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: 21:07, August 1, 2005 Gkhan (created page) {insert UTC timestamp with ~~~~~}), the page will be deleted. The current date and time is: 08:43, 30 June 2024 (UTC).
Let's see, does this rule apply? Take a look:
I don't see any diffs down there, do you? Uncle Ed 17:08, August 3, 2005 (UTC)
Please note: This template is for listing disputes about actions that are limited to administrators only, specifically these actions:
For all other matters (such as edit wars and page moves), please use the template at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Example user.
Ed, while I take your point, the fact is that the broader issue of your unilaterialism is not new. There was the matter of your intercession in a minor edit war among admins earlier this year; you stopped it by de-adminning everyone involved. You nearly promoted Connolley despite a lack of consensus to do so. And though I forget the details, there have been other episodes. Every time, the community says to you, "Ed, stop, don't do that, Wikipedia has changed, wait for the community to decide." And every time the community is patient with you because you have been here longer than any other active admin, and because of the value of your ongoing contributions. And for heaven's sake stop the ruleslawyering claims about proper procedure. Take your lumps and this time don't do it again. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 19:45, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
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.
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.
(sign with ~~~~)
:#
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)
(sign with ~~~~)
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 ~~~~):
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 ~~~~):
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 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 ~~~~):
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)
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.
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 ~~~~):
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)
people make mistkes, hes apologiaed for this one, so why not accept the apology nd move on with things, surely there are more important things to do with our time then to keep focusing on such a nonissue.
users who endorse this. Gabrielsimon 08:45, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
You're only supposed to blow the bloody doors off!
Thanks Ed, this certainly made me smile.
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: 21:07, August 1, 2005 Gkhan (created page) {insert UTC timestamp with ~~~~~}), the page will be deleted. The current date and time is: 08:43, 30 June 2024 (UTC).
Let's see, does this rule apply? Take a look:
I don't see any diffs down there, do you? Uncle Ed 17:08, August 3, 2005 (UTC)
Please note: This template is for listing disputes about actions that are limited to administrators only, specifically these actions:
For all other matters (such as edit wars and page moves), please use the template at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Example user.
Ed, while I take your point, the fact is that the broader issue of your unilaterialism is not new. There was the matter of your intercession in a minor edit war among admins earlier this year; you stopped it by de-adminning everyone involved. You nearly promoted Connolley despite a lack of consensus to do so. And though I forget the details, there have been other episodes. Every time, the community says to you, "Ed, stop, don't do that, Wikipedia has changed, wait for the community to decide." And every time the community is patient with you because you have been here longer than any other active admin, and because of the value of your ongoing contributions. And for heaven's sake stop the ruleslawyering claims about proper procedure. Take your lumps and this time don't do it again. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 19:45, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
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.
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.
(sign with ~~~~)
:#
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)
(sign with ~~~~)
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 ~~~~):
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 ~~~~):
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 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 ~~~~):
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)
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.
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 ~~~~):
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)
people make mistkes, hes apologiaed for this one, so why not accept the apology nd move on with things, surely there are more important things to do with our time then to keep focusing on such a nonissue.
users who endorse this. Gabrielsimon 08:45, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
You're only supposed to blow the bloody doors off!
Thanks Ed, this certainly made me smile.