Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sysop Accountability Policy

"Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Sysop Accountability Policy" was proposed for deletion. This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was move to BJAODN (4 keep, 7 BJAODN, 7 delete). Rossami 22:26, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Although there seemed a wide opinion on the page that this was a speedy deletion candidate, I suspect it, in fact, will prove marginally more controversial than that and that it should probably at least go through VfD. Regardless, it is patent nonsense. Snowspinner 14:39, Jul 31, 2004 (UTC)

I have carefully read the history of that page. This is the summary:

July 4, 19:21 UTC: Lir writes a sensible policy proposal or at least a list of valid questions [1], adding the provocative vote option "Oppose: Sysops Are An Elite Cabal. They Are Above the Law." five minutes later.
18 minutes after the page is created, Snowspinner finds the page and instead of editing the voting option to a just "oppose", adds his vote for "Oppose: Sysops Are An Elite Cabal. They Are Above the Law." [2]
Over the next 10 minutes two more people join him [3], one of them obviously a purposely created sock puppet [4]
At 20:03 anthony votes under a separate (sensible) option [5]
At 20:04 morwen adds the "I haven't stopped beating my wife" option and votes there.
2 minutes later, Snowspinner adds his signature to that option, too. [6]
Over the next two hours the vote descends into a flamewar with more nonsense options being added [7].
It gets some attention over next two weeks and is then forgotten until Snowspinner brings it to VfD as "patent nonsense".

I will leave it to every editor to make conclusions for themselves. I have done what any sensible person would have done in the first place. I have restored the page to the original proposal and plain voting options. If you are interested vote and comment, but don't troll it. Zocky 21:39, 31 Jul 2004 (UTC)

The vote should not have been altered from Lir's original proposal, nor should votes be removed. As for why it laid forgotten for two weeks - there was some vague agreement to humor the vote while it went on. It's over now, it's a complete bust of a policy with hardly anyone supporting it, and it serves no further purpose. If, however, one insists on keeping it intact, it should be kept intact - not slashed to pieces with substantial discussion and votes removed. Aren't you the one who was arguing only recently against removing votes? Snowspinner 21:55, Jul 31, 2004 (UTC)

What was going on on that page was not a vote, it was a flamewar. Or should I count your votes for "Sysops Are An Elite Cabal. They Are Above the Law" and "I still haven't stopped beating my wife" as true expressions of your opinions? Zocky 01:23, 1 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Well, I suppose, strictly speaking, I haven't stopped beating my wife yet... Snowspinner 02:40, Aug 1, 2004 (UTC)

This was never a valid poll. There was no discussion and we never reached even an approximate agreement on what the options and questions should be. I do think there are a number of valid points (after all it's quite often that admins blatantly violate rules without being admonished), but I think this page only serves to detract from that point. We could revert back to the questions before the poll was made, but I think it's much better to start from scratch. Perhaps we should encourage people to remove their own ridiculous votes? anthony (see warning) 13:45, 1 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Keep, ~~but only barely~~ - there were a few interesting points raised in the discussion. It is also rather amusing, IMO. Perhaps move it over to a subpage of Wikipedia:Bad jokes and other deleted nonsense? Bryan 16:47, 31 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Keep: Why the interest in this? Sheesh. The Clean Up page is 8 miles long. Let's look for articles that fail notability and significance, rather than worrying about who likes whom. Geogre 17:08, 31 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Move to BJAODN. and ban lir already.... - UtherSRG 18:15, 31 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Delete or move to User:Lir/Sysop Accountability Policy. Don't ban lir, at least not for creating this. anthony (see warning) 20:08, 31 Jul 2004 (UTC)
~~Delete. Elf-friend 20:11, 31 Jul 2004 (UTC)~~ Changing my vote to keep. Elf-friend 13:19, 4 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Keep. WHAT!? If this is an ongoing vote, it shouldn't be deleted. If it's a concluded vote, it should be kept for reasons of transparency, and so the outcome can be referred to. Why delete it? Why the current mania of listing non-main namespace pages on VfD? This isn't the purpose of VfD, as pages out side of the main namespace do not detract from the encyclopedia. The fact that certain users chose not to treat this vote seriously does not mean it was not started with serious intent. -- orthogonal 20:24, 31 Jul 2004 (UTC)

The vote was never valid, having never been set up with any ending time. By this logic, any "ongoing vote" can go on for ever should they never bother to put an end time on the vote. Snowspinner 21:55, Jul 31, 2004 (UTC)

Snowspinner, when Zocky restored the page, you twice reverted it (emphasis mine).

20:42, 31 Jul 2004 Snowspinner (VfD is not Wikipedia:Pages needing attention. Furthermore, it is not acceptable to delete a large number of votes. Finally, discussion should occur on this page, not on VfD.)

16:44, 31 Jul 2004 Snowspinner (Reverted - the "elite cabal" phrasing was part of the original proposal, which is what led to the subsequent responses. Furthermore, unilaterally deleting votes is probably bad form. :))

Zocky didn't "restore" the page, he just deleted most of it. I can't see how that is in any way defensible for a voting page. If you or he think it needs a do-over with a less ridiculously worded question, go start a brand new one. Bryan 05:59, 1 Aug 2004 (UTC)

But you have listed the entire page for deletion. What zocky did preserved the old votes in the page's history (and he left an explicit link to that version of the page), but what you propose to do effectively drops the whole thing down the Memory Hole. Please explain how you can justify reverting the refactoring yet propose deleting the whole page. -- orthogonal 03:17, 1 Aug 2004 (UTC)

If the page is to remain, it should be treated as a vote and kept with the integrity of a vote. Snowspinner 03:50, Aug 1, 2004 (UTC)

"Regardless, it is patent nonsense. Snowspinner 14:39, Jul 31, 2004 (UTC)"

Snowspinner, you can't have it both ways. If the page is "patent nonsense" it has no integrity to keep. If it has integrity to keep, you are destroying that integrity by deleting the page.

Even worse, you were -- by definition -- trolling when you voted on that page that "Sysops are an elite cabal. They are above the law" and "I haven't stopped beating my wife yet". You certainly were not treating the page with the integrity a vote deserves; you were lampooning it, making a mockery of it, and mocking its author, presumably because it's considered "ok" on wikipedia to mock Lir, even though that mocking only escalates tensions.

Now you want the evidence of your trolling to be deleted, but when zocky tries to fix the page to make the vote no longer a mockery (and adds links showing how you and others mocked that vote), you revert him twice with the specious argument that you are, at long last, protecting the page's integrity. If the integrity had been important to you, you'd have acted to protect it when Lir first wrote it. If the page is "patent nonsense", let zocky fix it and stop reverting his efforts.

If, as I suspect, the page is an embarrassment to you because it shows you being a troll -- and at Lir's instigation, no less --, well then, be honest and take your lumps like a grown-up. -- orthogonal 08:39, 4 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Delete, and ban Lir. Rick K 22:13, Jul 31, 2004 (UTC)
Delete. Everyking 01:42, 1 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Delete. This poll was never meant to be taken seriously, given the wording of the option not favored by the poll's initiator. I suspect that Lir was merely trying to provoke a reaction, and it worked; but since no salient points were made in its discussion, it can be safely deleted. (Unless of course someone wants to save it to use as evidence against Lir in yet another request for administrative action, in which case it needs to be moved from Wikipedia namespace into a user's namespace.) If people really want to have a poll on the subject they should start a new one and link to it from this page; trying to turn this poll into a legitimate one won't work. -Sean Curtin 06:03, 1 Aug 2004 (UTC)
BJAODN. Please don't delete this completely. The "fnord fnord" poll cracks me up every time. Ambi 11:13, 1 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Keep or move but do not delete. I might decide to take this further when I return from holidays. Zocky 11:26, 1 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Move to some userpage somewhere. Maybe Zocky would be good enough to store it for a while. DannyBoy | Talk 20:19, 1 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Keep under BJAODN. It's nonsense, but not without humor value. Goobergunch 20:51, 1 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Delete - not a good joke or even a good bad joke. - Tεx τ urε 15:00, 2 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Delete. The page contains nothing useful. If people want a poll on this, they can do that on an existing talk page. There's no need for this to be cluttering up the Wikipedia namespace. Angela . 07:59, Aug 4, 2004 (UTC)
Send to BJAODN. —No-One Jones 17:08, 4 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Whatever you do, don't delete. BJAODN it, keep it, I don't care. It's damn funny. Johnleemk | Talk 14:44, 5 Aug 2004 (UTC)
BJAODN. cesarb 23:22, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like other '/delete' pages is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion or on the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.