Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sam Spade/Report rogue admin

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. 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 Speedied at author request

User:Sam Spade/Report rogue admin

[edit]

Personal attacks page. It wouldn't be so egregious, if it weren't for the fact that Jack is signing all of his postings with an enormous link to this page. RickK 23:38, May 28, 2005 (UTC) Jack has changed his signature, I hereby withdraw this VfD. RickK 05:13, May 29, 2005 (UTC)

  • Content deletion because user behavior How dare you Usnigned comment by 63.209.14.211
  • Delete. El_C 23:44, 28 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep user page, thesis inaccurate because there are no personal attacks on the page Click here to report admin abuse 23:44, 28 May 2005 (UTC)
    • By putting people on a page that is called "Report rougue admin" you are making a personal attack against them. gkhan 11:17, May 29, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. We've already got WP:RFC#Use of administrator privileges to report abuse of admin powers. This is an unnecessary fork. Mgm|(talk) 23:50, May 28, 2005 (UTC)
    • I think the fact that there is not a single entry on that page is rather telling. This is a badly needed fork. Click here to report admin abuse 23:51, 28 May 2005 (UTC)
    • I don't see how that tells anything but the fact you haven't posted these complaints there as you should. Mgm|(talk) 23:59, May 28, 2005 (UTC)
      • Mgm, Jack has no compelling evidence. Note how historically-vulgar his "evidence" was against myself. This is why he resorts to making such allegations on his user page rather than following policy and appropriate channels (of which he is well aware). A quick glance reveals that his evidence reflects more poorly on him rather than myself. His evidence on socialism: I withdrew out of the Socialism article because Jack used BS in an edit summary to revert my changes. (WP:Civility) [1] His evidence on User:Shonre: I recall the dust-up with Shorne quite well, and I remember that El C was a voice of reason even when things became quite heated. Mackensen (talk) 21:54, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)[2] Et cetera, etc. El_C 23:57, 28 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as is user page, like the detective agency page we voted to keep, and Sam should be allowed user spaces to work in. At least he is being open, and a Vfd won't stop him, but it will stop others monitoring him, SqueakBox 00:01, May 29, 2005 (UTC)
  • If those reports have any substance they should be posted on RFC and survive it. Like anyone else, Sam may use his userspace to work on such a report before posting, but here he's talking about several admins and he seems to have the intention to keep the edits there. Circumventing the official route shouldn't be allowed. Mgm|(talk) 00:09, May 29, 2005 (UTC)
    • Actually I am using that page as a staging ground for cases I am building, and the signiture to solicit help, as well as to learn about others who need my help. Click here to report admin abuse 00:15, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
  • In that case, I would like you to rewrite the introduction of the page to state its intentions more clearly. As they are now, it's completely incomprehensible to me. Secondly, I'd like to ask you to make the signature a bit smaller and maybe make it say just "Report admin abuse", so it's shorter and doesn't take as much space while still being quite visible. Keeping it a normal size and changing the color may attract just as much people and is less intrusive on others. Mgm|(talk) 00:23, May 29, 2005 (UTC)
    • Done. I am willing to accomodate reasonable requests, and to engage in constructive dialogue with those who assume good faith. Click here to report admin abuse 00:28, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. The dude has a chip on his shoulder, but so what? You can't censor user pages. If you think the guy is misusing his account, you can ask for sanctions. But it'd be a lot better if you tried to address his complaints. The sad truth is, he has a point -- some admins do not see community building as a priority, and are damned rude to users who question their actions. ----Isaac R 00:23, 29 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Abstain. While it is true that many users do keep 'evidence' pages in their user space, for example in preparation for possible ArbCom disputes, the way this page is structured ("Report Rogue admins below, and / or contribute specific cites of their policy violations"), and also advertised through the signature, circumvents the established process for dealing with complaints against admins. This is not an evidence page, it poses as WP:RFC. This may very well confuse newbies and others. I will change to abstain if Sam Spade's signature is changed to not link to this page. --bainer (talk) 00:26, 29 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete (and sanction user). 172 00:30, 29 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep if Sam promises to go back to using a sensible sig (linking to his normal user page and of normal font size), otherwise delete. — Chameleon 00:32, 29 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, unnecessary fork of RfC procedure. It is ok to have a space for preparation of evidence, but soliciting for abuses is ambulance chasing (imho) which (again imho) is not within the Wikipedia philosophy. Thryduulf 00:46, 29 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Following his removal of my report from the page [5] it is clear he is only interested in those administrators he has grievances against. Thryduulf 01:03, 29 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Of course he deleted it. The page is for reporting administrators who abuse their powers. If you feel admins are abused, you can go elsewhere. Mgm|(talk) 01:15, May 29, 2005 (UTC)
  • Agree with Chameleon. Is there any way we can just force a change of the sig? Xcali 00:58, 29 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
He's changed it voluntarily. It's done. See his user talk page for confirmation. --Silversmith 01:08, 29 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sam, would you be willing to change more text in the intro. Admins have more than job security, they have a mandate to abuse, harass and shame ordinary users and anons. and While they protect one another in the same fashion in which they bully others are generalizations which could well be considered an personal attack against all admins. Mgm|(talk) 01:15, May 29, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, user space. If there's a problem with his sig, that's a separate issue. --SPUI (talk) 01:22, 29 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, user page. 578 (Yes?) 01:23, 29 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Normally I don't have a problem with user pages that are even remotely related to the work being done here, but IMO this one's masquerading as some sort of Wikipedia namespace page. Sam has deleted entries from here without comment ([6], [7], [8]) and deleted objections to specific reports that admins have put here in their own defence ([9]), and presumably if someone were to contest these detetions the fact that it's Sam's user page would automatically weight the argument in his favor. This should be in the Wikipedia namespace or it should be made far more clear on the page that this is Sam's personal space rather than anything "official". Bryan 01:46, 29 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, free speech on user namespace. — Phil Welch 02:11, 29 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and sanction user. This is taking things way too far. I'm not supporting this witchhunt so that Sam can try to chase the very hard-working admins on his hitlist off Wikipedia. Sam, if you have an issue with people, use the dispute resolution process, rather than acting in apparent bad faith like this. Ambi 02:56, 29 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Free speech is the pinnacle of what the Wikipedia stands for — slander, however, is not. Wally 03:14, 29 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but suggest that his sig be changed (smaller please?). Users have, in the past, used their userspace to gather evidence against others. They have the right, I just wished that they wouldn't use that right. BrokenSegue 03:16, 29 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. A provocative and possibly libelous troll. Sunray 04:10, 2005 May 29 (UTC)
  • This is a tricky one; I don't see this benefiting wikipedia in it's current form though, and in the end that trumps any legalism or ideals about freedom on user pages. If Sam wants to prepare an arbitration case he's free to do so, many people have done so on subpages of their user page without any serious objections, however this is just trolling. Delete. --W(t) 04:54, 2005 May 29 (UTC)
  • Delete. This doesn't do anybody any good. In fact the "list of rogue admins" and "list of admins you can trust" that Sam Spade has made could potentially start fighting between administrators. --Chanting Fox 04:56, 29 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. User page, not an article. Kaibabsquirrel 05:00, 29 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep.Vorash 05:08, 29 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Something needs to be done about rogue admins, and I don't mind Sam working on whatever he works on in his userspace anyway. The fact that this would be VfDed and people would vote delete strongly suggests that criticism of admins is not acceptable on Wikipedia and will be punished—essentially, that people are not allowed to criticize the actions of people in positions of power. I suppose some people can justify that, but I think authoritarianism in the project is dangerous. Everyking 06:28, 29 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It's Sam Spade's own user space, so we don't place as many restrictions on the content as perhaps elsewhere on the wiki. Sam Spade is not the only user to list in his personal user space the admins he does and does not like. However, I'd appreciate it if he toned down the content of the article to resemble less of a personal attack, and more of a simple log of information. I understand that there are always some nasty conflicts between users on Wikipedia, but the less the outside world sees of it, the better. I am pleased to see, however, that Sam Spade has agreed to change his signature. - Mark 07:23, 29 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral. There is no point just deleting Sam's page; there will be others, and not just by him. If you feel such pages shouldn't be on WP, then do something more determined about it, don't just focus on one. --Silversmith Hewwo 10:00, 29 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Just a front for more sinister activities - max rspct 10:05, 29 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. There are appropriate places to complain about "abusive" administrators, and sub-user-pages aren't one of them. We don't need to host potentially slanderous essays here. - Nunh-huh 10:15, 29 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. It is a personal attack to post people here because of (for instance) the page title. You are in effect saying that they are lousy admins which is a personal attack. If you want to build a case against someone, do it on the page User:SamSpade/RFC against XXX. And most importantly don't advertise it, that makes it 100x worse. gkhan 11:24, May 29, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. OK, I was happy to leave it if it only concerned me; I think that it makes SS look silly, but that's his affair. Still, it affects others, and it sets a bad precedent. I agree with Silversmith, though, that there should be a policy on this, not just a case-by-case debate. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 11:55, 29 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete reluctantly. There is nothing here that cannot be dealt with much, much better on WP:RFC without use of user subpages. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 13:03, 29 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, nomination has been withdrawn. Kappa 13:18, 29 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. RFC, RFM and RFAr are the dispute resolution process. Personal vendettas are harmful to Wikipedia. The mailing list can sometimes help, but not as a rule. Leaving Wikipedia is also possible. JFW | T@lk 13:54, 29 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete ➥the Epopt 14:08, 29 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. (anon vote) I suggest for the sake of fairness, balance, and symmetry that the existing anti-Sam Spade group formalize its existence with a user page to "compile data for upcoming RfC's and Arb Com cases against Sam Spade." They admit they attack him when he does things they wouldn't attack others for because they say his past behavior makes it ok not to give him the benefit of the doubt. Well, let BOTH sides keep track of their complaints on these twin user pages and all of us can see by the evidence they gather who is doing what. I bet both sides would act better. 4.250.168.100 20:40, 29 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Given that RickK hsas withdrawn the Vfd why are we voting on it still. Surely the Vfd notice should now be removed from the article, SqueakBox 20:46, May 29, 2005 (UTC)
    • Have we decided that people are allowed to do that?Geni 20:54, 29 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Withdrawing a nomination only stops the voting if it's done before other people vote, or if everyone voted "keep". Of course, to avoid discussions, usually someone else who voted "delete" steps up to replace the original nominator. (This is all from personal experience; I don't recall seeing a policy or guideline about it.) --cesarb 21:14, 29 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I do not recall seeing any set guideline either. But as long as there are people on both sides on the debate, I think it should be continued so that others can make an opinion (like me). Zzyzx11 (Talk) 21:43, 29 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Abstain. I do not see that there is any point to just delete user pages if they want to use them to criticise admins. On the other hand, I am unsure where to draw the line between constructive criticism and blatant personal attacks. Maybe we should move this debate to a policy discussion page when this VFD has run its course. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 21:43, 29 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, as it's userspace and all. Let Sam Spade have...well, whatever the heck this is supposed to be, I guess. A Man In Black 09:02, 30 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, its in userspace. Allegations of rogue admin's would have to be documented, and there is no enforcement mechanism without proper RfAr, etc. If there is real evidence reported there what is the use of deleting it other than to suppress that information. Trödel|talk 20:35, 30 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I requested it be deleted due to concerns that it was creating an unpleasent work environment. See also Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Apologies. Sam Spade 23:58, 30 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Sam_Spade/Report_rogue_admin&oldid=1148689848"