-
User:Argyriou/SirNicholas (
| [[Talk:User:Argyriou/SirNicholas|talk]] |
history |
protect |
delete |
links |
watch |
logs |
views) (
restore|
AfD)
Page contained documentation of misbehavior by an admin, deletion was an abuse of admin powers by another admin.
Argyriou
(talk) 02:41, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
reply
- Endorse deletion, this isn't the way to resolve disputes. Seems like a valid attack page to me. --
Core
desat 04:48, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
reply
- Page was set up to accumulate documentation in order to take case to proper channels with proper documentation.
Argyriou
(talk) 05:08, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
reply
- See Guy's explanation. I think he made it clearer than I do. If you think you have a good case, go ahead and document it on RfC, not to simply acculumate every little matter from everyone on userspace. -
Mailer Diablo 13:19, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
reply
- Strong Overturn and Undelete: This was the user's workspace for preparing an RFC. Deleting-and-protecting it destroys the user's work and amounts to denying him the right to prepare an RFC. The irony is that this was done during a debate about whether admins are improperly deleting others' contributions and improperly using their power in content disputes to protect their preferred versions of pages. What better example could there be than an admin deleting-and-protecting an RFC draft on precisely that issue from the userspace of the spokesman for the other side? The deleting admin did not communicate to the user any warning beforehand or notification after the fact. See
that admin's response when another user asked him to explain his actions. Also see
the ANI discussion of this deletion. –
SAJordan
talk
contribs 07:00, 25 Dec 2006 (UTC). [Added "Strong" –
SAJordan
talk
contribs 12:28, 26 Dec 2006 (UTC).
- Endorse. Just use notepad, no need for it to be on wiki. One of the issues brought up was others adding on unrelated disputes (against RFC rules) to the initiator's statement, I believe. Notepad solves that. No reason to overturn. –
Ch
acor 07:11, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
reply
- Overturn and Undelete. And I would suggest an inquiry into abuses of admin power by the deletor, as well. Deleting a draft of an RfC, and then giving such a rude response to a request for an explanation is unacceptable.
jgp
T
C 07:17, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
reply
- Overturn and undelete. This deletion reflects poorly on the judgment of the deleting admin. The page is a log of alleged administrator misconduct, in which the policies allegedly violated are specified and diffs are provided. If this is an
attack page eligible for speedy deletion, so is every user conduct RfC. A case might be made for it being an attack page if it had been promoted in a disparaging way, e.g. "click here to see what an asshole admin X is", but I see no indication of such a purpose. Instead,
Argyriou's explanation of this page's purpose appears plausible. He might have a bad case, but that's certainly not a speediable offense. Yes, he might have used Notepad, but that's not a criterium for speedy deletion of userspace content. It would also have left him unable to coordinate his arguments with other interested parties, if any, such as other alleged victims of the alleged misconduct. — See also the previous discussion of this deletion on WP:ANI
here and
here.
Sandstein 08:43, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
reply
- Endorse deletion. It certainly looks like an attack page to me. I know there's precedent for pages like this, but I don't see that as making them acceptable.
alphachimp. 08:48, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
reply
- Strong overturn. Just because it is an RFC against a user with the admin buttons should not differentiate it from every other fledgling RFC that gets prepared in userspace. I specifically advised Argyrou to create an RFC in order to resolve this dispute rather than let it get out of hand, as the alternative was the mess going more and more out of control. And when he does start to work on one, the admin in question (or a friend of the admin in question) comes in and deletes it. Unacceptable
biting, and a complete misapplication of G10. If this were the other way round, and Nick was preparing one against Argyriou, deletion would never have happened. And, get this, administrators have no special privileges, and are not sutomatically smarter, or more right, than anyone else on Wikipedia. I should know. Complete misuse of admin powers, needs to be restored forthwith.
Proto::
► 10:36, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
reply
- Um. Is this a good-faith attempt to build an RfC, or is it just sour grapes? Some of the claims in the deleted page are nonsense - it is absolutely not a problem to resist linking to offsite rich media with unclear copyright status, for example. The balance of it is pretty low-grade stuff - the fact that Sir Nicholas responded to aggression, edit-warring and incivility with less than stellar civility himself is hardly a big deal. If this was taken to RfC as it stands it would, I think, be laughed out, certified only by those users who have an existing grudge against him. I would counsel Argyriou to employ a more productive method of dispute resolution,. not least because the major dispute in question appears to have been settled by the simple means of unambiguously identifying the copyright status of the video in question (rather than simply asserting that it was not a problem), which is what should have happened in the first place. Absent some credible evidence of an ongoing problem to address, I see this as needless and would
endorse deletion. I note that the Talk of
Barrington Hall currently contains a rather surreal allegation that "Nearly Headless Nick" is a sockpuppet of Sir Nicholas de Mimsy Porpington. Some people need to chill a bit.
Guy (
Help!) 10:47, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
reply
- "If this was taken to RfC as it stands".... This was an early stage of a work in progress, not a finished RFC, so "as it stands" is irrelevant. Predicting whether the finished and submitted version (which doesn't exist yet) will get "laughed out" or "a standing ovation" is a matter of crystal-ball-gazing — and likewise irrelevant. The question at hand is whether the user should be allowed to continue working on his RFC, or have his work destroyed before he can finish and submit it. The latter amounts to denying him the right to finish and submit that RFC, a precedent which could then be applied to anyone else. Is your answer to that question "Um"? –
SAJordan
talk
contribs 13:21, 26 Dec 2006 (UTC).
- OK, lots of thoughtful input below, I think we can allow the thing to be undeleted but we'll need to keep the trolls at bay.
Guy (
Help!) 22:19, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
reply
- Um seconded. Now, Sir Nick's actions were not a model of civility indeed, but now we have a division among the community (and admins) whether he should be protected from the harrasment (which gets all the worse with numerous trolls, socks and meats piling in) or whether we should allow the RfC to proceed. The appeals for stopping the wikidrama seem to aggravate Sir Nick's opponents even more, and the entire affair now culminates. So, the issue is how long shall we tolerate it and how to proceed? Deletion of that page was an apparent attempt to stop the sour grapes, but the gall is doomed to spill out nevertheless. Do we want to (and can we?) stop the drama, or is it better/inevitable to let it go all the way to ArbCom? If we can unanimously and honestly answer that, the issue of the page in question would become lame.
Duja
► 11:24, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
reply
- Can we unanimously and honestly answer the question at hand first? Does this user have the right to keep working on his RFC draft in his userspace, or can any admin come in and destroy his work to prevent him from submitting the RFC? If this user can be denied that right, so can any other user, if their filing that RFC would inconvenience an admin. –
SAJordan
talk
contribs 13:21, 26 Dec 2006 (UTC).
Conditional Restore. I cannot see what the page's contents were, so I must
assume good faith that this was a workspace for an intended RFC. It is possible that the arguments therein were weak, or even spurious, but that would be determined by the RFC, not by an admin at random. It is possible that such as page would violate
WP:NPA if cross-linked, used for harrassment, or widely advertised, but that does not appear to be the case here (how was this even found?). Furthermore, I disagree with the "take to Notepad" argument. The user in question may access Wikipedia through work, school, or library computers, or be otherwise unable to maintain an off-site working copy; the user may also want to ensure formatting is appropriate before taking the issue to a public forum. I suggest that the user's work be restored, with an appropriate timeframe (unsure what ... 1 month?) set for the documentation to be completed and the RFC filed, beyond which, should no RFC be forthcoming, the page will be deleted.
Serpent's Choice 12:55, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
reply
- Now that I am able to see the article history, my opinion regarding restoration is affirmed. This material is consistent with an RFC or RFAr preparation. The case presented may or may not be outlined in the best manner possible (perhaps that is why it had a workpage to begin with) and may or may not be a valid case (but that is decidedly not the place of a single admin to decide, nor that of DRV). Taking into account the lack of any administrative contact with the user,
WP:MFD, CSD tag, or
WP:ANI listing except after the fact and the reality that the page was not only deleted but immediately salted, I really cannot come to any conclusion except that this deletion was out of process.
Serpent's Choice 23:38, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
reply
- Undelete There was no warning to the user. There was no listing at
WP:MFD. No CSD tag was ever applied to the page. It wasn't even brought up at
WP:AN or
WP:ANI. How
User:Pilotguy was notified of this page's existence is in question. I suspect that it was discussed off-wiki in IRC. This non-transparent admin behavior is reprehensible. The page was merely a collection of diffs, not an attack. Before the page's deletion, I was preparing to counsel
User:Argyriou on which evidence to use and which to throw out. Can't do that now. —
Malber (
talk •
contribs) 16:35, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
reply
- Undelete. I can't really judge that which I cannot see, but asking a friend in secret to delete and salt a page concerning oneself is not the type of behaviour I expect in an "open" encyclopædia.
yandman 17:13, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
reply
- Can you explain the reason for this assumption? I share cordial relations with Pilotguy; however that does not imply that he is my "cabal friend". Please reword your statement. —
Nearly Headless Nick 09:07, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
reply
- Sorry, I didn't mean to imply any "cabal" accusations. According to ourselves, "Friendship is a term used to denote co-operative and supportive behaviour between two or more social entities", which all of us should show. The "in secret" part refers to the fact that the wish wasn't made in the appropriate, transparent, channels.
yandman 18:07, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
reply
- Strong undelete. I've looked at the contents, and they seem consistent with preparation for an RFC, etc. This is not an "attack" page as I understand the term. If the case ever came before a venue in which I were to participate, I would probably side against this user. Nonetheless, he should be given the opportunity to present his case, which implies that he should be given the opportunity to prepare his case.
Bucketsofg 18:27, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
reply
- Edit history is now restored behind the do-not-recreate tag. I see a lot of grievances with disputable merit, but nothing that would amount to an attack page. ~
trialsanderrors 18:57, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
reply
- Endorse Deletion and salting - You can merely make a wrod document.
Baka
man 19:25, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
reply
- Like
this word document? Or are only admins to be given that privilege?
Argyriou
(talk) 17:09, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
reply
- Take a look at the page history
[1]. I havent edited it since september 3 (or frankly even looked at it since then, until you and malber decided to go after me). It was actually a copy and paste log of a
WP:PAIN case, but whatever, it didnt serve its intended purpose (
Ikonoblast (
talk ·
contribs), nee
Holywarrior has since left wikipedia to brood on his trolling).
Baka
man 17:30, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
reply
- Undelete. I've read the most recent non-deleted revision and it doesn't seem to be an attack page so much as a compilation of evidence, similar to what one would find at
WP:RFC,
WP:RfAr, or
WP:LTA. Therefore the page doesn't meet the
criteria for speedy deletion. Undelete and let the admin who deleted it relist it properly at
WP:MfD if desired. —
Psychonaut 19:59, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
reply
- Strong Overturn and undelete I read the most recent historical version and it does not appear to be an attack page but the beginnings of a collation of (disputable) evidence for RFC as stated. I've seen similar pages (albeit better formatted, worded and referenced) maintained by admins, so this doesn't seem to be outside the bounds of acceptable behaviour - the language of the headings could be toned down, and there needs to be overall title/intro emphasizing that this page is related to a dispute from one user's perspective but the "emergency powers" speedy-delete-and-protect doesn't seem justified
Bwithh 23:23, 25 December 2006 (UTC) (added Strong after revisiting some of the other comments here}
Bwithh 18:15, 26 December 2006 (UTC))
reply
- Undelete per Serpent's Choice. If this is considered inappropriate content, it can be taken to
WP:MFD. --
Metropolitan90 01:44, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
reply
- Endorse deletion, this can be constructed in a non-published medium (ie. notepad) without creating unneeded tension.
Daniel.Bryant [
T ·
C ] 02:58, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
reply
- Overturn and send to MfD, this needs to be carried out in a transparent manner to avoid the obvious appearance of
Conflict of interest here. If it's really an attack page, community consensus will support the deletion. DrV is for determining whether deletion decisions were improper, and the conflict of interest makes this one flawed. MfD should make these disputed content determinations.
Night Gyr (
talk/
Oy) 03:47, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
reply
- Strong Undelete. Where exactly is the policy justification for this deletion? Why can't they collect data for an RfC in userspace? -
crz
crztalk 05:05, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
reply
- Undelete. The use of the page was legitimate -- which doesn't make the claims there any less tenuous -- and the grounds given for deletion (nonsense/attack page) simply don't add up. --
Visviva 05:46, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
reply
- Strong Overturn and Undelete This was a user's workspace where he was gathering data and organizing his case for an RfC against an individual administrator's actions. For an administrator to come in and delete it, especially without warning or discussion, obstructs the user's ability to go forward with his RfC and calls into question the integrity and impartiality of the whole RfC process. Further, although not a vote - not sure what exactly it is - the "Um" comment above is inappropriate in this space. We are not supposed to be evaluating the merits of the case here - the case has not yet been presented, and it is highly inappropriate to be prejudging it or introducing counter-arguments to a case not yet presented, especially with the user having been thwarted in his efforts to fully and fairly collect his evidence and mount his case. Whether or not this case has merit will be determined, one hopes, by an impartial group of people who do not have an axe to grind, and are not already decided about the outcome before seeing the evidence and hearing the arguments. The question we are being asked now, here, is whether or not this user workspace should have been summarily deleted while a user was in process of building a case for an RfC - and I say, emphatically, no. Indeed in a case such as this - an accusation against an administrator - other administrators should be extremely circumspect and not take any actions that would even hint of prejudgment or tampering with a case. This is like a potential juror going into a plaintiff's attorney's office and removing case files because the accusatory material within them could be damaging to the defendant, the juror's colleague. Hands off, undelete.
Tvoz 07:01, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
reply
- Overturn and Undelete. I wouldn't create this kind of material on-line myself, but clearly editors do, including some arguing for the deletion of this page. A poor case, but not
vexatious litigation.
Angus McLellan
(Talk) 18:41, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
reply
- Comment we generally urge people to create RFC's in their userspace before submitting them so as to prevent malformed rfc's going up. That is quite clearly what this subpage is. I have contributed to this page and must abstain from voting.
ALKIVAR
™ ☢ 20:34, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
reply
Please don't edit that page for now. It's still protected, so I can't edit it. Had I seen Malber's edits before the page was deleted, I'd have perhaps reverted or re-written them, and added a note asking people to not edit it, but address the issue on a talk page instead. Instead, while I was AFK, the page was edited, then deleted. Once I receive notice that the page has been undeleted/unprotected, I'll add my note, and proceed from there.
Argyriou
(talk) 21:12, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
reply
- I reverted
Alkivar's edits and posted a note on his talk page. Per
Argyriou, please don't edit the page while it is under review. ~
trialsanderrors 00:37, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
reply
- Overturn Page is in no way an obvious attack, so process would call for an MfD or a discussion with the page's author. Neither of those things happened. While I wouldn't go so far as to call it "abuse" of admin powers, it looks like a pretty clear-cut misjudgment to me. "You can use Notepad instead" is not a valid reason to delete without warning or process, especially when administrators have used userpages for this purpose.
Shimeru 01:20, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
reply
- Overturn and Undelete. Preparing a draft text for an RfC in userspace seems entirely proper. It is also practically necessary where a number of contributors wish to contribute evidence and ensure the final version represents their combined grievances. If the criticisms are baseless (as is claimed) this will ultimately be demonstrated in any later proceedings. Better to give the matter a hearing than stamp on it behind closed doors.
WJBscribe
(WJB talk) 02:18, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
reply
- Overturn and undelete appears to be a legitimate if misguided attempt to build an RFC that looks unlikely to get significant endorsement. Per WJBscribe, let it go through and see what happens. On the issue of the Barrington video: Wikipedia is not the off-wiki copyright police and we should not presume that off-wiki stuff infringes unless there's concrete reason to think it does infringe. Absent such evidence, inclusion or non-inclusion of that link should be decided on non-copyright principles.
67.117.130.181 07:11, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
reply
- Overturn and undelete - page was a work in progress. The admin who deleted it grossly abused his authority. --
AStanhope 03:33, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
reply
- Overturn deletion. You can't just do an RfC, you're supposed to have the information before you try to start an RfC. -
Amarkov
blah
edits 04:22, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
reply
|