it doesn't mean that admin conduct isn't discussed. It doesn't meant that admins can't revert actions if there's an abundantly clear consensus on public forum to do so. Deletions, protections and blocks get overturned all the time through discussion. And my point is that adding another discussion forum makes it harder to get consensus for/against certain admin actions. If you discuss a block reversion in Administrators' Noticeboard/Incidents, few people will complain because a lot of people read AN/I; If you discuss the matter in Obscure New Notice Board, it's easy to scoff and say that there's actually no consensus. In short, please remember what happened to PAIN and CSN. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 13:08, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

• Userfy. I don't think this will fly in projectspace. If a Horde of People with an Agenda wouldst Descend Upon It, the end result, verily, wouldst not look very good; it'd be a battleground soon. However, I don't really see a problem if it'd be kept in userspace in more or less strict control of the creator. As such it's perfectly appropriate to collect observations on various cases, so this clearly shouldn't be deleted. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 23:41, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
• Userfy'. As others have said, this is perfectly fine in userspace but not in project space as long as it isn't used as a platform for personal attacks. NF24^{(radio me!)} 00:32, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete, use WP:DRV if necessary instead of keeping an "abuse" museum. Not really helpful in building an encyclopedia, so I don't see much point in moving this back to userspace (and apparently the creator wants the page to be in Wikipedia space, where it does not belong). Kusma (talk) 09:54, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
• comment just to say that myself and User:Pomte have rewritten this article a bit, NPOV'ed etc. a bit, and I think those who disliked the article might prefer this version, or at least consider it less of an 'attack.' As such it may have less reason to be deleted, regardless of where it ends up kept. Merkinsmum 13:23, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
• Userfy - ok for user space, could become a battleground in project space. Addhoc (talk) 14:14, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete - how does this contribute to building an encyclopedia? - Philippe | Talk 16:05, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

  It's the administration of the encyclopedia that becomes more & more important as the community gets larger & larger. Brave wikipedians like Giano and Badlydrawnjeff have attempted to speak truth to power and received castigation over it. Good editors like William P. Coleman are being lost regularly to what they see as heavy-handed treatment from admins. Having this page (whether in project space or userspace) will provide some means for the smaller, weaker members of the community to stand together when confronted by larger, more powerful forces. Every police department needs a police review board. --SSBohio 17:11, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

  Hear, hear. This is exactly what I've been saying for years. Walton^One 08:27, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

• Userfy or delete the individual examples - I don't mind poking fun or seriously criticizing the general group of administrators, but signaling out individual editors by one author in projectspace? No. If the examples are deleted, I'd support leaving the essay in projectspace, otherwise it should be part of the author's userspace. - Mtmelendez ^(Talk) 21:59, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete (preferably) or failing that, Userfy. This page is clearly intended to be a list of, as the nominator puts it, 'admins who pissed me off', and be a place for him to complain about admin decisions that he feels were examples of 'admin abuse'. Such judgements are inherently non-neutral, uncivil and accusative; it is therefore highly inappropriate for Wikipedia-space. In fact, I can't think of any reason to keep this page at all: any serious examples of apparent 'admin abuse' should be reported to WP:AN/I or the Arbitration Committee, not moaned about here, and more trivial cases should be just discussed with the admin in question. We aim to resolve our problems at Wikipedia by community discussion and consensus, not ostracism; as such, encouraging people to keep 'grudge lists' of admins who've taken action against them and add them to this 'name and shame' page is a very bad idea. Terraxos (talk) 04:14, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete Individual negative examples are certainly personal attacks. This effectively provides a project space venue for an attack of individual admins which does not have the normal checks-and-balances and for which consensus is not formed (in contrast to the venue established for this purpose: WP:RFC), and affords no utility for admins to make a defense. The page appears to speak on behalf of the community with language such as "We at wikipedia believe..." but did not actually seek or benefit from broad input from the community. This wall-of-shame is not condusive to collaboration, amicable resolution, nor a sense of fair-play; as such, it should not exist in the project namespace or anywhere else. JERRY ^talk _contribs 04:49, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
• Userfy or Delete This has no place in wikispace. --Veritas (talk) 14:32, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
• Userfy or Keep and Rewrite 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. However this is not a user page and anyone can rewrite it so why Delete it.--Looktothis (talk) 15:26, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
• Just delete it - What is the point of allowing one editor to soapbox about calls he disagrees with, especially in WP-space but even in general? If he disagrees with a particular call, there are methods to deal with that. If he has something against an admin, there are dispute resolution methods to deal with that. Here's a thought - if I disagree that the admin calls were bad, can I remove them from the article? What're the chances that VP won't revert war to keep his version of events prominently displayed? ^Avruchtalk 20:11, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete as inflammatory rubbish - it's an attack page and really should have been speedied on that basis. Smarmy attacks are attacks - David Gerard (talk) 20:42, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
• Strong delete or maybe a very weak userfy. I disagree with the AfD closing decisions listed on that page but that doesn't mean we need this page. If the closing admins made mistakes, take them to deletion review. Go engage the admins you disagree with. In any event, don't publish a page like this in Wikipedia space. Maybe it can live in user space but I don't really feel very comfortable with it and, truth be told, I would have a lower opinion of a person keeping it in their user space. I think it's shabby and unfair to keep it around. --A. B. ^(talk) 21:05, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

  P.S. This wikien-l post is not a neutrally-worded notice. --A. B. ^(talk) 21:07, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

It isn't, at all, you are correct. It beats selectively notifying sympathetic editors, however, as anyone can subscribe to WikiEn-l. ^Avruchtalk 21:49, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Sadly, there's more than enough disappointing behaviour on both sides of this issue. --A. B. ^(talk) 03:43, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

• Move to userspace or delete Obviously inappropriate. Seems to be a complaints and gossip board rather than an effective, civil forum on admin actions. As it has no punitive powers and is not active as a dialog with admins, it has no potential for being a positive part of the dispute resolution process. VanTucky 21:12, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per A. B.'s well-thought out reasoning. It seems highly unfair to single out certain admins and criticize them for their decisions. I'm also quite unhappy over the canvassing issues here, especially because the creator seems intent on denying any wrongdoing. Even userfying isn't really acceptable, as David Gerard pointed out. GlassCobra 21:47, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
• Comment Not sure how relevent this is, really, but I found this MFD from looking on User:Pomte's talk page (who contributed a lot to the article) based on this restoration of an obvious PA. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 22:09, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
• 'Delete or weak userfy per A. B. Johnleemk | Talk 00:09, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
• Move to Userspace per above arguments. Kamek (talk) 04:20, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete completely — do not allow even in userspace. Could be speedy-deleted for personal attacks, and even if those were removed is inflammatory and uncivil ➥the Epopt (talk) 06:40, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
• Keep, but move to personal userspace. While I don't object to the general idea of documenting verifiably controversial admin decisions (as verifiable by large critical discussions and a large number of outspoken critics), some people obviously find it offensive for this to be an official policy page. Could be moved back into an official policy when the number of cases has grown considerably so critics would see less of a connection of personal involvement between the cases themselves and the author. --TlatoSMD (talk) 07:01, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete. We've had a "complain about admins" page before at Requests for review of administrative actions and it proved to be pointless. Requests for comments should be used if there are actually problems with an admin, or any other user. Angela. 07:03, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete as pointy attacks. --Jack Merridew 08:20, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per Angela. Garion96 (talk) 20:06, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete or userfy per DGG's points. I am happy to see this moved to userspace, but not if VigilancePrime doesn't agree to the idea, and it certainly seems he wants this page to remain in WP space. Mangojuice^talk 21:43, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete. Per Angela. --Tony Sidaway 11:17, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete. Verifiably controversial admin decisions which have harmed or threatened to harm the project can be documented by RFC and ArbCom. Random essays in project space about questionable decisions a few editors didn't agree with are inappropriate. - Zeibura ^{( talk )} 15:47, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
• What Were They Thinking? As in "What Were They Thinking in creating this page?". Hence delete. -- Cat ^chi? 05:31, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
• Userfy or Delete. We have, at last count, something like 1400 admins, and they tend to be among our more active users. They are also human (some exceptions apply). Assuming each makes only one administrative action each day, and assuming even 99% of those actions are flawless or at least reasonable, that will mean 14 new entries for this page each and every day ?!? If this is really intended to document silly admin actions across the whole project, it will in a week become far larger than any other page in project space. As a personal page listing one user's personal gripes, it's unpleasant, but at least just that, a few personal gripes. As a project wide list of admin errors, even blatant errors, it's completely untenable. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 15:37, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
• Userfy lie a lot of people have said. Criticism is welcome, but not in Wikipedia: space. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 17:12, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Delete Pointless, divisive, redundant, not useful. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 19:39, 25 January 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.