Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Surturz/AdminWatch

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the discussion was Delete - with no prejudice against recreation in different form.

To preface this close: This close is only about this specific page. It has no effect whatsoever on the question of administrators' accountability and how it should or should not happen.

Judging solely by numbers, this MFD has a 38-19 majority in favor of deleting this page. Consensus on Wikipedia, however, does not rely on numbers but on policy- and guideline-based arguments. As such, a number of !votes have to be discounted because they fail to provide any clear reasoning (or any reasoning at all). Also, there has been a major change to the page during this MFD ([1]) which removed the usernames of the admins in question and changed the scope of the page drastically, rendering most !votes before this change less convincing, if not moot.

While Wikipedia:Administrators#Accountability does address the content of the page, the purpose of the policy is to state that administrators are accountable for their actions, not how such accountability should work. In fact, the only part of the policy that addresses this (Wikipedia:Administrators#Grievances by users ("Administrator abuse")) does not mention lists in user pages as a way to handle such disputes. As such, as a number of people have pointed out correctly, the relevant guideline for handling this page is WP:UP#POLEMIC.

While any guideline, unlike what some !voters seem to believe, does allow for exceptions, they are the accepted standard for such cases. Hence the circumstances why an exception should be made have to be demonstrated and those in favor of making an exception need to explain why the guideline should not apply in the specific case. The guideline forbids collections of diffs and evidence on specific actions without a good cause to do so; most !voters on both side of the discussion agree that this page is such a list but disagree whether the guideline should be applied to it. There is also a agreement though that the problem with the page is mainly the record of specific administrative actions to be listed there indefinitely and not the idea of keeping a watch on problematic behavior by administrators. UP#POLEMIC after all allows such diffs to be compiled if dispute resolution is planned. While a number of people admitted that the page's creator was not given the chance to make a case for this, he did in fact claim that he did want to keep the list indefinitely, i.e. in a way not covered by UP#POLEMIC's exception.

While the arguments that admins should not mind such pages being created and that deleting such pages carries the risk of a chilling effect are both valid, they are also meta-arguments that apply to pages holding admins accountable in general, not only this specific page. What swayed the decision to deletion in this specific case was not that such pages should not exist in general. Rather it was the strong consensus that this specific page fails to serve this goal in its current form, i.e. by keeping a list of specific actions forever without any inclination to resolve those perceived problems. That said, I think consensus is not against recreating the page in a way that seeks to collect such diffs and examples in order to hold an admin actually accountable in a timely manner using the established processes for this or even a newly created process. Such a page would be allowed by WP:UP#POLEMIC as well. As such, if Surturz expresses the wish to rework the page to collect examples for future, timely dispute resolutions, I am willing to restore the page to allow them to do so. Regards SoWhy 11:25, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

User:Surturz/AdminWatch

User:Surturz/AdminWatch (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

This was speedy deleted as an attack page but the consensus at DRV was to send this to MFD. This is clearly a laundry list for a grudge and not any part of formal dispute resolution. Hit/enemy lists are not permitted and this is clearly nothing to do with dispute resolution. Wikipedia would be better without it. Spartaz ^Humbug! 15:13, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

AUTHOR COMMENT: I have removed all admin names and changed the page to focus on admin actions, rather than individual admins. In any case, my opinion is that WP:ADMINACCT, being policy, trumps the guideline WP:UP#POLEMIC. Admins would do well to consider whether stomping down on criticism so quickly really enhances their authority. This could have all been sorted out on the article talk page, I was never given that chance. --Surturz (talk) 02:46, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

• Background info This is really an extension of a prior conversation, which probably should have been linked in the deletion rationale. The full conversation is here. SDY (talk) 18:24, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Comment - The nominator above points to no policy or guidelines in rationale for deletion, simply personal opinion. A reasonable deletion rationale should provide links to the policy or guideline being supposedly violated, along with an example of how the item in question actually violates it. -- Avanu (talk) 16:03, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

He did so below when asked. SDY (talk) 16:07, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

• Delete, shit-lists are a clear no-no, and this is clearly one. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 15:15, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
• Delete. Retaining a list of any users because one disagrees with their actions is non-constructive. Tiderolls 15:22, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
• Weak oppose. Doesn't appear to be an attack, just a list of incidents. Honestly, a Lèse adminé approach is part of the reason admins are often resented: criticism against them is often swiftly deleted. True, Wikipedia has no guarantee of free speech, but complaints about abuse of power should not be hidden or deleted unless it is clear that they are nothing but obvious slander and/or temper tantrum. Admins are expected to be trusted members of the community, and that trust means that they must be open to both civil criticism and comment. As for the appeal to policy, can anyone cite a specific statement? Clearly it's not allowed in article space, but it seems like a reasonable use of user space. SDY (talk) 15:27, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
  • In response to your edit summary, I'm definitely not part of the "ruling class", not being an admin, and I still think this page is totally unnecessary and unconstructive, and in very bad taste. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 15:31, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Complaints with no expectation of resolution are of no use. I'd be surprised if one could find three regular editors here that have no complaints. There are processes in place for complaint resolution; for one to eliminate the employment of these processes due to their difficulty is a complaint itself. Take that complaint to its proper venue. Tiderolls 15:38, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
  • See Wikipedia:UP#POLEMIC. Spartaz ^Humbug! 15:42, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
    • (e/c) I obviously disagree with the impulse to delete this page, and think that this page is both necessary and constructive. Admins are part of the government of the site, and suppressing criticism (assuming it's reasonable and not silly) of government is a terrible precedent to set. If an admin can't stand having someone grumble about their decisions, they probably shouldn't have the mop. If the criticism on the page in question is invalid or rabidly incoherent, then go ahead and delete it. Honestly, it might be best to just have a strong suggestion to remove names of individuals rather than delete the entire page. That would retain the criticism of the system (which is a reasonable topic to discuss) without retaining the criticism of individuals (which may run afoul of expectations of civility). SDY (talk) 15:47, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

The subject page is not discussion; that is the point I'm attempting to make. Tiderolls 15:50, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

It appears to be a position statement with a list of examples supporting that statement, which is a typical essay format. I'm not sure what you mean by "not discussion" in that sense, and whether it fits some specific definition or not isn't really very important. Is it off topic? Is it incivil? These are the questions we should be asking. The allegation of incivility is a serious question for the page. It is clearly on topic. SDY (talk) 16:00, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Discussion, to me, is an exchange of ideas and opinions. The subject page is commentary. It's clearly on-topic because it defines the topic; the kink is that we have other processes to deal with the creator's concern(s). Tiderolls 17:16, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

By "on topic" I mean that it's about the encyclopedia, no more (i.e. if he were calling out Alfred E. Newman for his misdeeds that would be off topic). User page essays often don't include any discussion. The reality is that deleting a page for lack of proper forum is a pretty lame argument for deletion, especially in user space. I'm sure it could be argued that it is kept as a statement of frustration because the user feels that "proper channels" will not result in any meaningful outcome, with the lack of any meaningful mechanism for recalling admins an obvious exhibit in that argument. Deleting it because it solely exists to attack other users is a valid reason to get rid of it. That he isn't complaining in the formally blessed fashion is a pretty weak reason to delete it. SDY (talk) 17:28, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

• How about a reasonable expectation for not naming and shaming based purely on personal opinion??? Spartaz ^Humbug! 15:55, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Sure, easily. That only requires deletion of names, not deletion of the page. SDY (talk) 16:00, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

That would only work if you could find a way to list the actions without diffs (as that would allow the 'naming' of the admin in one click) which would be 'evidence' - but that would leave a statement like "An admin (who I won't name) did xyz, but I can't give a diff as that would be equivalent to naming them, so you'll have to take my word on it" - which clearly would not be suitable for the intention of the page as stated. PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 22:57, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

• Delete. The record shows that I too "believe it is reasonable to subject admins to a higher level of scrutiny" than currently exists. Unfortunately this page is not the solution. It is (a) A shit-list. (b) Quite unnecessary. If anyone wants to keep a record for some genuine future use it can just as easily be done off-wiki. (c) Already the subject of unnecessary drama. (d) Not "constructive" in any sense of the word that I can think of. Its sole value so far as I can see is that it draws attention to a problem which we as a community have so far failed to resolve satisfactorily, namely that in order to protect sysops from childish, uninformed and malicious attacks the bar for bringing those who misbehave to task is set fairly high. This creates (in some user's minds) a barrier between admins and non-admins. Creative, informed and well thought through suggestions as to how to ameliorate this issue should be welcomed. This isn't one. Ben MacDui 16:13, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

• Keep - First of all, editor Surturz offered to rework the page if given simply a few days to do so. Given the mildness of the page as it was, this hardly seems like an unreasonable request. Spartaz closed the previous discussion and then immediately opened this MfD without even attempting to see if Surturz would rework the page.

On a more policy-based level, Spartaz' initial rationale in this MfD failed to directly point to policies or guidelines as rationale, nor did he provide actual examples from the article that prove the rationale given. It is a personal opinion that the page constitutes deletion-worthy material, and this is hardly the sort of thing we need at XfD nominations, especially given the previous drama on this article. In addition, when I review WP:ATTACK, I do see that it explicitly mentions 'list of enemies', but when I look at the article in question, I don't find verbiage that describes the admin editors listed as 'enemies', or any disparaging term whatsoever. What I do see, is a person concerned about abuse of power, and taking note of what he feels *may* constitute "poor admin behaviour". If this is the worst attack one can find on the article, I hardly see how it is an attack page.

If we instead use WP:UP#POLEMIC as a guide, I doubt 'POLEMIC' was intended primarily to protect administrative actions, but rather people who attack others based on racial, personal, or editorial disagreements. In addition, 'POLEMIC' provides a specific exception "The compilation of factual evidence (diffs) in user subpages, for purposes such as preparing for a dispute resolution process, is permitted provided it will be used in a timely manner.", which as far as I can tell, is not only subjective, but also, no admin has taken the time to actually *ask* Surturz if and when it will be used, which seems like a reasonable first step in determining that.

Finally, I have reworked the page to the extent I understand its reasoning (it is not entirely clear to me what the points are in some places), to de-emphasize the 'editor' and emphasize the 'action'. After all, it should *never* be wrong to criticize administrative actions. (I hope we are in agreement on that point.)

Based on all these points, I feel that it would be mistaken to delete this article at this time. -- Avanu (talk) 16:33, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

• Delete because this comment by the page creator makes it clear that Surturz believes that administrators do not have rights equivalent to other editors; and that attitude also makes it clear that the subject page of this MFD exists for the purpose of perpetuating that attitude. That attitude itself, and his "AdminWatch" page does not engender a spirit of collaboration which is a core belief at Wikipedia. It is poisonous to creating a culture of collegiality and for that reason has to go. Had Surturz not made those comments, I may have been fooled into thinking his intent was more benign. But given his statements above, it is clear what the purpose of the page is. --Jayron32 16:43, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Your diff above fails to take into account his further explanation later on diff which makes it clear he didn't mean for it to sound the way it was taken. I think you're simply wanting to see something that probably isn't there. -- Avanu (talk) 16:51, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Incidentally, when I look at the four links he has in that page, the center of Surturz' complaints seems to be about the ability of User pages to be given wider latitude than the mainspace. I took another look at WP:UP and it says: Users believed to be in violation of these policies should first be advised on their talk page using {{uw-userpage}} when immediate action is not otherwise necessary.

So, was immediate action necessary in any of the 4 cases that Surturz mentions? And was the {{uw-userpage}} template placed? I know IAR makes nothing a requirement, but if we're here to smack on Surturz for supposed violation of User page protocol, let's start by making sure we follow it as well, right? -- Avanu (talk) 17:45, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

If you don't mind me saying, that "clarification" is laughable. When you say "I strongly recommend that no admin vote in favour of deletion in that MFD." (first diff), Surturz quite obviously isn't "just trying to show that going straight to an MFD and everyone piling in shouting "delete!" wasn't going to help anyone." (second diff) Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 17:50, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

• Keep, but . . . . This page did not fall afoul of the ban on maintaining lists of grievances indefinitely in userspace; it was originally deleted less than 18 hours after creation. The editor was a long-term user with a clean block record who deserved a presumption of good faith. Several of his comments in the ensuing discussion were quite unhelpful, but did not go so far as to prove bad faith or disruptive intent. The editor should therefore be afforded a decent interval (perhaps 30 days) to demonstrate that this page is a good faith step toward dispute resolution or toward related policy/guideline dialogue. I would hope the discussion here and at the DRV has given him sufficient guidance as to what is expected of him. By a striking coincidence, there's an extended discussion as ANI right now which many users might take as demonstrating that Surturz's underlying complaint holds water [2] Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 17:37, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

I don't think anyone seriously doubts that admins make mistakes, and some more so than others. I guess my broader question is: if there is no way to keep records on admins who misuse their authority either through carelessness or malice, how do we keep admins accountable for their use of the tools? Arbcom presumably has some mechanism for gathering this information, but how is an average user supposed to know if they've run into an admin with a history of abuse where a report to AN/I is an important warning flag for building a case for defrocking, as opposed to someone just having a bad day? This entire episode, reading the history, started with an admin being too bold in applying the criteria for speedy deletion. Presumably an honest mistake, I have no doubt that this page will be deleted or at the very least substantially altered as a result of this discussion. It was at the very least careless and brazen, since an admin arbitrarily speedy deleting criticism of admins is obviously going to raise eyebrows, and if anyone is surprised that there was a backlash over this deletion, they need some coffee. SDY (talk) 19:15, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

• Delete, laundry lists of users/editors/admins that you don't like based on one or two actions they've taken is a pretty clear violation of ATP and POLEMIC. Also per Jayron, as I can agree with basically every word he's said in these debates. This diff is also fairly illuminating. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 17:50, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

As I said to Jayron above, the diff above fails to take into account his further explanation later on diff -- Avanu (talk) 18:04, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

...and as I replied to you above, "If you don't mind me saying, that "clarification" is laughable. When you say "I strongly recommend that no admin vote in favour of deletion in that MFD." (first diff), Surturz quite obviously isn't "just trying to show that going straight to an MFD and everyone piling in shouting "delete!" wasn't going to help anyone." (second diff)" Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 00:53, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

• Delete; this has no place on-wiki. It's not a draft for an imminent attempt at dispute resolution, it's a list of grudges to be held for the future. If the editor feels compelled to make a compilation of what they perceive to be poor decisions by administrators, then they can keep that list off-wiki rather than construct a "wall of shame". — Coren ^(talk) 17:59, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Telling us all that it is a grudge is what we would usually call 'Original Research' if this were asserted in an article. Other than your own opinion, do you have any evidence that these are personal grudges and that the editor has any ill will toward these editors personally? Is there something in the article that gives us a reason to infer such an intent? -- Avanu (talk) 18:04, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Wouldn't the whole page under discussion usually be called original research if it appeared as an article. Other than the authors opinions... I assume you'll be opining delete on that basis? --82.19.4.7 (talk) 20:21, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

The distinction is that Surturz' opinion on these actions is the Primary Source. Taking a primary source and inferring conclusions from it is original research. Whether or not these actions were "poor admin actions" is a matter of debate, but inferences from Surturz' words as to what his motives are is not something based in fact or logic, but assumptions and guesswork. -- Avanu (talk) 22:31, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

The distinction is that one is convenient to your argument, the other is not. That fact it is a bringing together of multiple actions from primary sources and reaching a conclusion is original research, that's the very definition of original research. --82.19.4.7 (talk) 09:00, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Coren -- eww no. That is precisely what I would like to avoid. Someone with "reasonable grievances" say they got harassed by the culture here to stop editing; if criticism of administrators is freely allowed offwiki (think: a certain nefarious website that has in the past, resulted in the intimidation of several important contributors and admins) while mild lists like this are fiercely deleted here, what kind of message this sends.

I am all aware that policy dislikes shitlists. But let us consider the spirit of the policy. Has anyone tried not pouncing on the list creator and seeking some sort of reconciliation? I would much prefer it if we waited for the list creator to solve his grievances, and then for the list creator to voluntarily remove it himself. This is a much more amiable aim. elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (be free) 02:40, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

• Delete per Strange Passerby and others. This has no reasonable place in user space (or anywhere else). PeterSymonds (talk) 19:18, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
• Delete this is a list of administrative actions that Surturz objects to. WP:UP#POLEMIC forbids material that can be viewed as attacking other editors, including the recording of perceived flaws from being hosted in userspace, and this page falls under that wording. It is permissible to maintain such content if it is being prepared for some dispute resolution process, however Surturz has AFAIK given no indication that they intend to use the material in this way, and judging by their comments on the page and elsewhere the mere existence of the page is intended to make administrators more accountable. Of course users are free to criticise administrative actions, but that doesn't mean that there are no restrictions on the location or form of such criticism. We have plenty of processes for reviewing or appealing administrative actions and (with the exception of the decision to send a page to MfD, which isn't an administrative action) all these actions can be sent through such processes. Hut 8.5 19:56, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

I know this might sound nitpicky from your point of view, but a person exercising administrative rights isn't acting as an editor also. We typically recognize a conflict of interest if a person is doing both editing and admin 'mopping' on the same article. So being critical of an administrative action isn't "attacking other editors", because they aren't editing as such. -- Avanu (talk) 22:31, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

The word "editor" means "Anyone who writes or modifies articles in a Wikipedia"[3] and this includes administrators. The fact that administrators can do things other editors can't doesn't mean that administrators are not editors. I can't believe I have to explain this to you. Hut 8.5 10:22, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm making a distinction between mop actions, and personal attacks. I would you can follow my reasoning here and see that although we're all *always* editors, there is a distinction between attacking an editor and criticizing an administrative action. -- Avanu (talk) 17:22, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Criticising an administrative action is not a personal attack and I'm not saying it is. I'm saying that the items in this list are records of perceived flaws in individual administrators/editors and that therefore the list falls foul of WP:USER. Hut 8.5 21:21, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Slavish devotion to written policy isn't really all that useful, nor is it recommended. If the page is civil, on topic, and causes no more harm than good, there's no reason to delete it. WP:USER is a guideline, not a divine mandate. SDY (talk) 21:37, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Deleting something because it plainly violates a guideline is not "slavish devotion to written policy", and it doesn't require any tortured interpretation to see that this is the case. Just because something is civil and on topic doesn't mean it can't or shouldn't be deleted (and I don't agree that the existence of pages like this does no more harm than good). "Guideline" doesn't mean "this is some useful advice", it means "follow this unless you have a good reason not to". Hut 8.5 09:43, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

• Furthermore the changes that have been made to this page since the nomination do not affect my opinion. Although names have been removed it is still a record of what Surturz perceives to be flaws in specific editors. Although the editors are not specifically named on the page it is nevertheless obvious who they are. An essay about Wikipedia's administrative culture or a proposal to improve administrator accountability would be OK, but this isn't either by any stretch of the imagination. Hut 8.5 16:47, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

• I'm surprised to see that you would advocate for simple opinion pieces having more reason to be here than a list of facts that we can indiviually discuss. An essay on admin culture or accountability may be fine, but unless it cites actual examples, how is it really possible to say whether its true or just conjecture? -- Avanu (talk) 17:22, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

• This isn't a list of facts, it's a list of things the author disagrees with and therefore just a list of opinions. And it isn't an essay that cites examples, it's a list of purported examples. Hut 8.5 21:21, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

• Delete per standard Wikipedia rules against keeping this kind of material around unless it's imminently being used for dispute resolution purposes. Also per this diff, linked several times above. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:05, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Sarek, the provision specifically says "timely manner", not 'imminent', not 'immediate'. Of course this is clearly subjective, but in no way has this been allowed to become clearly untimely. -- Avanu (talk) 22:31, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

• Delete Apparently the creator of this item is a prolific contributor of content. He needs to learn that Wikipedia is no place for such activities. Wikipedia is a place where one seeks Adminship. Game Over. Some minimal content sometimes must be created by the seeker of Adminship, but this is just for show, and to appease Inclusionist radicals. It can always be bastardized and deleted later. The most respected members of this project are primarily concerned with creating and enforcing Wikipedia's rules for limiting content and limiting self-criticism. Some of the best ways of discouraging contributors from adding more unwanted content are through officiousness, stifling criticism and the free exchange of ideas, bureaucracy, bullying, hounding... all the practices which have been constantly on the rise here, and which are most respected (if tacitly) by the community. In recent articles such as "Jimmy Wales: Wikipedia is Losing Contributors", our esteemed leader points proudly to the success we have had in this effort to drive off contributors. Delete this, continue discouraging the contributor from freely expressing his opinions and adding content, and soon, he will either join up with the bureacracy in helping to drive off unwanted contributors, or he will seek out more productive hobbies. It's a win-win. Dekkappai (talk) 21:12, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
• (ec) Delete My rationale that I presented at deletion review stands. While I realise the page has been reworked, a shit list that has been slightly reworked is still a shit list. It's not being used for dispute resolution, therefore should be deleted per policy, which has been linked several times both here and in the DRV. Steven Zhang ^{The clock is ticking....} 21:37, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
• Changing to a simple Comment:Delete - While in principle I do note that shit lists are bad, and this is somewhat still a bit of a shit list, names have been removed and the page has been revamped. I still think that if you have concerns, raise them on their talk page or AN, but do also see the need for admins to be held accountable. I still feel that these sort of lists aren't appropriate and think deletion is the correct course of action (otherwise shit lists will start popping up everywhere) but do not feel so strongly about it now to "vote" for deletion. Changing once again back to delete per Fetchcomms. Steven Zhang ^{The clock is ticking....} 00:33, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
• strong keep I know I'm going against the grain here but this sort of whitewashing is why many people feel that wikipedia is an old-boys club and regular users have no hope of having a legitimate grievance addressed. A user, a good contributor, makes a list of questionable administrative actions and it promptly disappears, via an abuse of the speedy deletion process; is that the message we want to send? that questioning the admins is strictly forbidden? Administrators have great power, including the power to make things go away, so they should be held to a higher standard and questioning their actions should not only be allowed but encouraged. HominidMachinae (talk) 21:31, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
• Delete- I don't always argue to restore and relist, but when I do I vote "delete". Seriously though, I had to think hard about this one. The question is a balance between "shit-lists" and legitimate criticism of admins. In the end I was convinced the argument that such pages are to be used in dispute resolution in a timely manner, and unfortunately this page seems intended to be a lingering list of grievances with no real prospect of being used in productive processes. Reyk _YO! 22:39, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

We often hear people say that Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, yet you are asserting that this "seems intended to be a lingering list". Considering that it was originally deleted before even 1 day had passed, what evidence or rationale can you provide to justify your conclusion? -- Avanu (talk) 23:15, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Surturz's own [request] that the material be allowed to remain there indefinitely. Reyk _YO! 00:47, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

• Delete - UP#POLEMIC is quite clear, these types of lists are prohibited. Period. No exceptions. As to the legitimate concern about about balance of power/criticism/etc., if a user wants to question or complain an admin's action, there are places for that. Those discussions are archived and easily searchable, which is more than sufficient to record admin misconduct. If matters proceed past that stage, there are other options, and eventually Arbcom if need be. Maintaining shit lists indefinitely in user space does nothing to help any potential problems, it only inflames them. Parsecboy (talk) 22:55, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Your statement "Maintaining shit lists indefinitely in user space does nothing to help any potential problems, it only inflames them." Can you provide any evidence for this statement? It also might be helpful if you could point out exactly how the page in question is a so-called 'shit' list. -- Avanu (talk) 23:15, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

No, I don't generally spend my time on the drama lists, so I can't point to specific examples. What I can tell you are two things: there are obviously reasons the community has decided these types of lists are prohibited, and simple common sense should tell you that you would be more willing to engage with someone with a legitimate complaint if they discussed the issue than if they stuck your name on a list of "bad people" indefinitely. I still don't understand what Surturz actually thinks this page is going to accomplish. Parsecboy (talk) 13:21, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Parsecboy, I took you up on your suggestion that this information be posted at the Administrator's Noticeboard (here). It was immediately dismissed by Nick-D and Sven Manguard, who called me a troll, and then collapsed it. Perhaps your advice would be more valid if we actually had people who were willing to work reasonably. Since this whole mess started, I still haven't seen one admin actually communicate anything via Surturz' page that was simply helpful and cooperative, only warnings and deletions. -- Avanu (talk) 23:27, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Given that the campaign around Timeshift9's user page and Surturz's user page seems basically to be an attempt to flog a dead horse while maximising the drama, that's hardly surprising. Nick-D (talk) 23:39, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Avanu, I don't see what you were trying to accomplish with re-posting the contents of Surturz's userpage. If you have legitimate concerns about an admin, yes, go post them at AN or ANI, but what you did seems like needlessly stirring the pot. Parsecboy (talk) 13:21, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

What really surprises me here is how readily admins and others are to remove a criticism of the officials from Wikipedia. A healthy organization tolerates this, because it actually shows us how to improve ourselves. We have leeway on user pages for a reason, and we have the ability to not only bend or mold policy to different interpretations, but even a rule that overrides all others -- Ignore All Rules. (And hopefully use some common sense). So why the vitriol, why the very emotional reactions? If Surturz came up to me and said "you made a poor decision" like he did on his page, I'd probably go "oh yeah?" and forget about it. But for some reason we have people who seem like Wikipedia can't tolerate even the mildest of dissent in the wrong bureaucratic forum or all of Wikipedia will implode. What a powder keg :)

So what is the Wikipedia:BIGDEAL here? I wish all editors had the restraint I saw on Surturz' page, but who knows what is up here. -- Avanu (talk) 23:54, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps you should delve deeper, Avanu. Tiderolls 23:46, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Looked at that link and I don't see what the big deal is.... maybe I need some glasses. -- Avanu (talk) 23:54, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

I still haven't seen one admin actually communicate anything via Surturz' page that was simply helpful and cooperative, only warnings and deletions. No big deal. Tiderolls 23:57, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Admins have a higher standard than editors, that is a big deal, and it is entirely the point here. Follow best practices as an admin and its a lot more likely to work out well. Ignore that or act on impulse or unjustly, and you end up with the problems we've seen here. I have a feeling this could end very favorably for everyone if Spartaz would close this for now and let Surturz actually attempt to improve the page, AND if fellow editors would AGF and communicate with Surturz on his Talk page about how to improve it. -- Avanu (talk) 00:03, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

• Delete We don't allow 'shit lists'. If you think that the admins acted improperly, man up and make a complaint about these actions though the proper channels rather than keep a list of people you don't like. And be honest enough to note that the deletion of User:Timeshift9's user page was found to be perfectly within process in the DRV. All this kind of thing does is maximise drama. Nick-D (talk) 23:20, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
  • As an extra comment, targeting GorillaWarfare for nominating the user page for deletion is bullying. The fact that the MfD ended with the page being deleted (and hence her judgment justified) makes it really pathetic. Nick-D (talk) 23:31, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Do you hear yourself on this? "targeting"? and "bullying"? and "pathetic"? So some guy posts "User:GorillaWarfare Proposed WP:Miscellany_for_deletion/User:Timeshift9" and that's a bullying statement? How far do we have to reach here to impeach this guy Surturz? You guys have simply gone off the deep end with this, and I'm starting to wonder how honest you are about accepting criticism given the level of the terminology easily tossed about here. -- Avanu (talk) 23:39, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes, it's bullying, especially given the history of this page. Given that you yourself labeled her nomination of the page for deletion as being a 'poor administrative action' by posting the earlier version of the page at WP:AN here I'm not sure why you're claiming that the words should be taken as a neutral statement as you clearly don't think that it's the case. Please note that I actually voted to keep Timeshift's user page and to overturn the closure of the MfD on procedural grounds. Nick-D (talk) 23:44, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

I didn't characterize it as anything, I used the label that Surturz already had it under. I don't have an opinion on the material and in fact I don't think it is entirely clear what its point is, and given that it wasn't even a day old, it could probably be considered a rough draft, if that. I didn't attempt to modify or interpret it when cross-posting it to AN, I just put it there verbatim since Parsecboy, among others, suggested that posting things in Userspace wasn't correct enough. -- Avanu (talk) 23:57, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

• Delete. WP:STICK. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 23:27, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

This advances no argument for deletion. If you point to an essay or otherwise, do more than just wave your hand at it. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 07:38, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Explanation of WP:STICK: A page goes through different venues and gets and keeps being deleted. Bringing that to yet another venue starts to look like beating a dead horse. Either you have a legitimate concern with the last decision (the first ones were reviewed by the next step in the process), if that is the case, then you bring it up with the last closing admin, or you move on to the next step in the dispute resolution.

This is now a case where there are three steps taken in the process (before the page under discussion was created). What is next - a XfD and a review, both negative decisions and then the editor starts keeping a list of those, and then one speedy and the editor starts keeping a list of those?

Sometimes the community makes a decision which is on the edge of one way, or the other way, but if that decision gets made 3 times, then it is time to move on and do something else - exception to when you have really have a reason for concern, but then don't word it like this, but start already with a worked-out text explicitly working out the concerns, or show that there is really something systematic going on. And another exception would be that this is used actively and created while another discussion is busy, but this seems not the case here either. Allowing this with the assumption that this is in the process of going to a worked-out case will result in others having similar lists which never go on and stay as such lists (and when being called on they will say it is in process as well), and this is not the way forward. Create it big enough to show a full case, or keep it off wiki until you can. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 07:09, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

• Delete: Just appears to be opinions about how bad admins are and nothing more. Joe Chill (talk) 00:23, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

• Weak Keep per accountability I don't see how this meets our definition of personal attacks although it is an statement of personal behavior it does specifically mention administrative actions preformed and rationale as to why these actions might be controversial or constitute misuse. Administrators are also expected to observe a high standard of conduct. and consistently or egregiously poor judgment may result in the removal of administrator status. I suppose the procedural question about this is how to document consistently poor judgement which never quite occasions the need for comment but is still possibly controversial.

Regarding the supposed controversial actions listed on the page in question: per deletion policy if there is no rough consensus the page is kept. Note to all that the Deletion Policy is policy whereas user pages is a guideline. As a perfect example of WHY administrative action should be held to a higher standard, although I can review the deletion discussions listed on the page in question, I cannot examine the pages in question to decide for myself if the closing administrators accurately followed policy, deletion or otherwise (which is also an expression of consensus, BLP as I understand it overrides local consensus, or lack thereof).

Huggle rates users that have previously been reverted as higher priority for review then other edits. The whitelist by implication implies that everyone else is on a shit list. (This is a somewhat tongue in cheek counterargument). But if we can't maintain on wiki reports of possible violations Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?

Crazynas ^t 00:38, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Comment It's worth noting that admins generally aren't allowed to maintain lists of editors they consider particularly troublesome either. Nick-D (talk) 01:15, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes, but keeping track of edits is perfectly alright, sock investigations for example? It seems that as long as it is a log of questionable (but not overturned, that would be polemic) administrative actions it is perfectly alright.

On a related note it seems a simple solution suggested by Wikipedia:UP#POLEMIC (although I don't agree that in the current form the page can be viewed as having Material that can be viewed as attacking other editors, including the recording of perceived flaws.) would be for the user to courtesy blank the page after editing.

Crazynas ^t 02:31, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

• Keep This appears to be a legitimate effort to document what the creator believes to be policy violations; per Crazynas' conclusion, this is a very good idea. Nyttend (talk) 01:12, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
• Does not appear to me likely that this page was intended as a positive tool towards dispute resolution. But it's too soon to say that for sure, and I don't see this as coming under any existing deletion guidelines. - Aaron Brenneman (talk) 01:38, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

• Delete per WP:UP#POLEMIC. No one would want an editor to maintain a list of stupid suggestions made by other editors (particularly when providing sufficient information to identify the other editors). The reason for that is not that we are all sensitive souls—it's because tolerating disguised attacks encourages more brazen attacks, leading to the downward cycle that destroyed newsgroups and most unmoderated forums. Just because a shitlist only refers to admins does not make it acceptable, and neither does using subtlety (listing "administrative actions" next to an image of looking for an honest man). Moreover, if an admin action has never been discussed at a noticeboard, it is totally inappropriate for an editor to assert that the action and the admin are dubious (should vandals maintain lists, with misleading commentary, of editors who have reverted them?). If an admin action has been discussed at a noticeboard, its archive will record the consensus (or lack of it), and it is not acceptable for an editor to maintain a list of such discussions with negative commentary—such commentary asserts that the admin was at fault, and that all the editors who supported the admin are at fault. It is ok to keep a list of links to archived discussions on a personal computer, but maintaining a public list is an inappropriate supercomment on the outcome of the noticeboard discussion—it does not help the encyclopedia. Johnuniq (talk) 02:08, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Being more subtle seems like a proper way to diminish any perception of being attacked. As far as discussing these 'attacks' at a Noticeboard, I tried that about an hour ago and it was simply shut down without even a chance, and I was called a troll. I don't really care much about whether Surturz is right or wrong, but the idea that someone *should* be entirely prevented from making their case, especially in a place where the light of day shines on it, is just abhorrent to the idea that we're collaborative and accountable to one another. Admins have power other editors don't, and if someone puts the time in to actually document this stuff carefully and uncovers a real problem, I say kudos to them for being willing to put the time in. Why do researchers take the time to actually gather results instead of just making up a conclusion? Are we just afraid of what Surturz might find? Are we thinking this spells the end of polite society at Wikipedia if we let a few mild criticisms stand? Are we micefolk or menfolk? The idea that the "AdminWatch" page threatens anyone makes me wonder how tender our mettle is here at Wikipedia. -- Avanu (talk) 02:17, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Avanu, I would think it is obvious that your experience at the noticeboard was markedly different than the norm because you simply copied in a page that is currently in a deletion discussion. If it was not, I hope you realize it now. While I do respect your opinion, it's contrary to the community consensus established at UP#POLEMIC. Admins do not "have power other editors don't" – I don't know how many times this has to be said. We have certain buttons that the community has trusted us to use. If we use them improperly, we're brought to a noticeboard and, essentially, publicly shamed and given an admonishment. If this happens enough times, we'll face an RFCU and/or Arbcom and/or a desysop. That is how the system works. So, if you think an admin screwed up, bring it to AN, ANI, DRV, etc. If editors don't agree with you that the admin did something wrong, move on. We don't need to keep attack pages detailing admins that took actions (or expressed an opinion – cf. GorillaWarfare, Lear's Fool) contrary to someone's views. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 02:33, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

For the love of the Flying Spaghetti Monster, can we please consider the chilling effect this has on voicing legit concerns about the project? I am aware Wikipedia is not a democracy, and that there is no freedom of speech on Wikipedia, but at the same time, the project is composed of human beings. An editor has noticed a certain pattern on Wikipedia. He/she could go in to ANI, complain about the culture, with a few diffs, and be treated like a fringe radical, go to the admins' talk pages and be similarly chastised there, or he/she can quietly make grievances on his/her user page. Of course ideally we want users with grievances to start the dispute resolution process right away, but we are human, and we function less than ideally, and we feel awkward about certain things. I welcome more observers on administrator actions. If the complaints are mild in language, we can go, "WTF? That's a serious complaint?" and move on.

What I would not like is the enforced perception that nothing is rotten in the State of Denmark and that everyone is happy to the extent that if some grievances happen, they can be easily resolved. This is enforcing artificial harmony. I prefer we address grievances on this project, rather than off-project. The sang-froid in which people say "delete, the grievances can be easily raised with individual administrators in a dispute resolution process" seem to ignore some basic facts about human social interaction. elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (be free) 02:47, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

@Ed, Considering that it has been repeated several times how the 'proper' approach would have been for Surturz to take this to a noticeboard, taking it to a noticeboard shouldn't get a non-response. I didn't copy the whole page either, just the 'evil' part that named names. As far whether admins have 'power' or 'buttons', I think most people would use the word 'power', despite some differences as to the interpretation,

"I want to dispel the aura of 'authority' around the position. It's merely a technical matter that the powers given to sysops are not given out to everyone."

If an administrator abuses administrative powers, these powers can be removed.

So, even the WP:ADMIN page uses the term 'powers'. I don't think the argument on this page should be about whether admins are accountable or whether we like or don't like admins, but simply that editors should be given a wider latitude and exceptional good faith should be assumed and communication should try to always be used WHEN WE'RE DEALING WITH USERSPACE PAGES. Userspace is a privilege, just like admin tools are a privilege. But critical comment and questioning those who have authority whether it is real or perceived, should be a !right in Wikipedia. There should be no question that an editor can politely and thoughtfully explain their grievances both publically or privately (aka userspace). When kept to the goal of minimizing corruption and providing additional accountability, this isn't a 'shitlist' or a personal attack, but it is a necessary and vital part of maintaining a collaborative community. Striking down dissent because it isn't quite brought in the way you dictate is very contrary to the pillars here. -- Avanu (talk) 02:52, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

"Powers" has two definitions in this context. If it's synonymous with "tools", as it is on the ADMIN page, I'm fine with it. If it's meant as admins are a separate species that lord over the lowly editors, I have a different opinion. The problem I have with this page is that there is/was absolutely no "critical comment" nor "questioning"; it was a list of names with actions that the page creator disagreed with, despite the greater community's endorsement of the actions. I don't agree that lists of admins you have problems with can be part of a collaborative community. Responding to your last sentence, this isn't what I dictate; it's the normally followed process here. We don't bottle up the problems. We bring them to the attention of other editors for review, and as I said above, if these editors don't agree that the admin did something wrong, we forget about it and move on.

Elle, I do agree that more scrutiny of admin actions is a good thing, but putting them in this format without any intention of taking action in the near future? There are places to air concerns, even outside of DR (approach a different editor, admin or not?). Disparaging editors, even on a userpage, and eventually compiling reams of supposed dirt on anyone who has ever opposed your view is completely unhealthy for the project. I don't want to see disputes move to Wikipedia Review, but I also don't want WR to come here. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 08:45, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

• Keep. People say that it's a "shitlist" that doesn't solve anything, and that it encourages conflict. Firstly, the list is quite mild; I do not think it's immediately necessary that editors have to actively seek a discussion with administrators they have private grievances with -- this would be sooo awkward in real life -- but this should be an encouraged end (through further discussion). I'd like to remind the community of some basic sociology, and that people harbour reasonable sentiments about individuals concerning certain actions. I prefer if we adopt a reconciliatory approach to the list creator rather than pouncing like dogs. If the list doesn't lead towards any constructive ends, eventually delete it, but the list was created for less than a day before it was deleted without process. I know we generally make fun of people who allege a "cabal", but we should actively address these claims with reconciliation and good faith, rather than driving these concerns off the project into the bowels of Wikipedia Review. Such actions here will only strengthen the culture there. elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (be free) 02:24, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

• Keep - With names being removed now, I don't see how it is a problem; it is just a user documenting what they think are policy violations; it seems to me like this would be a good thing, as it could bring attention to serious issues. What the person brought up seem to be reasonable concerns, said in a way that seems mild enough to be acceptable. ~~ Hi878 ^{(Come shout at me!)} 05:22, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:UP#POLEMIC. I agree strongly with the "delete" positions advanced by Reyk (talk · contribs) and Johnuniq (talk · contribs). This page is a"recording of perceived flaws", which can only be retained if there is a "timely" pursuit of dispute resolution. The creator has given no evidence for this being the case. Per the diff of Surturz (talk · contribs)'s request to which Reyk (talk · contribs) linked above, it is clear that the page is meant to be retained indefinitely. That the administrators' names have been removed does not diminish from this page's violation of WP:UP#POLEMIC. The administrators' names are a click away, and the page is still intended as a "recording of perceived flaws". Cunard (talk) 07:13, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
• Delete. Continuing on-wiki grievances are like festering sores. They do more bad than good. If you must keep such things, then keep them private. A better approach with grievances it to explain your problem on the other person's talk page. Then, if you must, you can of course keep a copy of your interuser correspondance. The best approach is to find something productive elsewhere, and find a way to compliment someone there. This is a big place. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:42, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Comment - for all those who seem to think this is an awful page, despite it being further edited, a few things need addressing.

• First, the original page was removed less than 1 day after it was made. Since POLEMIC seems to be the major focus of most editors, the issues of whether this material was for 'timely' or 'imminent' use should have been answered first, before it was summarily deleted. Ed just removed it, mentioning it to fellow editors at AN/I, but took no steps to discuss it with Surturz in an AGF manner.
• Second, as an editor asked earlier, how is an editor supposed to legitimately address what they see as a chronic problem with the Wikigovernment, if they aren't allowed to record things? (And wouldn't we rather know they are percieving chronic problems as they develop, rather than it all being off-wiki and unknown to all of us?)
• Third, for all the bluster and discussion, I still haven't seen one admin take the time to actually go and just talk to Surturz personally on his user page. I've talked to several of the editors personally since this began, and I don't see how communication directly would be a problem. To me, this is the most serious point, because I have a feeling if Surturz had simply been left alone to ponder things, or had been approached in an AGF fashion and listened to, we might have seen this pass unnoticed. Instead, it is a free speech style issue with people rallying on either side. So would some admin, preferrably those who were named, just step up and talk like a regular person to Surturz?

Thanks. -- Avanu (talk) 14:29, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Actually Avanu, I've had a discussion with Surturz on my talk page, and Worm has had one on Surturz's talkpage. Elen of the Roads (talk) 16:06, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Surturz started the discussion on your page, so I don't know if you really can count it, because your goal wasn't to communicate with him but simply to respond. Although you were polite, it was essentially just another argument. On the other hand, the conversation that Worm had on Surturz' page was very much the sort of thing we have been needing more of since this all started. Although it doesn't appear to have been successful, Worm clearly takes time to identify with Surturz and work out some compromise solution. -- Avanu (talk) 17:25, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

I try my best ;) Worm^TT · (talk) 11:40, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

• Comment - the page has changed since it was nominated. This is likely enough to invalidate the discussion. What I suggest be done is that the user rather than changing the page in the middle of this discussion, to create a new page with the (rather mild) page as it currently stands, and ask for the original page to be deleted. Also, change the name from "AdminWatch" to something more constructive. Then a new discussion can be had about the new page if such a discussion is needed. It might also be worth comparing with User:Tony1/AdminReview for an example of an attempt at something similar. For an example of an essay on the subject, see User:Friday/Admin abuse. There are plenty of similar essays, and there should be potential here for Surturz to be allowed in good-faith to repurpose a new page as an essay or suggested system (after asking for this one to be deleted). more examples are User:Badbilltucker/Admin Oversight Board, User:Mccready/Abuse of admin privileges (probably needs deleting), and User:Silverback/Alleged admin culture of abuse and tolerance of abuse. There are probably more. Quite why no-one else bothered to take the time to look for those, I'm not sure. Probably because this was more about one specific editor being annoying, rather than trying to address a systemic issue. Carcharoth (talk) 15:45, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Surturz did say that he would U1 this page and start another one in the DRV discussion. That would have been better I think. 16:04, 7 August 2011 (UTC)Elen of the Roads (talk)

I'm not sure how similar your diffs are, Carcharoth. The first two contain no diffs or names, but would have been structured processes to review admins. I'm guessing these would have duplicated RFCU, but that's not the point; they aren't similar to this page. The third one I would have deleted on sight, and the last has been blanked. Both are years old and could have been deleted under UP#POLEMIC. I'm not sure how good these pages are as comparisons either – both are ancient and have been seen rarely. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 19:28, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

• Delete without prejudice to the owner to create something that is actually useful, per Carcharoth. So far, what is listed is Surturz disagreeing (twice) with a decision he's also arguing about at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User_talk:Timeshift9.23Your_userpage_2. The question is once the links have gone out of date, what the hell is the point he's making other than that he disagrees with the community at the MfD, and he disagrees with the community at the Drv, and he disagrees with the community at ANI. I could keep a long list of instances where I've disagreed with another admin - the only significant ones are where I think they are actually out of order enough to propose some action. Elen of the Roads (talk) 16:03, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
• Hypothetical if a user were to maintain, in their user space a chronological list of diffs, with no commentary positive or negative (and not just of administrative actions) would that be considered polemic by the editorship at large? What if it was apparently just a list of edits that editor found particularly suggestive or enlightening for their own benefit? What if the user was recording a long term trend at AFD or CSD or RFP that they believe needs community wide attention? Huggle has the option to record CSD nominations on a user sub-page... should this be considered an attack on all those editors that created non-notable or nonsense pages that needed deleting?

  On another note, the CSD that started this process, seems like it could almost violate the spirit of NPA and certainly crosses the line of WP:CIVIL (in this editors opinion)Crazynas ^t 16:17, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

  Well, I'd say that the list formatted this way wouldn't be much of a problem; but then it'd be of limited usefulness. I just don't understand why the editor cannot simply keep a private document with those diffs (with whatever annotation they feel makes it useful) somewhere not on-wiki? — Coren ^(talk) 20:16, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

  Just noting that I put this experiment into practice in my space, I invite any and all to comment on my procedures or methods.Crazynas ^t 08:04, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

• The current version of the page is not a shit list. If it's felt necessary to delete certain revisions in the page's history, then so be it, but I think we need to consider some principles here. It seems to me that although adminship is no big deal, admin actions can be a big deal; and administrators are elected. It follows that it's reasonable for users to keep track of administrative actions in areas of the encyclopaedia in which they are interested. Our admin corps is largely well-meaning, but there are children and self-confessed drug users among them, and good judgment can't be assumed; and it's easy to find claims made offsite that someone has access to administrator accounts, which claims shouldn't necessarily be accepted uncritically, but do bear watching. If the fact that someone's keeping a note of what you've done makes you uncomfortable, then you should ask yourself whether you're ashamed of what you've done.

  The other obvious principle is that if you're gathering evidence of administrative actions, keep a note of them offsite, not on Wikipedia. If your suspicions are justified, then it's extremely dumb to keep the evidence in a place where the admin in question can hide your own pages from you.—S Marshall T/C 19:38, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

• Delete. We have a dispute resolution process for people to follow if they have objections to administrator actions. Chick Bowen 19:41, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
• Delete A shit-list of complaints. Make a RfC or an actual complaint, then present it at the proper place. The community can then decide if there is a real problem or not. --Enric Naval (talk) 20:22, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

• keep we also permit people to complain about admin decisions on talk pages, or even make comments about the general behavior of particular admins. Thousands of editors have done so, and if they have not gotten satisfaction, most of them do keep their complaints on record. There are a dozen or so complaints about me on mine, including the archives , and a number of unfavorable comments on talk pages elsewhere. Why should this bother me? We have always considered having a reasonably thick skin a requirement of being an admin. There is a level of insult that is bothersome, & I've had a few revision deleted, and so have many others. None of the material here descends to that level. Why should it be any the worse if a few are collected together? More generally, there are two kinds of organizations--those that permit the open expression of criticism, and those that do not, or restrict it to narrow channels. Which one is Wikipedia? We're not a democracy exactly, because we do not make most decisions by majority rule in the simple sense, , but neither are we supposed to be a self-protecting bureaucracy. A bureaucracy that feels the need to protect itself from stuff like this is pretty feeble. DGG ( talk ) 20:29, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

  to be more specific, there are at present three admin actions complained of at the page, by Spartaz, by T. Canens, and by The ed17. I ask each of these admins whether they feel ashamed of the admin decision they made that are listed there? I doubt it very much--I think they would stand by them and make them again, and at least one of them have said so very strongly by bringing this MfD. Why it should bother an admin of his noted hardihood in making difficult but almost always correct admin decisions to have someone object to one of them is beyond my understanding. Myself, I would rather consider a complaint of this nature as a tribute to independent thinking, and link to it. DGG ( talk ) 20:36, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

• Keep obviously, per DGG. Whilst "some" people seem to think they're rather A1, M1 or Route 66 special, the rest of us would need an 'ell of 'n reason to be so self satisified and sanctimonious. Honest critique should not be withheld. Pedro :  Chat  20:43, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
• I told you so! Actually I don't feel too strongly about keeping this, and I recognize that it is likely to be deleted, but there is something that I feel that I absolutely have to point out. Please look back at Wikipedia:Community de-adminship/RfC. Over and over again, and again and again, users insisted, absolutely insisted, that proponents of that proposal had, absolutely had, to name names, to give specific examples, complete with names, of administrators who would be likely candidates for recall. We should never approve a policy for admin recall unless the proposers can show evidence that recall would be needed!!! Give examples!!! I repeatedly opposed doing so, on the grounds that it would be seen as an attack. Well, well, well, look at what is going on here. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:37, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

• But there were no examples on this page suggesting a candidate who could be recalled. There was material that argued for a submission to WP:DRV. Admin complaints should be made on the admin's talk page, or at DRV, or AN or AN/I, or even RCF/U. Places where the problem will be seen and dealt with. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:54, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Are you saying that you would keep this page if it did say that certain admins should be recalled? Somehow, I think not. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:09, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Tryptofish, I would recommend that material be moved to a better forum. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:22, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

OK, I'm starting to realize that we were misunderstanding one another. As I was trying to say, I don't feel strongly about this deletion discussion, so I have no quarrel with what you say about a better forum. Where I do have a quarrel (not necessarily with you, however) is with anyone who wants to delete here, but who previously demanded an evidence page that would have looked somewhat like this one. It's hypocritical to try to have it both ways. I want to point out that hypocrisy. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:48, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

And what to do if it is taken to these places, and they say, this is insufficient, or we don't see the problem? -- Avanu (talk) 22:58, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

If it is taken to these places, and they say, this is insufficient, or we don't see the problem? Well, it has then been read, addressed, and will be archived in a central location. From there, it can be raised again in future as evidence of a continuing pattern, if the problem continues. Also, behaviours change following a polite point being made. Explicit agreement to the point being needed. The practice of saving face is alive and well. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:20, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Comment - Suppose ex-President Bush came along and said, "hey Wikipedia, I need y'all to delete some of them not so kind things you said about me, about them wars." If Wikipedia operated its articles, like we are suggesting here, a lot of people would quickly have it all scrubbed from Wikipedia in short order. But in real life, why wouldn't we do that? -- Avanu (talk) 22:58, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Give me the liberty to know, to utter, and to argue freely according to conscience, above all liberties. -- John Milton -- Avanu (talk) 22:58, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

G-d, you do talk some bolloques, you know that (Avanu, no Milton, that is). I get Full House the minute you mention the Nazis. Haven't you figured yet that this isn't about admin recall, or keeping admins in order, or any such noble cause. It's because Surturz disagreed with a decision to delete someone else's userspace page, disagreed with the closing admin at the AfD, disagreed with the closing admin at the DRV and is still disagreeing with everyone at ANI. I thought when I first talked to him that he had a serious point, but this is just a classic whinger's shitlist, collecting not bad decisions but just decisions he disagrees with. Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:20, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

I realize that completely, Elen, but I worry more about an editor who really has a legitimate complaint and is shut down by the same kinds of attitudes we see here. I don't think anyone has a lot to worry about from Surturz' list, and that's what is so surprising. It is about as mild as can be, and yet there is so much emotional opposition to it. Whether you agree with him or not, you should be willing to defend his right to say it. Not because he is right, but because freedom to criticize governance is fundamental. -- Avanu (talk) 23:55, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

• Keep If these decision were really so obvious, the user is making an idiot of himself, which is his right. If they are not obvious, it's a good record to keep. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 23:23, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

• Strong keep. I see it as a freedom of speech issue, primarily, and important as a check on potential abuse by administrators. A user page to criticize past admin actions seems perfectly reasonable, because it can help notify the community about errant admins (there are a few) who can wreck the place for the rest of us non-admins. Criticism helps us all improve, and while it can be caustic at times, the overall result is beneficial. It's the messiness of democracy and is needed.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 00:14, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

  With regards to your first comment, please see Wikipedia:Free speech. Robofish (talk) 01:08, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

  • !Free-speech then. It's not the rights of the individual, it's just what sort of speech-chilling would do to the health of the project. elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (be free) 01:14, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Robofish, the no 'Free Speech' on Wikipedia essay isn't applicable here. We all agree that the Wikimedia Foundation is the final arbiter of what speech is allowed on Wikipedia. But the debate here today isn't about that, is it? Its about whether administrators can tell you, "this is attacking me, delete it", if you record actions of theirs that you disagree with. Wikipedia:Civility says "Respect and be polite to your fellow Wikipedians, even when you disagree. Apply Wikipedia etiquette, and avoid personal attacks." Yet, a substantial number of you immediately characterize *any* written record of an admin's wrong actions as a "shitlist". This could not be farther from the intent of the Civility pillar. -- Avanu (talk) 01:31, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

• Strong Delete - this is a plain bad idea. A user should not be keeping a list of admin actions he disapproves of or bears a grudge against in his userspace. A general 'Admin actions noticeboard', where users can raise complaints about administrator actions, might be appropriate - but this is not that page. (And it would probably be redundant to WP:ANI anyway.) Robofish (talk) 01:07, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

I've addressed why this idea is misguided, if you ctrl-F my comment on a chilling effect. I disagree that every complaint should go on some sort of noticeboard or on the admin's talk page. Perhaps it's not the personality of the user with private grievances to be so in-your-face confrontational. What's wrong with it being gradually worked out through other means? The argument of you can raise it in the appropriate forums is bunk; with every forum you shut down, the more inconvenient and "chilled" concern-raising becomes. elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (be free) 01:14, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

What is the point of a page like this if there is no attempt to resolve a dispute? How is this serving as a forum for positive change if it's merely a "private" list of gripes? Expressing frustration without attempting to actually fix the problem does nothing to improve the encyclopedia, which is what we're here to do. Parsecboy (talk) 01:49, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

For one thing, it allowed Surturz to get it 'off his chest'. Not everyone wants to be directly confrontational, and allowing people to work through things is a part of conflict also. Demanding a resolution on our own terms is often not helpful. I had many arguments in the past with my now-ex-wife regarding this very thing. I thought by pressing for quick resolution, we would both be helped, and in the end, giving time to work things out, communicating patiently, listening, are pretty darn useful in resolving conflict.

So, I would disagree that it "does nothing to improve the encyclopedia". Surturz is on record as saying he never expected anyone else to look at this. Yet a zealous act by an admin pushed this into a big debate. A little communication goes a long way, and patience does even more than that. -- Avanu (talk) 02:00, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

There are a number of problems here. There are better, more constructive (or at least less damaging) alternatives to get things off one's chest than this. Moreover, that's not what Wikipedia is here for. If he doesn't want people to see these things, then he shouldn't post them on Wikipedia. Perhaps you're familiar with the bit of text below the editing box that states "If you do not want your writing to be edited, used, and redistributed at will, then do not submit it here."? As for the benefits of direct communication, as far as I can tell, Surturz has made no real effort to resolve the underlying problem (the deletion of Timeshift9's userpage) with any of the involved admins apart from this thread in May. Parsecboy (talk) 02:29, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

How is it damaging or unconstructive to have a personal record of things? People keep diaries and we haven't outlawed those yet because of how 'damaging' they are. It simply gives some people who prefer that method, a way to have an outlet. Surturz made no attempt to propagate this page to others, and has made several gestures toward resolving this in the DRV and on Elen's talk page. One size doesn't fit all, and the idea that Wikipedia is not here to resolve conflict (that's what this page was for), when Civility is a pillar, doesn't wash. -- Avanu (talk) 02:42, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Sure, this isn't the "best way" of addressing the problem, and it had a very rocky start, but suppressing recognition of the problem by deleting it shows that there is no will to even try and addresss the issue. A good solution to the lack of trust by many users for the admin corps would be the "best way", but, y'know, WP:Bellybutton. As it is, people gathering information, in a civil and calm fashion, on the problem, is potentially part of the solution. As Tryptofish pointed out, this kind of information was explicitly requested in previous discussions about solutions to the issue. SDY (talk) 02:49, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Robofish, that would imply that people who are suspicious of and frustrated with the admins would go to the admins for help. That doesn't really make sense. That's the problem that the page in question explicitly addresses: the admin corps does not effectively self-regulate, so your "expected action" doesn't address the problem that users are raising: there is no oversight of the bureaucracy that doesn't rely on the exact same bureaucracy. SDY (talk) 02:04, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

• Conditional Keep I expect that the creator will periodically remove these incidents after a reasonable amount of time has passed (say, a year), because there is no need to keep a long-standing mistake record, especially for newer admins who make mistakes like everybody else here has. That being said, the creator of the page seems well-versed in policy and has been here since 2006. The current page contains examples with reasonable questioning of administrative actions (NOT administrators specifically), and does not appear to contain personal attacks when describing the action in question. DGG says that this page shouldn't harm administrators who can defend their choices. And if an administrator can't defend their decisions, it is information like this that becomes very useful for rightfully stripping those individuals of their authority. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 02:02, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
• Delete - Userspace isn't for whiny BAWWWfests against editors we have beefs with. Tarc (talk) 02:18, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Could you explain how the current (or past) page meets the definition of a 'whiny BAWWWfest'? This is a term that seems a bit hard to define. -- Avanu (talk) 02:23, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

I think I have read enough of your pedantic badgering of nearly everyone above who has called for deletion and have little desire to feed the fire any further. It is not hard to figure out what my comment means. Tarc (talk) 04:03, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm hardly being pedantic when I ask for us to act like reasonable people and exercise judgement here. When I see this degrade immediately into loaded terms like "shitlist" and see editors like you calling this a "whiny BAWWWfest", I know this isn't being decided on its merits, but on emotion. Is that the standard for admins? I think emotion has a place in decisions, but at the forefront of a decision? Hardly. Those of you who are reacting this way should consider why. -- Avanu (talk) 04:42, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

• AUTHOR REQUEST - I've given up any hope of the page surviving, but could someone please tell me why WP:ADMINACCT does not apply? The page only looks at admins editing with their admin hats on. --Surturz (talk) 03:46, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Sure, it says that admins are supposed to be accountable to the community in the use of the administrator tools. It does not say anything about individual people maintaining lists of administrator actions they disagree with. Administrators are held accountable by bringing up discussions of their actions in public fora like WP:ANI. --Jayron32 03:50, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
    • Quoting WP:ADMINACCT: "Subject only to the bounds of civility, avoiding personal attacks, and reasonable good faith, editors are free to question or to criticize administrator actions.". I feel that my AdminWatch page (in its current form) criticises admin actions in a civil, impersonal way, and I think as a long time editor with a good record I am entitled to the assumption of good faith. Where in WP:ADMINACCT does it say that criticism of admin actions is limited to particular venues, or that such criticism must be temporary in nature? Am I really "free to criticise" if my criticisms are thus circumscribed? --Surturz (talk) 04:23, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
      • I think any common-sense interpretation of "free to question" does mean in the various dispute resolution and AN/ANI types of venues. It doe snot give one a free card to mount a one-man-show in user-space. Imagine you're in a neighborhood and you have a dispute with people living around you. Do you a) erect a billboard in your front yard naming and shaming these people or b) litigate and allow a 3rd party to judge the dispute? Tarc (talk) 04:27, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Common sense also means we don't compare a userspace subpage to a "billboard in your front yard", Tarc. -- Avanu (talk) 04:35, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

• It says "Subject only to" WP:CIVIL, WP:NPA, and WP:AGF, I am allowed to criticise admin actions (emphasis mine). In its current form, which of these three policies does the page violate? --Surturz (talk) 04:48, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
• I find the analogy to be quite fitting. If someone has a conflict with an editor, they can either take steps to resolve it or take steps that will aggravate. A billboard or a userspace shitlist will aggravate. Not hard to understand. Tarc (talk) 04:53, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Despite your negative characterizations of "shitlist" or "billboard", many of the editors here don't agree that it is either. Is there a non-subjective determinant we could use, instead of just emotionally-laden language? -- Avanu (talk) 05:02, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Sure, everytime your eyes read the letters "shitlist", make your brain understand the phrase "list of actions the creator of the list disagrees with". --Jayron32 05:06, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Why not make your hands type "List of disagreements" instead of the loaded word? Civility is something we're supposed to be striving for, but in this debate, I've seen a lot of examples where we could be doing a lot better. Why is this issue so intensely personal for some editors? Wouldn't the Wikipedia crowd generally like freedom of thought and pen? -- Avanu (talk) 05:11, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Your characterization of what "many editors" feel about the subject does not seem to match the reality of how this MfD is trending. As for civility, that would be fine and dandy if I believed the list was created in good faith (protip: it wasn't). It is a shit list, literally and figuratively. Tarc (talk) 05:51, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Sorry for using the word 'many' to describe 13 people. I should have said a baker's dozen. 26 people have said to delete it, and for me the issue isn't this guy's article, but whether editors can legitimately criticize admins is a serious consideration, and should be something we protect, rather than assault. -- Avanu (talk) 06:01, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Avanu, your diligence does you credit, but have you not yet figured out that the door you are trying to open could also allow admins to keep such lists of non-admins? That is not a route I'd like to see us go down. Ben MacDui 08:45, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Already exists; it's called a block log. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 08:54, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Oof. I think that calls for a rimshot. Tarc (talk) 12:31, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Gee Tarc, I suspect there are a shitload of essays, pages, posts which purport to be honest discussions of the wrongs of wikipedia, but have some instance where the original author's nose was put out of joint by some slight or other - this one is more transparent than most. Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:30, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Or an admin's nose was "put out of joint by some slight or other"? The difference is: admins can delete articles; non-admins can't. So if there is a disagreement, the non-admin is at a huge disadvantage. And I think it would be hard for anybody to separate wheat from chaff, to separate out constructive speech from nonconstructive speech. Under the principles of John Stuart Mill in his book On Liberty, we can not censor out only the bad speech without endangering it entirely. And I see criticism, while difficult, as being necessary for free discussion, and that the ability to delete pages or block users, or threaten to do so, stifles that discussion and injures the entire community.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 15:43, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

For an admin deleting stuff and blocking users out of spite then there are certainly existing mechanisms to deal with such. Arbcom desysops quite easily these days. Deleting, blocking or threatening the same whilst involved is taken quite seriously. These sort of discussions usually end up with the fallcious view that all admins inherently support each other, and all non-admins the same. That's simply not true, as can probably be seen merely within this debate. The instances documented by the page up for deletion have has many eyes on them, admin and non-admin alike, the great drama and conspiracy behind the admin actions, however is only (as always) seen by a very small number. This has little or nothing to do with admin accountability. RFCs, Arbcom, Deletion Review, the numerous noticeboards these all exist to review outcomes and consist of a broad review by a broad range of editors, admin and non-admin - that's where the accountability is found. If anyone believes those mechanisms are inadequate, then fix those mechanisms. If you don't believe those mechanisms can be fixed, then pages like this are a lost cause anyway... --82.19.4.7 (talk) 16:44, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

@Tarc. Sorry to be delayed by the cricket old bean, but I don't follow your banter - what's a "rimshot"? No matter, the point I was making is that (as is surely obvious) admins don't keep user pages tabulating the names and activities of other users they are considering sanctioning or proposing for sanction in future. Ben MacDui 17:49, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Here in the US, a rimshot occurs in basketball when the ball goes right into the basket, thus, sort of like, "well done". There's also an X-rated meaning that I'll leave you to Google. As for what it means in this discussion, I'll leave that too. And please don't even try to explain cricket to me. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:01, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

It was neither of those, actually; see sting (percussion). Tarc (talk) 20:52, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Which just goes to demonstrate my lack of aptitude for either athletics or music. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:19, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

• Delete, according to tons of reasons above. I don't see why should there be such a whining tone (sorry for da language) propagating an editor's view about failed consensus with admins, where there's multiple channels that could-of been taken if he got legit reasoning. Anyways, I've seen others taking such pages seriously, so deletion would be best, IMO. Also, there's other places to ask questions after this MfD is resolved. I'd wish that this statement includes all of the editor's pages: " If you see something here that annoys you, just remove it," but the community will decide anyways. Good luck... ~ AdvertAdam ^talk 05:17, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

• Delete. WP:UP#POLEMIC prohibits "material ... including the recording of perceived flaws". WP:ADMINACCT does not apply because it does not speak to the collection of material in userspace and because the retention of this page is not needed to hold admins accountable as envisaged by that policy: such material can also be collected privately offwiki, as suggested by WP:UP also: "Users should generally not maintain in public view negative information related to others without very good reason. Negative evidence, laundry lists of wrongs, collations of diffs and criticisms related to problems, etc., should be removed, blanked, or kept privately (i.e., not on the wiki) if they will not be imminently used, and the same once no longer needed."  Sandstein  05:18, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
• Delete This laundry list of grudges is best kept off-wiki. Mathsci (talk) 05:39, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
• Delete I'm afraid this just isn't what wikipedia user pages are for. If an admin makes a questionable decision, you take it up with that admin, or with another (neutral) admin, or at the admin's noticeboard - or even through Arbcom. If Surturz would is making a page to collect links for a planned action (eg RfC, ANI or Arbcom) I'd happily switch my decision, but this appears to be information held just in case. That should not be done on wiki. Worm^TT · (talk) 11:40, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Popcorn for everybody during this debate.

• Undecided and munching popcorn with feet on movie seats Interesting scenario, no doubt flavoured by one's bigger picture of admins and power differential on wikipedia really. This then gives weight onto the ideal levels of freedom and control for optimum morale. Where does one draw the line between honest criticism (and stifling of same), and polemics or shitlists (and their justifiable removal)? For mine, this version I think veers just just within the border of 'criticism' and away from 'shitlist'...in fact I might cut-and-paste this over there. I do agree this page is not directly conducive to collaborative editing, but do worry about an environment where criticism isn't allowed - the admins are the ones with the power here to block and delete. Pages like these are not uncommon, and often contentious - here's another that is being squabbled over. But back to this one, the balance between contentiousness and free speech is a difficult one and leaves me on the fence. If I had to commit, I think I'd lean to keep by the slimmest of margins. Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:27, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
• Delete for a couple of reasons. First, it creates a significant chilling effect which prevents good admin actions from being done due to fear. Second, if this was any other list of editors (assuming that administrators are also editors and, hence, also part of the same WP community as the rest of the editors), would we react the same way as we would here? I would say 'no' – most would favor deletion of such a list. –MuZemike 17:22, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
• Delete We have several forums for addressing incorrect admin actions: AN/I, RfC, ArbCom. We also have the Wikipedia Review, where these sorts of lists are encouraged. Names or no names, such a list is inappropriate for userspace because it only creates a more hostile environment rather than attempting to solve the perceived underlying problem. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 17:36, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
• Keep. The page offers a valid and urgently needed perspective on administrative actions, and as edited seems to be allowable by policy. Deletion will only drive this kind of appropriate discussion off-wiki, and further enhance the image of administrators as a group as untouchable, unaccountable lifetime appointees who keep their positions no matter how poorly they handle their jobs. ScottyBerg (talk) 16:02, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

• Moved section of meta-discussion about this MFD to the talk page. I know they don't get used much for XFDs, but that's what they're for. --RL0919 (talk) 23:04, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

• Comment. Analysis of voting patterns -- admin vs non-admin -- can be found on the discussion page here.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 23:56, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
• Comment Repeated characterizations of the page as a "shit-list" seem inaccurate to me. The page has clearly been reformulated to focus on administrative decisions, not administrators themselves, and even includes a disclaimer explaining this purpose. It does not constitute some kind of personal attack or attack page because no administrator is disparaged or threatened at all. Therefore, the page doesn't show the editor failing to assume good faith or being civil because the comments are about actions, not individuals. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 08:18, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

• It doesn't stop being a shit-list just because it doesn't mention explicitly the names of the admins. --Enric Naval (talk) 11:08, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

• Then your definition of "shit-list" is absurd. Honestly, if you can't take this sort of criticism, how do you survive in real life? If this were a New Mexico pepper, people would drink it instead of eating it, because they'd mistake it for water. It started out with no heat and no spice, and now its somehow been taken down a notch more than that. The absurdity and stubborness of the definition you're pushing makes absolutely no sense in an encyclopedia that *is* supposed to be about Civility. Sometimes a friend simply needs to tell you 'how it is'; I get the impression you'd only like a friend who just tells you nothing is wrong. -- Avanu (talk) 11:33, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

• You are commenting as if you had no idea of the background to the creation of the page, and its obvious purpose. We all know it was intended to highlight actions that the creator thought were dumb—actions which either were or should have been discussed on a noticeboard. Editors should not attempt to circumvent collaboration at noticeboards by maintaining POINTY lists. Yes, life is tough and some decisions do not go the way one would like. Collaboration at noticeboards is difficult, but it would not be helped if we each start listing editors we think are dumb (disagreeing with an admin supported by consensus is implying that a whole lot of people are dumb: just make your case on the noticeboard and let it go at that). Johnuniq (talk) 11:47, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

• I checked on the background of why this page was created long ago. I think the initial discussion to delete that other guy's political ranty page was a waste of wiki-time. Why an admin bothered escapes me, because I know there are better things to do here. Kind of the same thing here, only amplified. These are userspace pages. 99% of the 'real world' doesn't care, and if it doesn't violate copyright or BLP, what's the problem? This isn't just a page spewing harsh rants, its pretty much nothing now. Yet we still have hard-nosed people saying its awful. The attitude on this is so antithetical to the ideas of civil society that it baffles me that enlightened people would support it, yet here we have proof that anything is possible. Like it or not, there is a legitimate place for complaints in a society, especially those that expose perceived problems with governance. I've yet to see anyone actually provide examples of what a legitimate personal admin accountability list should look like, yet as Surturz said, it is an expectation on the part of an admin that they will be accountable. I see a lot of people pre-judging the list by calling it "shit", yet when asked to reveal the "shit", they won't. We have predictions of doom and the fall of Wikipedia as we know it if we allow people to keep a list of complaints, but no proof anywhere to support that. I guess we just run by gut feeling now. -- Avanu (talk) 12:02, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) If would be different if this was, for example, a project to examine systemic bias in deletion discussions. For a start, it would have a clearer criteria for inclusion in the list (apart from "the admin was mistaken"), it would have thematic sections like, for example, "deletions where there were more keeps than deletes", "deletions of userpages on the basis of WP:SOAPBOX", which would allow other editors to add new items or work on the existing ones. They would be used to pinpoint specific problems with AfD/MfD/etc and suggest solutions. The current focus of this page is all wrong, and we might as well rip it all off and start from scratch. Re-working the current page would require a complete rewriting and re-focusing. I don't know User:Surturz and I don't know if he could pull it off. I have seen people saving pages in extremis thanks to massive rewrites. This page still has to be rewritten in such a manner. Again, just removing the names won't do it. --Enric Naval (talk) 12:22, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

• I'd support something like this - there's something distinctly wrong about holding a list of actions which one user has arbitrarily decided is wrong for an indefinite period of time. If there was clear criteria, which could be added to - then discussion could be held regarding whether the criteria is an incorrect use of admin tools. What's more, I think that for some of these criteria suggested, a script could search for past occurances - so we can see actual trends. I'm all for data being used for a purpose - I just think the page as it is is not acceptable. Worm^TT · (talk) 12:32, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

• Delete This page serves no constructive or useful purpose. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:40, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

• Delete, no constructive purpose. Stifle (talk) 12:40, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
• Delete, I don't usually use profanity on wikipedia. However anyway you look at this the page in question is a shit list and serves no constructive purpose. If the page creator feels he needs to keep a shit list on admin actions surly he can save them on his own computer hard drive. This shit list should have no place on wikipedia at all(Ruth-2013 (talk) 14:43, 10 August 2011 (UTC))

I don't get all the "shit list" attacks on this page. That's just not an accurate description of the article in its current incarnation. ScottyBerg (talk) 14:46, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

What still make this a shit list is the pages intent plus it is very easy to find the usernames that the user removed via checking the pages history. Instead of creating a page or shit list if someone has an issue with an admin action it would be better to have a quiet word with said admin instead of creating a shit list(Ruth-2013 (talk) 14:52, 10 August 2011 (UTC))

Yes, one can easily surmise the names of the administrators involved. So what? Are administrative actions so sacrosanct that it is forbidden to criticize them? These are not personal attacks by any stretch of the imagination. Nor are they the kind of things that can be resolved by having a "quiet word with said admin." There was some merit in the initial criticism, but the page as currently designed is innocuous. It's bad enough that administrators have lifetime appointments. Now we're going to censor even gentle criticism of their actions? ScottyBerg (talk) 14:59, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

I disagree, admins have earned the user right here and its not fair what so ever to criticize them what so ever. They deserve respect for the tough job they do around here. And they do not need shit lists which is the way I see this page and that won't change made on there actions. There is plenty of admins on here so if you really really can not sort the issue out with said admin its very possible to ask for a second set of eyes from another admin so this shit list is not warranted in my opinion so my vote on this is going to remain as a strong delete. (Ruth-2013 (talk) 15:07, 10 August 2011 (UTC))

But you see, the system is set up so that administrative actions are given deference, and reversing them by other administrators is discouraged (correctly, in my opinion), as wheel-warring. I couldn't disagree more with your statement that "its not fair what so ever to criticize them what so ever." But that seems to be the mindset behind the effort to delete this page. ScottyBerg (talk) 15:12, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

I don't agree with these statements:

I disagree, admins have earned the user right here and its not fair what so ever to criticize them what so ever. They deserve respect for the tough job they do around here.

It is certainly fair to criticize their decisions. It always been not just allowed, but we are encouraged to comment on the contributions of editors. While I agree that admins should generally be respected, they also deserve accountability. The editor is not attributing any "harmful motives" to any administrator through this page. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 15:22, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Ruth, admins are editors who have earned trust with the 'tools'. While I don't think any editor should have a 'wall of shame' about another editor, documentation of percieved violations of that trust when using 'tools', seems, in this editor's opinion, to be proper and useful to the continuance of the encyclopedia. Your statement above leads one to question whether adminship is about trust, or whether it is a step below beatification on one's way to sainthood. -- Avanu (talk) 15:29, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

I think we're slighting out-of-the topic here, which I assume is mainly about accountability more than criticism. Your actions, which I personally call protests, against admins is all over the ANI, just like your last test-of-reaction while hiding your sig two times. We don't need to bring you a list of admins who lost their tools to show you how they're accountable, but your claim would-of been taken seriously if it was legit. I don't care about your personal opinions about admins, but I've seen alot of newbies that take these shitlists seriously and are being scared to debate with admins. ~ AdvertAdam ^talk 16:16, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Adamrce, it wasn't *my* claim. That's why I didn't feel it was worth my sig on it. Given the number of people in this debate who say it would be dealt with if it were just 'in the right forum', I decided to test the validity of that. It was proven quite clear that not even a perfunctory review was done of the complaints. When I read a comment that is completely dismissive or ignores the concerns of many in the community, I have to say it incenses me a bit. This isn't about pointless criticism, it is about a relationship of trust. I've not seen the newbies scared of admins that you refer to, but I would take the opportunity to address that and whatever concerns make them afraid. Adamrce, the problem is that some people seem to see 'documentation for accountability' = 'criticism' = 'shitlist', when rather we just need to learn to differentiate better and be more encouraging when we see something, rather than becoming rules-jerks. -- Avanu (talk) 16:29, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

You appear to have not read what I said above, so I'll copy and paste it here for you: "Avanu, I would think it is obvious that your experience at the noticeboard was markedly different than the norm because you simply copied in a page that is currently in a deletion discussion. If it was not, I hope you realize it now." There was no "perfunctory review" because the page is currently being debated here. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 16:58, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Ed, is the substance of the 'grievances' being debated, or simply whether the page should exist? That's the difference. We're not looking at whether the substance of his arguments have merit, we're deciding whether it definitionally is a 'shitlist' or not. AN/I is not a deletion discussion. -- Avanu (talk) 17:09, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes, but an experienced editor like yourself should know that opening a separate discussion like that is going to be seen as raising the same issue on multiple pages. Feel free to raise your concerns on ANI after this has concluded. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]}

And a more experienced editor like you should know that AN/I and AfDs are not for the same purposes. -- Avanu (talk) 17:51, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Agree, and it was mentioned on the ANI before closure. Anyways, the ANI is about the community's opinion, not the claimer's satisfaction. ~ AdvertAdam ^talk

Sorry for unintentionally causing this MfD to go a-little out-of-topic; a WikiWizard can do better than that :p. Many opinions had been posted, so whoever sees his decision changing will change it. I think we should just keep the "shitlist" and "rule-jerks" terms aside, if possible, and wait for additional opinions. ~ AdvertAdam ^talk 17:55, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

• keep - not your problem William M. Connolley (talk) 18:46, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Not sure I understand how this advances an argument for keeping the page. Could you explain a little further? I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 19:25, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Certainly: just ignore the page, like everyone else should. Everyone who has anything useful to do, that is William M. Connolley (talk) 21:56, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

• Delete per Jayron32 (who commendably and persuasively argued for deletion on the grounds that the page itself is damaging to the project, rather than relying on naked policy and precedent) and Fetchcomms (who points out the existing venues for user conduct dispute resolution). causa sui (talk) 20:02, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
• Delete This seems to my eyes to be a way to dispute decisions that the editor disagrees with, but with no real criteria. For example, the page was originally deleted as an attack page without warning or consensus (which, if it was an attack page would certainly have been the correct way) - that is listed as an abuse - it was taken to DRV, and overturned to be brought here. However, as can be seen here as well, it is arguably an attack page. I'd say that the speedy deletion was within an admin's discretion as an attack page and attack pages are deleted without warning or consensus. The disclaimer on the page states that it is to show actions by admins where an admin has abused the tools to gain an advantage in a dispute in which they are involved - and yet I do not see any examples of this: where have any of these admins used the tools in that way? Or in the 'spirit of Wikipedia:Administrators' which is what this is supposed to be showing abuses of: how were any of the closing admins for the MfD/DRVs involved prior to their closing?

While I am in favour of accountability, I see no evidence that the editor bothered to discuss their issues with the admins named, or attempt dispute resolution, let alone to consider an RfC/U. I note that at least the editor isn't naming an admin who might nominate a page for deletion!

If I was to keep a list of actions by an editor that I thought were wrong, it'd quite rightly be deleted - I feel that the same standard should be applied here.

As an admin, I expect to be contacted about a closure/deletion which another editor disagrees with. I will explain my action (often in considerable detail) and why I believe it to still be the correct decision, if that is the case - and if the editor still feels I was incorrect, I will refer them to DRV. If, however, I feel that the decision I made was incorrect (and it does happen, I am human after all!) then I will either undelete or amend my closure as necessary. I would object strongly to such an editor listing my action on a "bad admin actions" list if they could not be bothered to try to communicate with me and hear my opinion/thoughts. We have procedures in place for dealing with this kind of thing (discussing with the admin, deletion review, admin noticeboards, Requests for Comment/User, Dispute resolution, etc) - user space should not be used instead of these (although if there was an intention to go for an RfC/U for example, this should be noted and the page could be used as 'notes' for that - although that would be about the admin actions of one admin, not single actions by several different admins, which is what this page seems to be for)

I didn't expect to say quite so much here - but I feel that this user is not even considering using the procedures set up for problems, and instead want to list decisions which they disagree with and call them "bad admin actions" - and that is not accountability but a personal attack on those admins as far as I can see PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 22:49, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Phantomsteve, I want to first acknowledge that your tone and the thoroughness of your argument are excellent examples of a good contribution to a deletion discussion. However, regarding the specific comment: "If I was to keep a list of actions by an editor that I thought were wrong, it'd quite rightly be deleted - I feel that the same standard should be applied here."

I've heard several people use that argument now, as if that legitimizes deletion of Surturz' list. Here's the logical problem. Are we criticizing the editor, or the way 'tools' were used? If we're criticizing the editor, then yes, anyone in Wikipedia would be open to 'attack'. However, if it is the 'improper' use of 'tools', then it *only* applies to those who have access to 'tools', right? And that means admins. I think that distinction is being misunderstood often in this discussion.

Also, while I agree editors should seek to talk to one another if they have issues, that expectation presumes that the comfort level of each person is the same, and the way they deal with conflict is the same. I could easily see an example where a person has to let themselves process a difficult decision for a while before they can properly deal with the person who made that decision. Part of this process could include writing a personal note to help them think things through and remember. Surturz is on record as saying he never expected anyone else to read this, yet a zealous admin decided to delete it without talking to him first. If we're going to have an expectation of editors coming forward and talking things over with admins, we certainly should expect at least that same level of communication back. -- Avanu (talk) 00:31, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

• Couple more points: (1) Avanu asks for an example of"a legitimate personal admin accountability list" - the usual examples are ones where admins set up pages in their userspaces to review or track their own admin actions. It's not very common, but some admins do, I think, do that, or try to do that. Also, some admins submit themselves to an "Editor review"-style review of their admin actions. (2) The number of times the phrases "shitlist" (17) and "shit list" (21) and "shit-list" (7) have been used on this page (including my uses of the terms) currently stands at 45. All together now, everyone say "shit list" 45 times, sorry, that's now 46 times. I agree that it would be better to find another, even more catchy, phrase to use. Carcharoth (talk) 23:30, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

• Do something else. There is a perennial concern, held particularly strongly by some, about how to hold admins to account. It's a concern admins also have, to varying degrees, although wearing or having worn the hat does give a different perspective on how hard it is to consistently do the Right Thing in everyone's eyes when views of the Right Thing vary a lot. Anyway, it might be reasonable to try to create a WikiProject around the issue of improving Wikipedia's policy enforcement and dispute resolution (which would include admin accountability, arbcom, etc etc), as a way for those who are particularly interested to discuss issues arising in a focussed way that might actually lead to improvements (see also Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Dispute resolution). There might also be scope in that project for collaboratively identifying issues with particular admins and following that up with appropriate dialogue and if necessary dispute resolution. Userspace is not for this kind of thing; userspace pages in this area should be for specific dispute resolution purposes, which this particular page doesn't seem to be. Rd232 ^talk 11:44, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
• Delete For the many good reasons stated above and in prior similar discussions. MBisanz ^talk 14:21, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
• Delete does nothing but show all the times this user coulda, woulda, shoulda used some dispute resolution mechanism but didn't. Holding accountable and holding a grudge are vastly different things; this page shows the latter. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:49, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
• Keep - I looked at the history, and believe that as it stands currently, it is but a list of unnamed actions that have been considered by Surturz as against policy. The links on the page seem more along the lines of "something that possibly could be considered controversial that I'm taking note of", rather than "a recording of perceived flaws", and as such I am not convinced by the 'Delete - WP:UP#POLEMIC's. We can just ignore the page. And per DGG. --Σ _{^talkcontribs} 22:17, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
• Keep. Before I'd delete anything as an attack page, I'd expect it to contain an intemperate attack on somebody or something. I didn't see anything in the history that remotely counts. I don't see anything there now that remotely counts. Etiquette was broken; an apology was made, and the page revised: amen and alleluia. As an admin since 2005, I've learned to always act as if what you do might be challenged. The bulk of what many of us do as admins involves telling people their contributions were inappropriate. I don't think we should delete a userpage for this reason for fear of what might be added to it someday. Let's grow a hide, eh? - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 04:18, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Keep: Page serves a valid purpose in forwarding a view that is, in my view, entirely reasonable: that people should be able to be held accountable for their actions. The page no longer singles out individual editors, but rather highlights a systematic flaw in Wikipedia's workings. Buddy432 (talk) 05:11, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

• Except that it doesn't show any systematic flaws. It highlights specific cases where the author disagrees with the outcome. Unless your view of systematic flaw with wikipedia is anything the author of that page disagrees with. Of course in the first case there the fact that a requested review did overturn the original action is arguably demonstrating that review is available and does work (rather than being unavailable or a forgone conclusion that everyone will back an admin) --82.19.4.7 (talk) 21:29, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
  • I agree. There are better ways to parse the log of admin actions than individuals keeping notes in their userspace. Those interested should look at Wikipedia:Database reports, which may have some logs of overturned admin actions, or could have those added if anyone wanted to request that. Though I see that Wikipedia:Database reports/Atypical deletion log actions is a report that has been disabled, there are logs there of long blocks and long protections, which gives members of the community the chance to focus on those if they want to do that, and can show if any one admin in particular is possibly overstepping particular boundaries. That is more for 'silent' actions though (ones that no-one else is watching). Where an admin action directly affects someone, the first port of call should be for that person to talk to that admin (and here, I do agree that talking to the editor first, before any admin actions were taken) might have helped). Carcharoth (talk) 05:08, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.