Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Snowspinner 3

User:Snowspinner has violated both WP:DP by deleting a template out of process, and WP:BP by blocking good-faith users for creating a template he disagrees with.

See [1], in which Snowspinner unilaterally overrides an ongoing discussion on WP:TFD and blocks various users for issues not covered by WP:BP. He refuses to reconsider his decision when asked [2].

• Deletion ([3]):

1. Template:Help Wikiboxes. Described this as "Spam attack page. Speedied". In fact, it was no such thing; it was an attempt to notify users that a mass, out-of-process deletion was taking place. (See Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Kelly Martin.) The page was later restored by User:DESiegel, and then deleted again out-of-process by Snowspinner.
2. Various userbox templates (see log). The templates contained fair use images - rather than removing the images, as was appropriate, he deleted the entire templates in a clear violation of WP:DP.

• Blocking ([4]):

1. User:Miborovsky, User:Morgan695 - blocked in violation of WP:BP for creating a template that Snowspinner didn't like. No discussion or warning took place.

• Deletion policy

1. Wikipedia:Deletion policy - the deletion of Template:Help Wikiboxes does not fall into any of the speedy deletion categories.

• Blocking policy

1. Wikipedia:Blocking policy - the blocks have no justification in Wikipedia policy

(provide diffs and links)

1. Refused to reconsider the decision when asked ([5]) He has announced he will continue to violate process [6] even after being questioned by other administrators.

(sign with ~~~~)

1. Firebug 17:16, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
2. DES ^(talk) 17:49, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(sign with ~~~~)

1. Explain to me, Snowspinner, how linking to an RfC "causes more long term and substantial damage to Wikipedia than Willy on Wheels ever did"? Looks like you're obviously worried that the RfC will be successful and so are making ad hominen attacks on people involved. — WP:RFDA --Mistress Selina Kyle ^{(Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉)} 17:33, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
2. Blocking was totally inappropriate.  Grue  17:58, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
3. This was basically a vendetta move by Snowspinner, and from what i've heard, that's a common occurance with him. karmafist 18:12, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
4. Morgan695 19:01, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
5. Ian¹³_ID:540053 22:02, 1 January 2006 (UTC) I do feel the blocks were abit too extreme, this whole situation escalated out of control.[reply]
6. Miborovsky -- Миборовский ^{U|T|C|E|Chugoku Banzai!} 22:23, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
7. NSLE _(T+C+CVU) 01:00, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
8. Xoloz 01:04, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
9. wheel war bad —Locke Cole • t • c 05:25, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
10. Sarah Ewart 13:19, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
11. Nandesuka 15:32, 2 January 2006 (UTC) Given the contempt with which Snowspinner has treated the consensus of his fellow editors and admins in the past (and present), I'm not convinced that signing this will make a difference. I'm also unhappy that I'm putting my name on a list where the first name signed is that of MSK who, in my opinion, engages in too much WP:POINTful trolling. But here it is anyway, because Snowspinner's actions — particularly the blocks — were simply thuggish and disrespectful to everyone who devotes their time to the project.[reply]
12. Sceptre ^(Talk) 16:27, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
13. --Ghirla | talk 00:51, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
14. The blocks were in flagrant violation of WP:BP. The process is a means to an end, and a major aspect of that end is to prevent administrators from shaping Wikipedia according to their personal opinions with no consultation with others. These actions were an intolerable breach of trust by Snowspinner. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 10:45, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
15. It is bad enough to have one admin doing this, but when a second one joins in, wikipedians must speak up. These actions are simply intolerable acts. --Dschor 13:44, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
16. Asdquefty 14:36, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
17. This sort of thing gives Admins a bad name and reputation -   «ßØÛ®ßÖѧ3» ^{Talk | Contrib's} 16:07, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
18. All of the Admins that have recently shown not to believe in consensus neeed to be stopped.--God of War 19:20, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
19. ¿ WhyBeNormal ? 21:05, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
20. Too many trigger-happy admins. --Peripatetic 23:49, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
21. A reluctant endorsement. The use of blocks to try to gain the upper hand in a policy (or content) dispute is just unacceptable. CarbonCopy (talk) 00:24, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
22. Those blocks were totally unacceptable. The deletions are also suspect and that's being kind. -- Hurricane Eric - my dropsonde - archive 00:43, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
23. Varizer 02:55, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
24. I read snowspinners response before voting here, and found it to confirm rather than refute the problem with his actions. It is not justifiable for an admin to arbitrarily decide that a particular policy is in conflict with the prime aims of this project, not least because anyone making such a decision stands a good chance of being wrong. Sandpiper 03:20, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
25. Blu Aardvark | ^{(talk) | (contribs)} 03:24, 4 January 2006 (UTC) If I said all I had to say / I'd be banned for WP:NPA.[reply]
26. --Masssiveego 07:35, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
27. Ifnord 17:05, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
28. Dan100 (Talk) 20:39, 4 January 2006 (UTC). Such silliness.[reply]
29. Totally inappropriate behaviour. Unilateral action when there is clearly a discussion that may have an opposing outcome is absolutely abominable. Blocking a serious user (e.g. Marsden) forever without the block first being publicly sanctioned by an arbitration ruling is absolutely unacceptable. --Victim of signature fascism | help remove biblecruft 02:36, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
30. Out of line, I also read snowspinners response before voting here, and found it to confirm rather than refute the problem with his actions. Admins and consensus go hand in hand Brian | (Talk) 10:55, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
31. Snowspinner has defended these actions as trying to prevent conflict, division and strife. (As have Kelly and others.) To be blunt, that's crap. They have caused far more conflict, division and strife than userboxes ever had any reasonable hope of doing. PurplePlatypus 19:14, 5 January 2006 (UTC) (NB: For the record I have never even looked at the userbox project, use only one which is a joke I wouldn't be heartbroken to lose, and am not in any other way attached to userboxes. This is not about userboxes, it is about poor behaviour and judgement by administrators.)[reply]
32. The blocking of good-faith users is terrible, and I think Snowspinner's treatment of others and his failure to try to empathise with others is not only dangerous to wiki but makes him unworthy of being a sysop.    Ronline ✉ 10:54, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
33. Admins can't be allowed to abuse such a fundamental power as blocking, in order to settle such a dispute. We shouldn't settle disputes based on who has the power to block, and who does not. --Rob 21:23, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
34. I agree with what the people say above. - Antimetro 04:06, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
35. brenneman^(t)(c) 10:00, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
36. I'm worried about the admins James S. 12:01, 13 January 2006 (UTC).[reply]
37. The clearest reason for endorsing this statement is that I worry what the admins will do to me because of it. Avriette 20:05, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
38. Stifle 20:13, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
39. Avriette sums it up best. Bahn Mi 01:57, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
40. Reluctantly. It was all done in the heat of battle, and so I would let it go, but for the response. A response of Well maybe I was out of line, I was trying to do such-and-such in good faith, that would be OK. But the response is a little scary. Herostratus 01:01, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
41. The response has been unacceptable - the point at which any admin thinks he/she can treat Wikipedians however they like is the point at which they no longer deserve to be admin Cynical 19:52, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
42. The actions taken by this administrator were highly inappropriate. Silensor 20:01, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
43. The blocks are absolutely atrocious, and if something does not fit speedy criteria or may cause some protest, it needs to go through the deletion process. The response to this complaint is so woefully inadequate and displays such a messianic delusion that I do not believe this use has the maturity to remain an admin. -M^ask   06:35, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
44. Snowspinner seems to believe that using admin privledges to block those he disagrees with is acceptable behavior. It is not the place of admins to take it upon themselves to "save" Wikipedia from the evil userbox hordes. Kaldari 00:27, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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.

My blocks and deletions were out of process.

Process is a means to an ends.

The template I deleted was an attack on those ends.

The priorities here are crystal clear, and anyone who does not understand this is a detriment to the project.

1. Phil Sandifer 17:21, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
2. Kelly Martin (talk) 17:41, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
3. David | Talk 17:44, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
4. Wgfinley 21:17, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
5. Harro5 22:23, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
6. Calton | Talk 01:03, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
7. 172 01:04, 2 January 2006 (UTC) A pithy and on-the-mark reply. This RfC is a waste of time. 172 01:07, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
8. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:15, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
9. — Dan | talk 02:27, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
10. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 05:29, 2 January 2006 (UTC) True, but there are often many different ways of achieving beneficial ends. Anyone who doesn't understand that is a detriment to the project.[reply]
11. Too many users (and, as the set of disputes makes clear, far too many admins) believe that some sort of "consensus process" is required before implementing policies, on a case-by-case basis, even though the policies have already been established by consensus. Monicasdude 17:50, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
12. Rob Church ^Talk 11:03, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
13. El_C 16:33, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
14. I couldn't have put it better myself. Ambi 20:25, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
15. Wikiacc ¶ 17:46, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
16. Templates are ultimately devisive and counter-intuitive towards WP:NPOV IMHO Netkinetic 07:41, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
17. Tony Sidaway|Talk 15:17, 14 January 2006 (UTC) This is the way Wikipedia works and the way it will continue to work for the foreseeable future.[reply]
18. Let's be reasonable, eh? Adrian Lamo · (talk) · (mail) · 19:21, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
19. Wikipedia is not a game of nomic. Wikipedia is not Myspace. The idea that userboxes must be permitted because the deletion policy did not specifically contemplate their potential enculturation before it occured is absurd. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 20:07, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is my view that out of process actions, particularly using admin powers such as deletion and blocking, reduce the trust that has allowed wikipedia to flourish, and damage the community and sense of community which are essential to the success of the project. Therefore adherence to process is essential, IMO, to the ends of the project, and process violations generally do more harm to the project than any short-term and local gain from such actions. this is particuarlly true when there is an in-process alternative which would accomplish much the same effect, as there is for deletion the template involved here. DES ^(talk) 17:55, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Process is a means to an end, but not necessarily the end you've unilaterally chosen. Further, when you ignore process you devalue it for others, essentially making it easier for them to say "well I was just going out of process like [user]!". People who do not respect the guidelines and policies of Wikipedia, agreed upon by the community, are a detriment to the project. —Locke Cole • t • c 18:13, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that potentially divisive userboxes ought to be discouraged. I agree that there was no need for a template calling attention to these actions. However, I do not agree that there was an imminent threat to Wikipedia from either of these things. We were not facing a massive bombardment of userbox fueled factional bickering (ironically... we now are). There was no danger of Wikipedia collapsing because a couple of editors made a 'Hey! Look over here! We think this is wrong!' template. Thus, there was no reason to take "draconian" action. There is a disagreement as to what is best for Wikipedia here. Jumping in and declaring 'I have the power to enforce my way so I am doing so' leads predictably, indeed inevitably, to conflict and others using their powers to oppose you... which clearly is bad for Wikipedia. The mass deletion was thus improper - regardless of the fact that I agree with its goals. The unilateral deletion of the template was thus improper - regardless of the fact that I agree it should be deleted (if nothing else... there's clearly no longer any need to call more attention to the situation). Finally, the blocks on users were completely inappropriate... they were not actively harming Wikipedia at the time of the block, indeed they were taking action to oppose what they considered to be harm to Wikipedia. What is to be done when people disagree about what is good for Wikipedia and what isn't? Follow the established procedures... rather than attempting to enforce your opinion by use of power against the dictates of policy.

Ignoring procedures and taking obviously controversial and disruptive action in the absence of an immediate threat to the Wiki, solely on the basis of the belief that 'my side is right', leads directly to conflict and damage to the project. It is thus always the wrong course of action... even when you are on the 'right' side. All of this could have gone through proper procedures and there was no pressing reason not to do so. --CBD _☎ ^✉ 18:41, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Snowspinner/Phil Sandifer is essentially arguing that the ends justify the means. But Wikipedia is a contradiction of ends and means: of encyclopedia and wiki. There are a whole series of policies and mechanisms to try to resolve those contradictions. It is encumbent on admins to understand and enforce those policies, and to suggest changes to them if they feel changes are required. This is the basis on which they are given adminship, and if they are no longer able or willing to operate on that basis, they should take a break, reread the policies, or give up their adminship.

Some people seem to think that adhering to policy and caring about process is being a "process wonk". But the existence (and to some extent nature) of process ensures adherence to fundamental principles of justice. If we do not do that, we will drive users away. There is a reason Star Chamber justice has a bad name. Rd232 ^talk 22:44, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I got a big problem with "The priorities here are crystal clear, and anyone who does not understand this is a detriment to the project."

Now, I understand saying the *template* is a detriment. An opinion, he's entitled to. I understand saying failure to understand this, is a detriment. Another opinion, one is entitled to. It's ok to call various *things* and *acts* a detriment to the project. One can feel the failure of others to "understand" is a detriment. But to suggest all the people who disagree with him, are themselves what's a detriment is very bad. When problems are about templates, policy, and practise; everything is fixable. When you start saying people are a detriment, you leave few options for removing the detriment. --Rob 04:47, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I accept page deletions in defense of the Wikipedia project. I do not accept punative, outside-of-process blocks of long-standing contributors. There was no administrative consensus on those blocks, no policy justifying them, and I do not think they should stand.

1. SCZenz 17:43, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
2. Martin 17:49, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
3.  Grue  17:59, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
4. Mistress Selina Kyle 18:11, 1 January 2006 (UTC)— WP:RFDA[reply]
5. Seancdaug 18:11, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
6. —Locke Cole • t • c 18:14, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
7. karmafist 18:15, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
8. Ian¹³_ID:540053 18:32, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
9. --CBD _☎ ^✉ 18:42, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
10. Morgan695 19:02, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
11. --Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 19:05, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
12. Blu Aardvark | ^{(talk) | (contribs)} 20:38, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
13. SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 22:14, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
14. The blocks were completely out of line. Friday (talk) 23:58, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
15. Cryptic (talk) 00:33, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
16. Nandesuka 00:36, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
17. Titoxd^{(?!? - help us)} 01:00, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
18. Xoloz 01:04, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
19. NSLE _(T+C+CVU) 01:13, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
20. ClockworkSoul 05:53, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
21. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:06, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
22. Sarah Ewart 13:17, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
23. JYolkowski // talk 17:18, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
24. --Sean|Black 21:19, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
25. _→AzaToth 22:05, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
26. the wub "?!" 18:01, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
27. ¿ WhyBeNormal ? 21:04, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
28. The ArbCom Politburo turned down the Martin case. This gets more and more interesting. --Peripatetic 23:51, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
29. Dan100 (Talk) 20:36, 4 January 2006 (UTC). Blocking outside of policy is never acceptable.[reply]
30. Hall Monitor 23:20, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
31. --Victim of signature fascism | help remove biblecruft 02:38, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
32. I don't feel strong about the deletion of the template, but in blocking these users in this situation, Snowspinner used his powers inappropriately. There were plenty of other —wiser and less agressive— venues to take. I'm particularly surprised that he didn't involve other admins to bring reason to the situation; any admin, like any user, should remember to stay cool when the editing gets hot and keep in mind that the universe does not revolve around you. — mark ✎ 12:00, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
33. Echo mark above. Rd232 ^talk 22:45, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
34. Paul August ☎ 23:03, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
35. --God of War 02:08, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
36. Yes. - brenneman^(t)(c) 10:01, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
37. Agree. As stated in other words by others. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 08:18, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
38. Stifle 16:31, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
39. People above have summarised the reasons for this much better than I can Cynical 19:54, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
40. Joe 06:22, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
41. Kaldari 00:34, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
42. §HurricaneERIC§^Damagesarchive 16:23, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am not particularly opposed to Snowspinner's deletion of the template, although the fact that several other users disagree suggests it may be better to go through TfD anyway, if only to gain a consensus on what to do in similar situations in the future.

However I think that the blocks on User:Miborovsky and User:Morgan695 are totally out of line. It worries me that Snowspinner reblocked them when other admins had undone the blocks as against policy.

I also resent Snowspinner's comment above about anyone not understanding this being a detriment to the project, since I for one fail to see how unilateral blocking that is completely against policy and opposed by other admins is appropriate.

Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~~~~):

1. the wub "?!" 17:54, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
2.  Grue  18:00, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
3. Synapse 18:01, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
4. Mistress Selina Kyle 18:11, 1 January 2006 (UTC)— WP:RFDA[reply]
5. Sheesh.... Go to sleep for a few hours, and things get so much worse. – Seancdaug 18:11, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
6. —Locke Cole • t • c 18:14, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
7. karmafist 18:18, 1 January 2006 (UTC) The templates are just a transparent version of what's already going on, but otherwise, I agree here. Phil basically thinks his views are above reproach, and thus justified in doing whatever he wants. karmafist 18:18, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
8. Ian¹³_ID:540053 18:32, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
9. --CBD _☎ ^✉ 18:42, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
10. Morgan695 19:03, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
11. Nandesuka 19:53, 1 January 2006 (UTC). For someone who claims to know so much about comics, Snowspinner seems to have forgotten that with great power there must also come great responsibility.[reply]
12. Blu Aardvark | ^{(talk) | (contribs)} 20:38, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
13. I must say I don't really care about user boxes, but I note that Template:Help Wikiboxes was a call to comment on the issue of admins massively and unilaterally deleting them. Blocking the users who tried to inform people of what was going on was highly inappropriate and clearly an abuse of admin powers. — mark ✎ 22:05, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
14. SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 22:14, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
15. --Doc ^ask? 00:45, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
16. Titoxd^{(?!? - help us)} 01:00, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
17. Xoloz 01:03, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
18. NSLE _(T+C+CVU) 01:13, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
19. Ëvilphoenix ^Burn! 01:17, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
20. ClockworkSoul 05:54, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
21. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:05, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
22. Sarah Ewart 13:18, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
23. I approve of deleting the templates, and disagree with the blocks. Radiant_>|< 20:16, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
24. The templates were awful, and I would have speedied them myself, but the blocks were not appropriate.--Sean|Black 21:18, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
25. _→AzaToth 22:05, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
26. —Andux 09:04, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
27. Adrian Buehlmann 10:30, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
28. ¿ WhyBeNormal ? 21:04, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
29. Hurricane Eric - my dropsonde - archive 22:29, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
30. Hall Monitor 23:20, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
31. Unilateral blocking against policy is absolutely unacceptable. --Victim of signature fascism | help remove biblecruft 02:39, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
32. I disagree with the deletion of the templates and with the blocking of the users. Both are anti-wiki policies and both were unilateral. If Snowspinner wanted the templates deleted, he should've went to TfD.    Ronline ✉ 10:57, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
33. Jeez, is it really so hard to understand? Act out of process if you are certain that the process would have the same outcome, not if you think you know better than everyone else what the end result should be.Grace Note 03:21, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
34. To keep blocking is a good way of sorting out who has the lowest sense|ego ratio. - brenneman^(t)(c) 10:05, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
35. Agree. That was the whole point of this. It wasn't about userboxes, it was about how they went about this. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 08:18, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
36. The boxes were certainly inflammatory and wrong. The blocks also fall under those categories. Bratsche^talk 22:43, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Snowspinner and Kelly Martin (talk · contribs) (their two current rfcs are fairly connected) are just a symptom of a bigger problem: Our policies and guidelines have lost virtually all their meaning, largely due to the lack of transparency or process towards forming them, reforming them or annulling them. Due to that void, a Wild West atmosphere arises where people feel like they need to act in an extreme nature in order to have a hand in improving Wikipedia's internal workings. Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~~~~):

1. karmafist 18:25, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
2. Mistress Selina Kyle 20:42, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
3. Blu Aardvark | ^{(talk) | (contribs)} 20:46, 1 January 2006 (UTC) I agree wholeheartably.[reply]
4. Aye. Miborovsky -- Миборовский ^{U|T|C|E|Chugoku Banzai!} 22:24, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
5. Sadly true. – Seancdaug 22:45, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
6. Indeed. Cyberevil 05:07, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
7. JYolkowski // talk 17:17, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
8. Sadly _→AzaToth 22:06, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
9. Absolutely --Ghirla | talk 00:49, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
10. The latest wheel war over WP:RFC/KM has convinced me re: the "wild west" bit. —Locke Cole • t • c 10:37, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
11. I agree with Locke. I wasn't going to sign this part, but Snowspinner's claim that he was forced to act this way has tipped me over the edge Nandesuka 16:10, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
12. There's definitely a wild west thing going on. Longtime contributors frequently display large egos and disregard any criticism by those they feel are beneath them. This is unhelpful to the goal of making an encyclopedia, and actively destructive to the community that makes that encyclopedia. Friday (talk) 16:23, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
13. Pilatus 17:09, 3 January 2006 (UTC) As User:Friday puts it.[reply]
14. The past few days have made this blatantly obvious. See also Luigi30's law. the wub "?!" 18:06, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
15. ¿ WhyBeNormal ? 21:03, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
16. I couldn't agree more. The issues here are larger than many give them credit for; anyone who claims it's entirely, or even mainly, about userboxes at this point is deluding him/herself. PurplePlatypus 21:32, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
17. I agree completly _→AzaToth 23:01, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
18. I have thought long before endorsing this, but it seems to me that the issues can be best framed this way. Now that many users apparently feel about this as a case of admins (or elite) against normal editors (see also talk) I think it is important to stress that there is no such thing as an elite class of admins. The quote that figured on Snowspinner's user page (under the heading 'Common Sense') illustrates the attitude that probably led to his course of action in this case. — mark ✎ 13:27, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
19. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:21, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
20. I feel Wikipedia is leaning more and more towards having a hierarchical class of ruling admins, as seen by many decisions made in the past few weeks. Instead of applying policy, common sense but most importantly good faith and flexibility, admins are increasingly bringing their own personal stances towards Wikipedia into effect by applying what are increasingly undemocratic and unilateral blocks and deletions.    Ronline ✉ 11:00, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
21. I agree totally. All of these pompous bickerings, ego parades, executive joyrides and the like remind me, unhappily, both of the minutæ of college politics, and, to an extent, of overcompensation. Templates such as these don't hurt wikipedia. It is abhorrently undemocratic, to descend into this whole unilateral deletionism just because of private interests. --It's-is-not-a-genitive 01:39, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
22. Wonderfully put. I feel that you have matured as an administrator in the past few weeks, and this action proves it. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 08:17, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
23. Herostratus 01:09, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, I think this user's admin powers should be revoked and I don't by any means take stuff like that lightly. This user has abused the blocking policy, the deletion policy, ignored other user's complaints and even blocked them for doing so, personally attacked other users on several occations and has shown a general disrespect for Wikipedia. The block and deletion log pages speak for themselves (the very first entry in the block log shows him blocking someone for "...being a dick.") This user should not and should never have been an admin. That's just my opinion.

Users who endorse this summery (sign with ~~~~):

1. Hurricane Eric - my dropsonde - archive 01:38, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
2. Mistress Selina Kyle 03:25, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
3. --Masssiveego 07:35, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
4. Unfortunately, yes. The pattern of bad behavior here is clear for all to see. People say current promotion standards are too lax- I can only assume they were even more lax in the past. He would do the community a favor to give up his adminship. Friday (talk) 15:01, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
5. Unfortunately, yes. If this was just a one-time thing, I would oppose this vehemently, but this is not the first issue with this admin, who has a history of heavy-handed judgements and abusive behaviour. --Blu Aardvark | ^{(talk) | (contribs)} 01:12, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
6. Agree with Blu Aardvark. This is the third RfC against Snowspinner, and the first one was on a similar issue. I don't think he deserved to be an admin.    Ronline ✉ 11:02, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
7. Agree. Whilst I've personally never met Snowspinner, I feel that the 3 of them involved in this should be de-sysopped (SlimVirgin, Snowspinner and Kelly Martin). And I am not talking about the user boxes when I say this. I am more talking about their insistence to cover up what is really going on and ban all who oppose them. That's far more serious than just deleting some userboxes. MSK just got banned today for daring to oppose them. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 08:16, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
8. Yes, definitely. This behaviour is unacceptable. According to Jimbo, "Adminship is not a big deal", so de-adminship shouldn't be either. De-sysopp him. --Victim of signature fascism | help remove biblecruft 20:38, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
9. Stifle 20:14, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Don't make this a lynch mob, please. Don't judge too fast. The following comments come from WP:AN/I and provide the context for the 'being a dick' block (I don't mean to approve or disapprove of that block):

For the record, here are the behind-the-scenes details of my block:

1. Phil is complaining about the userboxes on #wikipedia, and mentions that if someone makes a {{User:Aeon1006/Userboxes/User furry}} he'll go apeshit.
2. I am rather surprised that it doesn't exist yet, seeing that we have Category:Furry Wikipedians, and figure it's better for Phil to go apeshit on me than on some hapless noob who creates it.
3. I create it, and Phil accuses me of disrupting Wikipedia (how?!?) and thus violating WP:POINT. So he blocks.

--SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 09:59, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

— mark ✎ 12:08, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not making this a lynch mob. If this guys RFA was right now, would you support him? I sure wouldn't. His actions have been despicable and these are recurring events, this is not just a one-time thing. With his admin powers, he has been very destructive to the Wikipedia community. I wasn't by any means trying to start a cult to crusade against him or anything similar. My opinion is that if his admin powers are not stripped, he will continue this behavior and I don't want that to happen. -- Hurricane Eric - my dropsonde - archive 23:10, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Are you really that upset about a five minute block? Phil Sandifer 17:48, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:E. Brown has not been blocked, for five minutes or otherwise. SPUI's block for five minutes is mentioned (and yes, I do agree, it's pretty trivial - although you shouldn't have done it, and it could be interpreted as a violation of WP:NPA - but I do not believe that the aforemented block is Hurricane Eric's only concern. --Blu Aardvark | ^{(talk) | (contribs)}

• This comment by snowspinner is the most important one in the RfC to date. It demonstrates that he is totally unwilling to acknowledge there is a problem. - brenneman^(t)(c) 10:12, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Amen. -- §Hurricane ERIC§ archive -- my dropsonde 04:44, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Snowspinner should definitely not be an arbitrator, or have any arbitration authority, particularly given that he was not elected in the recent elections, nor did he gain anything like an approval vote. See also Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Clerks.

1. --Victim of signature fascism | help remove electoral corruption 12:34, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
2. --Blu Aardvark | ^{(talk) | (contribs)} 12:44, 30 January 2006 (UTC) As I understand it, the office doesn't come with any special goodies or privelages, but nonetheless, I feel that this person can't handle being an admin, much less assisting with ArbCom. Call it a personal attack if you like, but I feel that Snowspinner is a troll, plain and simple, and object vehemently to trolls assisting in ArbCom procedure.[reply]

   Blu Aardvark: Wikipedia is not an unmoderated message board. Please review & adhere to WP:NPA, WP:CIV, and WP:WQT. El_C 13:08, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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