Wikipedia talk:History of de-adminship proposals/Snowspinner

If this is not following the RFDa procedure, then under what criteria and methods is this petition to "re-evaluate the adminstrator status of Snowspinner"? 119 22:32, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

This is just stupid. Netoholic starts a petition in light of a procedure he is the main architect of, with a self-admitted agenda (regardless of the good he thought it might do to Wikipedia as a whole), a procedure that has not reached any consensus, and isn't policy by a long shot? Have I missed something here where it was implemented overnight? If this is supposed to be a proof of concept, it's in terrible taste, and couldn't be a worse endorsement of the validity: now it really looks like Netoholic is having a personal vendetta on Wikipedia's expense, irrespective of whether this is actually so. Does he really think people will abide by something that came to fruition under a disputed policy proposal? Netoholic, you're really doing your own idea a disservice here. What are you hoping to accomplish? JRM 22:49, 2005 Mar 24 (UTC)

Even worse, he tried to implement the procedure after it was voted down 2 to 1. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:35, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I agree with everything said above. Highly bogus and disruptive listing. Rick K 23:39, Mar 24, 2005 (UTC)

While I support a policy for removing admin status from those who no longer have the faith of the community, I feel that the proposal as it currently stands needs more work to make it suitable as policy (but that is beside the point I'm making). The result of the (imho premature) vote was clearly that there was no consensus to introduce it as policy, indeed the comments suggest that most people were voting on whether there should be a policy (rather than on the merits of this particular proposed version of such a policy). To me this shows that Netoholic, myself and the other supporters need to accept defeat, which I am perfectly happy to do. Netoholic appears not to have accepted this, and so to act in the manner he has done here is to my mind bordering on a personal attack. Rather than this debate happening on several talk pages, would an RfC be more apropriate? Thryduulf 00:04, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Reasoning

(copied from Wikipedia talk:Requests for de-adminship)
I am of the view that a number of people have complained about Snowspinner, both as far as his general demeanor and actions as an administrator. I am of the opinion that his status of adminstrator has lead to an unappropriately hostile environment. Perhaps if he was made once again to be a normal editor, he might reevaluate what Wikipedia means to him. Right now, I think he has lost touch with the true goals of this project.

As such, I have opened a petition (Wikipedia:Requests for de-adminship/Snowspinner) seeking a re-vote on his status. I do this not out of disrespect for those voting above, but because I see absolutely no reason why people can be prevented from forming a petition seeking some outcome. I am unsure what will become of this; I suppose that will depend on truly how many people also wish to see his status re-evaluated as I do. As such, this is not following the WP:RFDA procedure as currently written... but is only a petition at this stage. -- Netoholic @ 21:59, 2005 Mar 24 (UTC)

I couldn't agree more. But, the community response is precisely why I went straight for the AC farce. -- John Gohde 22:39, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I am making no attempt to implement any action. This page is only to gather signatures of those who would like to see Snowspinner's admin status re-evaluated. I am not sure what will become of it, or in what form action will proceed. This is simply a petition. -- Netoholic @ 00:26, 2005 Mar 25 (UTC)

I see. This is not in any way an attempt to get a de-adminship procedure started as outlined in your voted-down proposal? What a most unfortunate coincidence, then. I hope people aren't going to take it the wrong way and think you're going to do things with or without consensus.
Alright, I'll drop the silly sarcasm if you at least make an attempt to acknowledge these concerns. You honestly don't think the fact that your proposal was rejected is in any way important? You feel you've established that things like WP:RFC and WP:RfAr aren't appropriate tools to this end? I don't question your right to start such a petition—it's still a wiki, mostly. But you don't feel this line of action is disingenious and will only serve to unreasonably annoy people—regardless of what they think of you or Snowspinner? JRM 00:40, 2005 Mar 25 (UTC)

I respect all those other tools. In this case, the RFC has pretty much met its end (in that Snowspinner has not acknowledged his errors) and a WP:RfAr request on Snowspinner is about to be rejected. This petition, assuming it gains enough signers, would be very persuasive in going back to the Arbitrators to show there is a problem with Snowspinner. I have been open and honest on my intent only for this to be a petition at this point... I have no idea where it will go from here. -- Netoholic @ 00:50, 2005 Mar 25 (UTC)

My personal opinion? Unless the community truly is ignorant and uncaring, and unless the ArbCom really is the cabal's little brother and its collective judgment is impaired beyond all reasonability, it will go nowhere. You'll need more than a list of pundit signatures to convince people of that. I believe this, because I've read neither the RFC nor the RfAr, nor have I ever looked at Snowspinner "in action" on the wiki, and this wouldn't convince me. Now obviously I'm neither an admin nor an arbitrator nor representative of the community as a whole (unless they're ignorant and uncaring? :-), so make of that what you will. If our primary means for dealing with troublesome behavior fizzle, community-based means, is a list of signatures on a petition going to be a convincing argument that more should be done, or is it going to be taken as a list of all those who, for one reason or another, personally take issue with Snowspinner? I find it hard to see it as anything but the latter, and valuable as a resolution of those issues may be, I think it highly unlikely that it involves de-adminning of anyone. JRM 01:04, 2005 Mar 25 (UTC)

Removal of VfD notice

Looking at Netoholic's edit summary I came here expecting to find an elaboration of his claim that this article is not eligible for VfD and the notice which he removed is irrelevant. I do not see the promised explanation. I shall exercise my customary single revert. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 01:45, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

This is a petition, it is not subject to VfD by those opposed to the idea behind the petition. -- Netoholic @ 02:12, 2005 Mar 25 (UTC)

I've moved ot to your userspace netoholic. Problem solved. Theresa Knott (ask the rotten) 02:25, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Theresa's move seems reasonable. As far as I'm concerned you can now remove the vfd, Netoholic. What you do in your own userspace is your own business, subject to policy. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 02:30, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I've moved it back, pending the outcome of the VfD vote. I believe it important that we confirm that petitions are appropriate. Both of you, please stop being disruptive. -- Netoholic @ 02:47, 2005 Mar 25 (UTC)

Netaholic I was not being disruptive, Please be so kind as to assume good faith on the part of your fellow editors.Theresa Knott (ask the rotten) 08:54, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

All this is going to discourage people from actually signing it, I'm afraid, which is unfortunate because there needs to be some way to get Snowspinner's behavior dealt with, if he won't reform voluntarily. A petition demonstrating broad opposition to his methods would be an excellent step in the right direction, if not for all the discouraging disclaimers. Everyking 07:14, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

OK two points. You say he wont reform voluntarily but he's been given a lot to think about over the past few days. Why not give him a chance eh? Secondly if there is broad opposition to his methods then the rfc will show that much better than a petitition can because rfcs allow people to support snowspinners actions as well as oppose them. Theresa Knott (ask the rotten) 08:54, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I am unable currently to remove the weird banners being added. I would not have expected this reaction from a petition, but it's too late. If this page is deleted, we'll begin again in some way. I can only think people are "outraged" because it is a sub-page of WP:RFDA, but then, we don't have a Wikipedia:Petitions page, so I'm not sure where else this would go. -- Netoholic @ 07:23, 2005 Mar 25 (UTC)

Netaholic people think you are being underhanded. You create a policy, it's shot down and has no consensus, you ignore this and go ahead anyway on snowspinner, people complain, you then say 'Well it's not part of that policy it's only a petition' So i take you at face value and move it to your user space to make it clear that it's not part of this non policy. You move it back and accuse me of being disruptive. Why? If you don't want people outraged why put it right back where it was? Theresa Knott (ask the rotten) 08:54, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Why does the namespace or it's location as a sub-page matter? There was no better place to hold this petition, and I was clear about it being only a petition from the start so don't accuse me of being "underhanded". The "outrage" being voiced is irrational. On your other point, the RFDA process was not "shot down" Fully 1/3 of respondents support it, and that suggests potential. -- Netoholic @ 14:42, 2005 Mar 25 (UTC)

However if you look at the comments associated with the votes, almost all those not supporting it were against there being an RFDA policy. Of those that supported it most of us (inlcuding me) support there being a policy, but not necessarily this version (and having seen the community opinion I have decided it isn't worth my effort to rework the proposals. The result of this is that the proposal as it stands has <10% support of the community. 80% is usually around the point where convention has it that a consensus has been arrived at. So let it rest. If you feel things have changed significantly since the last RfC file another one, although by takign the action you have you have probably done your cause a disservice. I have never had any great interaction with Snowspinner or you prior to this, and so I would be approaching an RfC with a fairly neutral outlook. Now, that I've seen what many are interpreting as a vendetta on your part, and your disruption to make a WP:POINT, that balance has shifted and it isn't in your favour. When you are in a hole, stop diging. Thryduulf 15:08, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

we have WP:RFC. If you have little support, you have little support, no matter whether you put the same issue on WP:RFDA, Wikipedia:Petition or Wikipedia:Pout. If we had the community on their knees, begging the arbcom to de-admin Snowspinner, it would be a different issue, but then (a) this would be apparent on an RfC, and (b) the RFDA proposal would have passed with flying colours. dab (ᛏ) 11:51, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Personal attacks

Recently Netoholic (the page's original author) has maintained that this page is a petition and that it serves no policy purpose other than to "gather signatures." As such, I believe that the page is a violation of Wikipedia:No personal attacks, because it contains a serious implied putdown of a user without any purpose or discussion. Accordingly, I have removed the offending content pursuant to policy. Since an RFC entry is present convering this matter, I have linked to it.

Netoholic and others are reminded of the many alternatives available for dispute resolution. Further, Netoholic is reminded that the Wikipedia:Requests for de-adminship page was depricated and redirected to WP:RFC by consensus. This was done deliberately to prevent the acrimony that inevitably results when requests for "de-adminship" are made, regardless of their merits. That there is no simple process for doing so is a deliberate decision of the Wikipedia community, and IMO, a good one.

The Uninvited Co., Inc. 04:13, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The WP:RFAr against me has an " implied putdown "... will you please go blank that too? Nothing about collecting signatures is remotely a personal attack... a critical statement but not an attack. Please stop disrupting this page. -- Netoholic @ 04:19, 2005 Mar 26 (UTC)

Such pages have a policy purpose and also cite specific problems rather than making broad criticisms. This does neither. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 04:27, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

VFD

On 24 March 2005, this article was nominated for deletion. The result was delete. See Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Requests for de-adminship/Snowspinner for a record of the discussion. – AB CD 02:59, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)