Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Snowspinner 2

message: To allow us to channel discussion into constructive outcomes, I've created some discussion starters.  brenneman(t)(c) 08:46, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

message: After reading Snowspinner's thoughts on the matter, I don't think that he understands what the problem is. This isn't an inclusionist vs. deletionist debate. I did add in a last bit on m:descriptivism in my summary, but that's not what this is about either. I can't really see how this could be sour grapes, as the two AfDs I was involved in that he speedily kept I had voted "keep" on, and I don't really know Snowspinner (haven't had any contact with him up to this point AFAIK) and am sure he's a fine guy. What this RfC is about is whether or not it's O.K. for an admin to delete discussions (in this case, AfDs) right in the middle of them, because he says so. Yes, it is true that notability is not a deletion criteria, in terms of what policy says. But does that make it all right to simply axe debates that has that as a standard? Where does it say that that is decent behavior? Policy contradicts it explicitly: to paraphrase, any page that does not meet a WP:CSD can not be speedied, and must go through AfD or a similar system (IfD, MD, etc.). Is Snowspinner above this?
I'm not trying to have popular consensus trump Wikipedia. I'm not trying to have Snowspinner desysopped, either, although I think that a temporary loss of adminship is appropriate. Sometimes a first offense is a big offense, and sometimes it's not. The disruption caused by voting delete on an AfD based on notability is minor compared to the disruption caused by speedily deleting seventeen pages without discussion or backing policy. Nowhere is it acceptable (or polite) to end a discussion by erasing all opposing points of view. Here, on Wikipedia, it is also a violation of policies. --Blackcap | talk 16:39, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Response to [[Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Snowspinner 2#Response|Snowspinner's response]] 

message: This is a response to Nickptar's query.
I wrote: The deletion process is broken to the point where some editors feel that it's wrong for someone to speedy a deletion nomination that blatantly contradicts the deletion policy.
Nickptar asked Show me the policy that says "AFD nominations are only valid if:
That isn't the only way to demonstrate that what I say is true.  Deletion policy states explicitly that if the only problem with an article is that it's "Such a minor branch of a subject that it doesn't deserve an article" then it's one of the "Problems that don't require deletion".  Instead it says that the editor should "Merge the useful content into a more comprehensive article and redirect".  After Snowspinner deleted the invalid nominations, the mistaken nominators still had the option to carry out the merges. All that happened was that nominations that violated deletion policy were correctly destroyed. --Tony SidawayTalk 17:42, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Minor branch. What about things that aren't branches, but are just non-notable entities that someone feels do not deserve mention at all? ~~ N (t/c) 19:00, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Even your little brother's grunge rock garage band is a branch of rock music, so theoretically, if it was third party verifiable, it could be covered, perhaps in an article titled "Garage bands from _your city_".  Unfocused 19:19, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

text: At the risk of encouraging tangential discussion, I saw with interest this AFD Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ashida Kim (2nd nomination) in which Jimmy Wales seems to be advocating for deletion on the grounds of both unverifiability AND non-notability. I realize in this instance he's just one editor out of many, but it is still interesting to me. · Katefan0(scribble) 21:28, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Response on invalid "notability" nominations

message: For reference next time: if you move endorsements of outside views, please either remove the endorsements from ALL views equally, or simple copy the entire endorsement and comments in reply from each view, but leave a copy of the original endorsements where they were with a note saying that the comments in reply were moved.  Otherwise, it appears that you're removing endorsements from some views but not others, introducing bias.  Unfocused 18:03, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: #I'm not allowed to actually say anything negative about Snowspinner, but I guess I can still endorse something someone else wrote that's critical of him. Everyking 07:39, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

text: #:As long as you are endorsing this because you agree with it, not just because it is negative to Snowspinner (and I have no reason to believe it is anything other than the former), then IMHO this is acceptable within the spirit of the outcome of your RfAr. Thryduulf 07:56, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

text: #:Of course - David Gerard 13:02, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

text: Delisting was bold and likely to be reverted pretty quickly and easily.  That would have been disruptive enough.  Deleting was being a dick and inappropriate.  Regarding "consensus creates policy", when you're referring to core policies of Wikipedia, consensus through repeated action creates nothing more than established procedure that has the illusion of being policy.  (I think it's appropriate to move these comments to the discussion page, so I have done so.)  Unfocused 19:16, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

text: I agree with Nick, everyone knows about AfD and has the right to vote there. The fact that they don't doesn't make those who do some kind of AfD-obssessed cabal. If they don't (because it's too time-consuming, because it's unpleasant, because it's boring, whatever) then they are freely giving up their vote and have no right to complain. No one is not allowed to vote on AfD, save the blocked, banned, or ArbCommed. They can always write a proposal to change it. People do. Those who don't have that right as well, but they can't gripe about it. As for it being broken, show me something that works better and we'll talk. I don't think that this is a solution, at least not a good one. --Blackcap | talk 19:47, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

text: Remember what this RfC is about: a sysop who decided his views beat existing policy on speedy deletion. --Blackcap | talk 20:12, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  I don't buy it.  For every administrator you can get to support you, I'll show you an administrator who has speedied articles against the deletion policy.  If we asked them all to desysop themselves, we would have scarcely any admin left on RC patrol.  --Tony SidawayTalk 20:35, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe they have. I don't regularly check administrator's deletion logs, so I don't know who they are. If they did, whether or not they deserve an RfC would depend on the articles speedied. My guess would be that there's a lot of stretching of A7 and some others. However, deleting AfDs is a different ballgame, and in this case, I know about it, and can and have done something about it. This is obviously disrupting Wikipedia to make a point. And anyway, what else could this be about? Notability? Snowspinner didn't violate any notability policy, there isn't a notability policy. He violated WP:CSD, and with gusto. --Blackcap | talk 21:12, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

text: Yes, and with WP:POINT in boot. Ryan Norton T | @ | C 21:14, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

text: And by the by, who are you talking to? It looks like you're starting a new topic, but your sentence reads like a reply. --Blackcap | talk 20:29, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  I was directly responding to your misrepresentation of the process by which policy is made on Wikpiedia. --Tony SidawayTalk 20:35, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: O.K. Thanks, that wasn't entirely clear. --Blackcap | talk 21:17, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

text: Endorsements
#Radiant_>|< 22:28, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

text: Disdorsements
# Useless in 99%. Do you think the original author will sit there and look at this "YourWorkIsGarbageYouMoronTemplate"? (This is how it will be perceived however polite you phrase the text.) mikka (t) 00:14, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

text: If you'd like to save it, you might consider moving all text not directly related to his actions over to the talk page. Refactoring discussions is sure to upset some people, but ... When I read the page it was very difficult to wade between people who were discussing Snowspinner and people who were discussing the AFD. As a result when someone states their view on Snows actions I can't tell if the view is because they actually think he did or didn't make a mistake or if they think it does/doesn't matter because there is controversy about AFD in general. At this point it looks like there is a lot more talk about AFD than Snowspinner.  Part of the challenge in refactoring it is that the focus shift to AFD starts in Snowspinner's reply. :( --Gmaxwell 02:30, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Moved from main page 

message: :#I'm not allowed to actually say anything negative about Snowspinner, but I guess I can still endorse something someone else wrote that's critical of him. Everyking 07:39, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: #:As long as you are endorsing this because you agree with it, not just because it is negative to Snowspinner (and I have no reason to believe it is anything other than the former), then IMHO this is acceptable within the spirit of the outcome of your RfAr. Thryduulf 07:56, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

text: #:Of course - David Gerard 13:02, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Other users who endorse this statement

message: #David Gerard 20:02, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Response

message: #:Rubbish. No he shouldn't. (Hence striking my endorsement above.) - David Gerard 09:52, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Outside view by RN

message: #I completely concur with David on this issue.  The entire deletion process on Wikipedia is broken and needs to be replaced, but there will never be a consensus to do so.  I tend to also agree with Tony Sidaway that the problem is self-correcting, however, as AfD will never scale effectively and will eventually become totally irrelevant in the face of ever-larger new article influx.  We should therefore allow AfD addicts to continue to play in their increasingly irrelevant playground until they eventually become bored with it and leave.  Kelly Martin 11:29, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Outside view by David Gerard 

message: # An utterly surreal suggestion in the circumstances. Policy is policy, you don't get deopped for upholding it, no matter how many people may wrongly believe that they have effectively changed policy by disregarding it. Tony SidawayTalk 20:11, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Outside view 2 by David Gerard 

message: # Breaching AFD process because AFD has problems does not improve AFD, it weakens it still further because it makes people think that "if an admin can breach the AFD process, why can't I?". Sjakkalle (Check!) 14:12, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Outside view by Nickptar 

message: #Of course! Regardless of what some people are saying, non-notability is a deletion criterion, and it is because the community, by and large, believes it is. ~~ N (t/c) 17:08, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Outside view by DES 

message: ====Endorsements====
Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~~~~):
#Unfocused 16:50, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Delisting was bold and likely to be reverted pretty quickly and easily.  That would have been disruptive enough.  Deleting was being a dick and inappropriate.  Regarding "consensus creates policy", when you're referring to core policies of Wikipedia, consensus through repeated action creates nothing more than established procedure that has the illusion of being policy.  (I think it's appropriate to move these comments to the discussion page, so I have done so.)  Unfocused 19:16, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

text: I agree with Nick, everyone knows about AfD and has the right to vote there. The fact that they don't doesn't make those who do some kind of AfD-obssessed cabal. If they don't (because it's too time-consuming, because it's unpleasant, because it's boring, whatever) then they are freely giving up their vote and have no right to complain. No one is not allowed to vote on AfD, save the blocked, banned, or ArbCommed. They can always write a proposal to change it. People do. Those who don't have that right as well, but they can't gripe about it. As for it being broken, show me something that works better and we'll talk. I don't think that this is a solution, at least not a good one. --Blackcap | talk 19:47, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

text: Remember what this RfC is about: a sysop who decided his views beat existing policy on speedy deletion. --Blackcap | talk 20:12, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  I don't buy it.  For every administrator you can get to support you, I'll show you an administrator who has speedied articles against the deletion policy.  If we asked them all to desysop themselves, we would have scarcely any admin left on RC patrol.  --Tony SidawayTalk 20:35, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe they have. I don't regularly check administrator's deletion logs, so I don't know who they are. If they did, whether or not they deserve an RfC would depend on the articles speedied. My guess would be that there's a lot of stretching of A7 and some others. However, deleting AfDs is a different ballgame, and in this case, I know about it, and can and have done something about it. This is obviously disrupting Wikipedia to make a point. And anyway, what else could this be about? Notability? Snowspinner didn't violate any notability policy, there isn't a notability policy. He violated WP:CSD, and with gusto. --Blackcap | talk 21:12, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

text: Yes, and with WP:POINT in boot. Ryan Norton T | @ | C 21:14, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

text: And by the by, who are you talking to? It looks like you're starting a new topic, but your sentence reads like a reply. --Blackcap | talk 20:29, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  I was directly responding to your misrepresentation of the process by which policy is made on Wikpiedia. --Tony SidawayTalk 20:35, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: O.K. Thanks, that wasn't entirely clear. --Blackcap | talk 21:17, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Outside view by Unfocused

message: Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~~~~):
#Unfocused 16:50, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Endorsements

message: For me, the offense is delisting as well as deleting the discussions; although the second is worse than the first, both are highly inappropriate. Regarding "interested minority" and "opposing deletion policy", please see my and Fubar Obfusco's statements at WP:AN/I#Consensus creates policy. ~~ N (t/c) 17:15, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Delisting was bold and likely to be reverted pretty quickly and easily.  That would have been disruptive enough.  Deleting was being a dick and inappropriate.  Regarding "consensus creates policy", when you're referring to core policies of Wikipedia, consensus through repeated action creates nothing more than established procedure that has the illusion of being policy.  (I think it's appropriate to move these comments to the discussion page, so I have done so.)  Unfocused 19:16, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

text: I agree with Nick, everyone knows about AfD and has the right to vote there. The fact that they don't doesn't make those who do some kind of AfD-obssessed cabal. If they don't (because it's too time-consuming, because it's unpleasant, because it's boring, whatever) then they are freely giving up their vote and have no right to complain. No one is not allowed to vote on AfD, save the blocked, banned, or ArbCommed. They can always write a proposal to change it. People do. Those who don't have that right as well, but they can't gripe about it. As for it being broken, show me something that works better and we'll talk. I don't think that this is a solution, at least not a good one. --Blackcap | talk 19:47, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

text: Remember what this RfC is about: a sysop who decided his views beat existing policy on speedy deletion. --Blackcap | talk 20:12, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  I don't buy it.  For every administrator you can get to support you, I'll show you an administrator who has speedied articles against the deletion policy.  If we asked them all to desysop themselves, we would have scarcely any admin left on RC patrol.  --Tony SidawayTalk 20:35, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe they have. I don't regularly check administrator's deletion logs, so I don't know who they are. If they did, whether or not they deserve an RfC would depend on the articles speedied. My guess would be that there's a lot of stretching of A7 and some others. However, deleting AfDs is a different ballgame, and in this case, I know about it, and can and have done something about it. This is obviously disrupting Wikipedia to make a point. And anyway, what else could this be about? Notability? Snowspinner didn't violate any notability policy, there isn't a notability policy. He violated WP:CSD, and with gusto. --Blackcap | talk 21:12, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

text: Yes, and with WP:POINT in boot. Ryan Norton T | @ | C 21:14, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

text: And by the by, who are you talking to? It looks like you're starting a new topic, but your sentence reads like a reply. --Blackcap | talk 20:29, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  I was directly responding to your misrepresentation of the process by which policy is made on Wikpiedia. --Tony SidawayTalk 20:35, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: O.K. Thanks, that wasn't entirely clear. --Blackcap | talk 21:17, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comments 

message: : Endorsements
#Radiant_>|< 22:28, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Disdorsements
# Useless in 99%. Do you think the original author will sit there and look at this "YourWorkIsGarbageYouMoronTemplate"? (This is how it will be perceived however polite you phrase the text.) mikka (t) 00:14, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Radiant's view

message: Endorsements:
#Thryduulf 00:27, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Outside view by Thryduulf 

message: I disagree yet agree. It has gotten off topic, but shouldn't be closed until its resolved. -- Spinboy 01:47, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: If you'd like to save it, you might consider moving all text not directly related to his actions over to the talk page. Refactoring discussions is sure to upset some people, but ... When I read the page it was very difficult to wade between people who were discussing Snowspinner and people who were discussing the AFD. As a result when someone states their view on Snows actions I can't tell if the view is because they actually think he did or didn't make a mistake or if they think it does/doesn't matter because there is controversy about AFD in general. At this point it looks like there is a lot more talk about AFD than Snowspinner.  Part of the challenge in refactoring it is that the focus shift to AFD starts in Snowspinner's reply. :( --Gmaxwell 02:30, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Outside view by Gmaxwell 

message: Offtopic, but this page seems to show a fairly common misunderstanding of what wp:point is about. Taking an action that you think is directly right (even if your judgement is bad) is not WP:POINT.  Doing something annoying which you probably disagree with yourself just to show others what extent their argument could be taken to is WP:POINT. For example, If Snow thinks that notability shouldn't be a criteria, closing down AFDs on NN is just his view (although it might be disruptive), a WP:POINT problem would be running around and AFDing the trivia math articles on numbers or niche quantum physics stuff because it's "not notable". Another example, I think notability *is* an important criteria for creating articles (as opposed to just being included in another article), so if I were going to violate WP:POINT, I'd grab the FCC tower database and start a bot making hundreds of thousands of articles "FCC234253 is a radio tower in ...". In short WP point doesn't just require that the the person be disruptive, or that they have a point, but also that they are causing disruption to attempt to prove something. --Gmaxwell 02:19, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, disruptivity is bad whether you have a point or not. ~~ N (t/c) 03:42, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know that I agree there. Many positive things start out, initally, as disruptive. We must endeavor to minimize uneeded disruption, but we shouldn't be afraid of causing a little dust in the name of progress. WP:POINT covers a special case which we are more vulnerable to because we are not (and perhaps can not be) internally consistant with our decision making. When disruption happens we want it to, at least, be because someone is trying to improve things, and not just because they want to make a point. The case of unneeded disruption due to poor judgement is why we have RFCs. --Gmaxwell 12:58, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[WP:POINT]] 

message: Snowspinner believes that admins, and specifically himself, are higher class of Wikipedian.  Until such time as his friends are no longer members of the ArbCom, or Jimbo himself gets involved, we lesser Wikipedians have no recourse because Snowspinner has no interest in changing.  Because Wikipedia neither a "hands-on" leadership level nor a system by which the community can review admins, we're at an impasse.  Untimately, these fundamental power structure problems, if unresolved, will result in continued fracturing of the project's community.  I wish us all luck. -- Netoholic @ 03:35, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I may neither agree with Netoholic's assessment of Snowspinner's actions nor believ Snowspinner should be dead minned, but I still agree with this.  We don't have an effective way to bring rouge admins into line.  ArbCom takes a l o n g time and there do exist outstanding instances where desys opping should have occured. - brenneman(t)(c) 03:40, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

text: Hell yes. There absolutely needs to be a process for de-adminship. Although I don't think Snowspinner deserves it for this one incident. ~~ N (t/c) 03:41, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Umm, Mr. N, there is a process for that already.  We just don't use it much. - brenneman(t)(c) 03:55, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Where? Wikipedia:Requests for de-adminship lists no formal process, just a bunch of failed proposals. ~~ N (t/c) 04:00, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

text: What a surprise. Now you, Mirv, and Everyking have all weighed in against me. At this rate, I expect to wake up tomorrow and see that the sun rises in the east. Snowspinner 03:48, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Excuse me? Where have I "weighed in against [you]"? My only comments on this whole flap have been to point out that similar attempts to deal with the problems of AfD have already crashed and burned. This time I agree (surprise!) with the goals (though not the methods)—not least because they were not going to solve any of the problems, but were going to set off an enormous shitfight. —Charles P. (Mirv) 03:56, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

text: This isn't a tribunal, it's an RfC. The point of it isn't to weigh in against people, the point is to hear the opinions of the community regarding a problem. --Blackcap | talk 04:10, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed. And certain members of the community's opinions are, shall we say, predictable. Snowspinner 04:25, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Could you at least be civil about it, whether or not that's true? I can't see how your saying that their opinions are simply predictable helps anything. It's just bickering and plain uncordiality, and those sorts of comments are extremely frustrating when they're said about one's self, especially when they're made with such sarcasm. --Blackcap | talk 05:12, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I politely suggest you look at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Netoholic 2, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Everyking 3, and User:Mirv/Snowy before making judgments like that. Snowspinner 06:00, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmmm. I see what you mean, but I think that reviving that here was not needed. --Blackcap | talk 06:21, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Snowspinner, despite your attempts to poison the well, I think those links are part of a larger body of evidence against you.  As I implied in my statement above, you have lots of friends in ArbCom, so I doubt that it comes as any surprise that you get favorable results in cases that you bring against people who speak out opposing your inappropriate admin actions.  I know that it is annoying for people speak negatively about you, so you really have few options. Step down, stop being controversial, or continue acting with smug authority.  I hope that your friends choose to eventually distance themselves from you if you choose to continue. -- Netoholic @ 07:09, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The opinions of those who think that Snowspinner is a rogue admin are predictable because he never changes! He is supported by the establishment, so he is never caused to change, and lo, here they all are once more backing him when he's pissed off the community. Grace Note 00:41, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  There is but one issue... 

message: This is what I would like to see out of this RfC, if possible.
#Some acnowledgement or understanding from Snowspinner that his actions were disruptive to Wikipedia, whatever else they were.
#Some acnowledgement or understanding from Snowspinner that his actions were in violation of WP:CSD and WP:POINT, regardless of whatever else they were.
#Some statement from Snowspinner saying that he will not speedy delete/keep ongoing discussions in the future where that is not the consensus, whether or not they are in his eyes valid, that he will first try discussion, or, that he will create a proposal that, if it passes, will allow such speedy deletions/keeps of an AfD if a sysop decides that the AfD is inappropriate.
#If Snowspinner disagrees that his actions were disruptive or in violation of WP:CSD or WP:POINT, then some statement from him saying why, and showing how he is not with policy. If this occurs, we can proceed from there.
#Some consensus from the community as to what actions should be taken regarding Snowspinner now, and
#Some consensus from the community as to what actions should be taken if this occurs again.
This RfC has turned into a discussion over AfD and the deletion policy in general. While that discussion needs to occur, this is not the place for it. Please direct further comments not directly related to Snowspinner to another page where they will be more appropriate, such as the proposal section of the deletion policy. You can find that page here, and I encourage all of you who have ideas on the subject to go there. I hope you find something that works, and works well.
Snowspinner, I think that it would greatly move things along if you would answer or acnowledge these asks individually, maybe in some kind of a list, and then add your comments below your reply. If you reject this for some reason, please understand that this is the reason I created this RfC to begin with, and I'm just trying to actually start the RfC, which is a difficult thing to do in the middle. I'm sorry to ask you to do things in such a structured way, but I'd like to get something accomplished with this RfC rather that have it just be another unneccesary, irrelevant, stupid, deletionist/inclusionist bloodbath. Thank you. --Blackcap | talk 05:40, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Well done! Whatever regard I held you in before, consider it lifted by 8%.  Ten points to Slytherin!  brenneman(t)(c) 06:36, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

text: I concur utterly - the point of this RFC isn't AFD good or bad, it's "you can't do that just because you're an admin". ~~ N (t/c) 15:47, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

text: I too agree completely and appologise for being one of those who strode further into off-topicness with this. Thryduulf 17:18, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

text: These all seems like reasonable requests, and a reasonable course of action. Paul August ☎ 18:20, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

text: Spot on, Blackcap. Well Snowspinner, when can we expect a response to theses very reasonable questions? Filiocht | The kettle's on 07:18, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I have said to Snowspinner here (at the bottom) that I am (personally) going to let this go. I think that this RfC has done all that it's going to, and to try to keep it going will neither be effective nor work. The de facto concensus is to not do anything now, and I respect that. If anyone else wants to keep it going, I hope you feel free to do so, but I am going to hold my peace unless this happens again. --Blackcap | talk 18:03, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

text: To clarify: I haven't changed my mind about anything I've said here, necessarily, but I don't think that my efforts to move this RfC forward are productive anymore. I think that I've done what I wanted, which was to get the community's opinions, and since Snowspinner has (apparently) decided to no longer respond here, I am going to let this go until the next time rather than frustrate myself and achieve no real result. --Blackcap | talk 02:10, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  An addendum to Blackcap's view 

message: I have started a formal policy proposal regarding speedy keeps at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Speedy keep proposal. Thryduulf 20:17, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Speedy keep policy proposal