Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Deletion of VFD

message: The outside views on this page seems to suggest that most people think that the action was definitly wrong, but it is no big deal, it is just "Ed being Ed" (not a quote mind you, just the impression I get). That is, there should be no reprecussions because of your long time of service and dedication to the project. I think (and I believe many agree with me) that this is something very, very wrong. Wikipedias rules and quidelines should apply to everyone equally. Indeed it is one of the more common rants that the mailing list recieves is that wikipedia is run by an "Administrator Cabal" for which rules do not apply. They can act unilaterly and the other admins (and the ArbCom) will defend them. We need to show that when someone does something wrong that they have to be held accounatble, no matter what. 
Ed, your comments regarding this matter is to my mind perplexng to say the least. You claim that what you did does not violate policy (this is ridiculus, you know better than most what WP:POINT is), and you show no remorse what so ever. 
:Breaking in... I do not recall making that claim; rather, I asked to be informed of what policies I supposedly broke; and to be "reasoned with" before being keel-hauled. You may perhaps have missed my statement that "maybe I was wrong" at first, but since it's on my talk page directly over the RFC notice from gkhan, why not go take a look at it now? Uncle Ed 10:47, August 3, 2005 (UTC)
I think that, for starters, you owe us all (the community) an apology. As a gesture of good faith, at least admit that what you did was wrong. 
:If there is a Wikipedia:dispute resolution policy, and if this is mostly about following policy then why hasn't it been followed in this case? Kim Bruning pointed out that the RFC is about to expire due to failure to provide evidence of "failure" - what irony!
:If anyone is due an apology, it is I. Uncle Ed 10:47, August 3, 2005 (UTC)
As for a solution to this dispute, I suggest (that would leave me entierly satisfied) would be if you did what SethIlys did a while ago, and "reapply" for adminship at WP:RfA. No one would be forcing you (lets face it, this will never reach WP:RfAr), it would your decision through and through. And lets face it, you'd pass. I realise that this is unconventional and not entirly kosher, but this is no ordinary case either. 
By doing what you did you offended the Wikipedia Community by completly bypassing it. Show that you still are part of the community and that you adhere to the same principles. gkhan 21:28, August 2, 2005 (UTC) (PS. If you have other ideas about resolving this dispute, there is obviously place for discussion. This is not, nor is it intended to be, the final stand-point I will ever take. Suggestions from others are not only welcome but encouraged)
:I actually found out a tiny bit more about ed on IRC today. I've only been a wikipedian for a little over a month. If i would have known that before, I probably would've commented differently. But, how many bad actions has he really done, and how many bazillion good ones? Most of the people on Boothy443's rfc don't even think he did that much wrong. I still don't think he should be sanctioned or anything, so I'll leave my comments as they stand. --Phroziac (talk) 23:34, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Ed knew, and you know, that his deletion of VfD would be nothing more than a catalyst for a long overdue debate about what to reform the deletion process. Hardly a "gross misuse of admin powers". Pcb21| Pete 10:37, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

text: Ed, I noticed this comment is was indented (but I don't know if it was intended) as a reply to me, and is coupled with you making noises about giving up, so just wanted to make absolutely clear my comment was meant as strong approval for your actions (and apologies if somehow you interpreted it another way). So ... er... don't quit on my account whatever you do! Pcb21| Pete 11:19, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

message: :(from when this was a request for comment)
----
In order to remain listed at Wikipedia:Requests for comment, at least two people need to show that they tried to resolve a dispute with this sysop and have failed. This must involve the same dispute, not different disputes. The persons complaining must provide evidence of their efforts, and each of them must certify it by signing this page with ~~~~. If this does not happen within 48 hours of the creation of this dispute page (which was: 21:07, August 1, 2005 Gkhan (created page) {insert UTC timestamp with ~~~~~}), the page will be deleted. The current date and time is: .
Let's see, does this rule apply? Take a look:
*For disputes over user conduct, before requesting community comment, at least two people should have contacted the user on their talk page, or the talk pages involved in the dispute, and failed to resolve the problem. Any RfC not accompanied by diffs showing that two users tried and failed to resolve the same dispute will be deleted after 48 hours. The diffs should not simply show evidence of the dispute itself, but should show attempts to find a resolution or compromise. The two users certifying the dispute must be the same users who were involved in the attempt to resolve it.
I don't see any diffs down there, do you? Uncle Ed 17:08, August 3, 2005 (UTC)
Please note: This template is for listing disputes about actions that are limited to administrators only, specifically these actions:
* protecting and unprotecting pages
* deleting and undeleting pages
* blocking and unblocking users
For all other matters (such as edit wars and page moves), please use the template at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Example user.
----
*(Ed Poor | talk | contributions)
**This page is invalid, because no attempt was both attempted and failed to resolve anything. In fact, 2 minutes before I was informed of this RFC page, I had written "I might be wrong about deleting vfd. So let's all talk about it at Wikipedia talk:Votes for deletion. Uncle Ed 21:08, August 1, 2005 (UTC)". 
**Ironically, this was exactly one line above the RFC notice!
**How about trying to resolve this matter before giving up and saying that attempts to resolve it have failed? This is improper procedure. Just ask Angela. Uncle Ed 13:30, August 2, 2005 (UTC)
Ed, while I take your point, the fact is that the broader issue of your unilaterialism is not new.  There was the matter of your intercession in a minor edit war among admins earlier this year; you stopped it by de-adminning everyone involved.  You nearly promoted Connolley despite a lack of consensus to do so.  And though I forget the details, there have been other episodes.  Every time, the community says to you, "Ed, stop, don't do that, Wikipedia has changed, wait for the community to decide."  And every time the community is patient with you because you have been here longer than any other active admin, and because of the value of your ongoing contributions.  And for heaven's sake stop the ruleslawyering claims about proper procedure.  Take your lumps and this time don't do it again. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 19:45, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Procedural instructions and discussion 

message: After discussion with UninvitedCompany (and others) and further reflection, I un-deleted this page and 'moved' it back from the Signpost. I request that no one move it or delete it again without further discussion. It has a bearing on the rfarb. (And Kim, please stop unilaterally blocking my account. It was funny last week, but now we all need to think seriously about the critical problems facing this project.) Uncle Ed 15:41, August 6, 2005 (UTC)
:Uhm, you've only been blocked by Kim twice, both on the same day (on the third, ie, last week), one of which was after you unblocked yourself and both had the same expiry time, so I think it's pretty safe to say he *has* stopped blocking you. - Joolz 16:26, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Page move