Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Deletion of VFD

In order to remain listed at Wikipedia: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: 17:07, August 1, 2005 Gkhan (created page) {insert UTC timestamp with ~~~~~}), the page will be deleted. The current date and time is: 23:45, 13 August 2024 (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 Wikipedia: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)

---

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 Wikipedia: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):

1. Wikipedia:Votes for deletion [1]

Applicable policies

• Deletion policy

A clear violation of the deletion policy

• Wikipedia: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 ~~~~)

1. gkhan 21:07, August 1, 2005 (UTC)

:#Tznkai 21:29, 1 August 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 Wikipedia:Dispute resolution schema for users to follow.... Uncle Ed 18:47, August 2, 2005 (UTC)

Other users who endorse this statement

(sign with ~~~~)

1. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 21:53, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
2. 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)
3. 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)
4. 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)
5. 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)
6. 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. android79 00:00, August 2, 2005 (UTC)
7. What everyone else said. This was unacceptably unilateral, the very recent poll on Wikipedia: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)
8. 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)
9. 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)
10. 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)
11. 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)

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 Wikipedia: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 ~~~~):

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)

2^nd 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 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 | @ | C} ----- 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 | @ | C} ----- 00:30, August 2, 2005 (UTC)

3^rd 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)
3. malathion ^talk 02:33, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
4. DES ^(talk) 04:25, 2 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)

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 Wikipedia: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)

Discussion

All signed comments and talk not related to a vote or endorsement, should be directed to this page's discussion page.