text:
Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Snowspinner 2

In order to remain listed at 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: 06:36, 3 October 2005 (UTC)), the page will be deleted. The current date and time is:, 29 July 2024 (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 Requests for comment/Example user.

 * (Snowspinner | talk | contributions)

Statement of the dispute
''This is a summary written by users who dispute this sysop's conduct. Users who edit or endorse this summary should not edit the other summaries.''

Description
{Add summary here, but you must use the section below to certify or endorse it.

On October 2, Snowspinner, an admin, speedily deleted seventeen ongoing AfDs on the ground that the AfDs were invalid. He considered them to be so due to the AfDs all being based on notability, which he did not consider to be a criterion for deletion, and his rationale was being bold. These pages were deleted due to Snowspinner's own personal belief that they were invalid (which is not a reason to delete an AfD, whether or not they were), was completely ungrounded in policy, and wound up disrupting Wikipedia.

I disagree with these actions strongly. I believe that the appropriate action would have been to create a proposal allowing the speedy deletion of AfDs not grounded in policy, an action that was not taken. I also find it strikingly hypocritical that Snowspinner so blatantly violated policy in the name of defending it.

I do not think that any admin has the right to speedy delete things that are not covered under WP:CSD, especially not an ongoing discussion, as is AfD, and absolutely not based on such controversial ground as whether or not notability is a criteria for deletion. Speedy deletion is a last resort, not a first one. We don't delete things because we disagree with them, we talk about them.

On WP:ANI, Snowspinner encouraged other admins to follow his lead (diff: ). He doesn't seem to understand the problem, and later asked if simply unlisting them as speedy keeps would be better (diff: ). Though the greatest problem is his deleting pages, it would also be a problem for him to end AfDs as keeps just because he thinks so, or because of his interpretation of policy. As was said on WP:AN/I, Wikipedia policies are not our straightjackets. We can do whatever we want with them, we made them. If today notability is a criteria (which, de facto, it is, for many) then it is policy, even if it's unwritten.

Note: I'm adding this after some people have endorsed this, but I want to clarify: I do not, nor ever did, believe that Snowspinner was acting in bad faith. This has come up, so I figured I should be obvious about it.

Powers misused

 * Deletion (log): {list page or pages deleted}
 * Articles for deletion/Socially Indifferent
 * Articles for deletion/Yeeouch
 * Articles for deletion/Pierre L. J. Vincent
 * Articles for deletion/Tom Freda
 * Articles for deletion/I Love Math
 * Articles for deletion/Strategic negotiations
 * Articles for deletion/Property Specification Language
 * Articles for deletion/Turnip Head
 * Articles for deletion/New Hampshire Veterinary Diagnostic Laboratory
 * Articles for deletion/Alfredo Oliveira
 * Articles for deletion/Yocrunch
 * Articles for deletion/Luxurious
 * Articles for deletion/Pucci Petwear
 * Articles for deletion/Hero 2.0
 * Articles for deletion/"Humble" Bob Shoudt
 * Articles for deletion/Come Baby Come
 * Articles for deletion/KDK

Applicable policies

 * Deletion policy
 * The deletion policy says, under Procedure for deletion: "If a page does not fall into one of the categories listed under Criteria for speedy deletion, then you cannot delete it without it spending five days on Articles for deletion (or the analogous pages for images and media files, categories, templates, redirects, miscellaneous) first." None of these pages fall under a criterion for speedy deletion.
 * Miscellany for deletion clearly states how to delete a non-mainspace article for deletion. The articles deleted were in a non-mainspace, but these procedures were not followed. It also states clearly that (bolding mine): "Nominating a Wikipedia policy or guideline page, or one of the deletion discussion areas (or their sub-pages), for deletion will probably be considered disruptive, and the ensuing discussions closed early. This is not a forum for modifying or revoking policy."

 * WP:POINT. This is not policy (but is a guideline), however, I believe it warrants mention.
 * This page states: "This guideline proposes that discussion, rather than unilateral action, is the preferred means of changing policies, and the preferred mechanism for demonstrating the problem with policies. This means that an individual who opposes the state of a current rule or policy should not attempt to create in the Wikipedia itself proof that the rule does not work, and that system administrators should not apply rules in a vindictive or excessive fashion in order to demonstrate the potential for abuse." Snowspinner opposed the current policy (that invalid AfDs are not speedily deletable), and went entirely against the deletion policy, disrupting Wikipedia in the process, to do what he wanted.

 * Be bold in updating pages. Again, this is a guideline, not a policy, but I think should be mentioned.
 * This was his rationale for deleting the pages. However, WP:BOLD applies to articles, and says clearly "don't be reckless," and even goes into detail about it.

Evidence of trying and failing to resolve the dispute
(provide diffs and links)
 * Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Large scale AfD unlisting (diffs:, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , )
 * User talk:Snowspinner (diff: ) Note: This was declined here: User talk:Blackcap (diff: ).

Users certifying the basis for this dispute
(sign with ~ )
 * --Blackcap | talk 06:36, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
 * --[[Image:Ottawa flag.png|20px]] Spinboy 20:12, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
 * -- Ryan Norton T 20:15, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Other users who endorse this statement
(sign with ~ )

 * 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)
 * Thryduulf 07:56, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
 * This was purposely disruptive, snowspinner was well aware that his actions would be highly controversial (to say the least) and yet not only did it without discussing but used deletion instead of closing the AfDs (which would have been WP:POINT too, but less so since it's easier to revert). --fvw *  08:21, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Stormie 11:02, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
 * N (t/c) 14:11, 3 October 2005 (UTC) My outside view below expands on this.
 * Xoloz 15:03, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Had i bveen logged in, and notice this, i would have been involved in trying to resolve this dispute by asking Snowspinner to revert these acts, and perhaps in other ways. I take a very serious view of this, which seems to me to be a clear abuse of admin powers. DES (talk) 15:46, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
 * A fundamental part of Wikipedia is building consensus and working harmoniously with those who disagree with you. These actions seem opposed to that spirit. Being bold is one thing, acting unilaterally in a way which you know will be controversial to support one POV is another. Gamaliel 18:53, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Disruptive, non-consensual action with a clear and unapologetic agenda. Bunchofgrapes 19:43, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
 * The defendant's response shows that he is well aware of a significant opposition to his POV, yet he is willing to act unilaterally on a massive scale. I find his incompatible with the position of an admin. mikka (t) 20:35, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
 * With so little achieved by the actions and with those actions serving only to stifle debate and slap perfectly good editors in the face, I think there are better uses for a delete button. Snowspinner does write a cogent response, however. -Splash talk 01:26, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
 * I basically agree, but will be making an additional statement below. "Process" isn't at issue so much here as disruption, vandalism, and the erroneous assumption that "be bold" trumps "don't disrupt Wikipedia to make a point". --FOo 01:54, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
 * One of the Afd's delisted was one that I started. I not infrequently put things on Afd when I want another viewpoint...I figure something is not speediable, but nevertheless seems wrong somehow or "smells fishy", so I rely on the community to tell me if there is something I am missing. Sometimes the article will get revealed as a hoax and be deleted, sometimes somebody knows something that I don't, and it is kept. Either outcome is fine by me... I don't mind getting proved wrong. But Snowspinners astonishing presumption sought to short-circtuit that whole process in an entirely unacceptable manner. Fawcett5 05:05, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Disgraceful pointmaking by Snowspiner. Filiocht | The kettle's on 09:51, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Lately there has been lots of discussion about the usefulness of AfD, and there have been some rash actions (mainly from AfD's opponents) before, which have caused a lot of disturbance (Ed Poor's deletion of VfD comes to mind). I cannot believe that an experienced admin such as Snowspinner has missed all of this, and have to believe that he deleted these AfD subpages fully knowing that it would cause similar disruption, and that his decisions would not stand. I have to conclude he was just making a WP:POINT here, in the most unhelpful way he could find. Eugene van der Pijll 11:58, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is built on the assumption that The People, in aggregate, can write articles and make decisions about them. Short-circuiting that by telling them that they do not get to debate the following articles because a magic word ("notability") was used in the nomination is antithetical to the spirit and practice of Wikipedia.  Doing so because one wishes to preserve the freedom of authorship is hypocritical beyond measure.  The de jure deletion guidelines prevent unlisting and the de facto standard not only includes "notability" (by better and more explicable words) but always has.  One does not make an inspiring point or an heroic stand by ripping up one of the discussion and debate areas of Wikipedia.  Geogre 12:12, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Admins need to follow the rules. I have expanded a bit more on my thoughts further down as well as on the talkpage. Sjakkalle (Check!)  13:31, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Please do not do this again --TimPope 16:36, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
 * enceph alon  19:02, 4 October 2005 (UTC) I place my signature here to concur with the view that the actions under discussion were disruptive, and like similar actions in the past, do little to contribute any discernible improvement to the project. This is not to mean that they were done with an intention to harm; I seriously doubt that they were. I do not know what Snowspinner intended to achieve with his actions; as it may be said that nothing noteworthy has been achieved, we may safely conclude that these intentions were unsatisfied—a point which hopefully will discourage similar incidents and encourage more discussion and consensus-making in future.
 * Another example of recent misuse of WP:BOLD and WP:IAR, either to impose one's will on the community or to make a WP:POINT. Please—no more Ed Poor barnstars --Tabor 01:23, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
 * {Context: I'd nominated two of the AfDs affected.) I don't want to make too much of this (though I hope he doesn't do it again), and the suggestion that he lose his adminship seems unnecessary to me (I may have missed something, but did his admin powers feature in any of this?) — but, aside from the initial mistaken behaviour, he might respond better when other editors try to discuss the issue with him. --Mel Etitis ( Μελ Ετητης ) 13:40, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
 * I may have missed something, but did his admin powers feature in any of this? He deleted 32 pages. I agree with your comment on loss of adminship being unnecessary. enceph  alon  13:55, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Snowspinners' actions seems like a clear violation of policy. Moreover, they were disruptive of Wikipedia, and they were disrespectful of many fellow editors. They were unilateral and non-consensual, and stifled debate. And speaking as an anti-deletionist, I judge that these actions, while perhaps intended to further the inclusionist "cause", only hurt it. More importantly, they hurt our encyclopedia. Paul August ☎ 16:01, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
 * It's all said above me gkhan 15:21, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Violating policy because you don't like certain largely accepted unwritten rules = bad. Even if notability isn't a deletion criteria the pages should have been left anyway. Lord Bob 00:34, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Susvolans ⇔ 11:09, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Time for Snowspinner to hand in his badge. Grace Note 00:02, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Admin powers should not be used to try and influence debates about policy. Period. --Aquillion 03:43, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
 * I hope Snowspinner realizes how much the community finds his actions distasteful. Andre ( talk ) 13:55, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
 * This is a clear example of abuse admin powers. Snowspinner's complete disregard for the responsibility that goes along with those powers is unsettling, and shows a contempt for consensus-building.   Nandesuka 00:43, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
 * This is admin abuse pure and simple.Gateman1997 20:58, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Snowspinner is a problem user. Cognition 19:23, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Response
''This is a summary written by the sysop whose actions are disputed, or by other users who think that the dispute is unjustified and that the sysop's actions did not violate policy. Users who edit or endorse this summary should not edit the other summaries.''

I find the irony of deletionists accusing an inclusionist of violating the deletion policy according to a bunch of principles he laid out (descriptivism) rich.

Beyond that somewhat pithy summary, I will say only that if process creates policy, by extension one cannot move to put someone up against the wall for a first offense. Which is to say, if you're holding that notability has become a deletion criterion because it's gained popular acceptance, you are presumably also holding that we should not have arbcommed the people who first began using notability as a deletion criterion, back before it had gained popular acceptance, for disrupting Wikipedia or violating deletion policy. Saying that process forms consensus means that you have to tolerate good faith attempts to change process. I find it curious, then, that you have no reservations about desysopping someone who tried to change how fast-closed AfDs are handled. An interesting approach, to be sure.

Which leads me to believe this RFC to be more sour grapes than content.

A few more broad points - popular assent and consensus do not trump an understanding of the project. This was made clear with Jimbo's response to the hypothetical "What do we do if a thousand neo-Nazis show up and try to force consensus by sheer numbers" of "We don't let that happen." Frankly, the same approach ought apply should we get flooded by people who willfully ignore many of the principles on which this project is founded.

The fundamental misconception that people have is in understanding the word "Encyclopedia." Because, while we are an encyclopedia, we're also a radical redefinition of what an encyclopedia is. We are not the modern conception of an encyclopedia - collecting only the worthy knowledge. We are the original conception - the compendium of all knowledge. All knowledge. Ranging from Immanuel Kant to Exploding whale. Or to Greenlighting or Elf Only Inn or Cyrus Farivar, to deal directly with three deletions I vehemently opposed on the grounds that they were simply wrong, no matter what.

To be clear, I don't really care if Random Garage Band gets an article. I'm certainly never going to write one for them. But, and here's the other thing, I don't care enough to delete them either, assuming they can meet the policies of NPOV, verifiability, not being a dicdef, and the rest. They don't hurt me. They shouldn't be included in the Rock and roll article unless they're an exemplar of something that is in that article. (i.e. the Rock and roll article should mention the Beatles. Probably the Rolling Stones too. Maybe U2. Not so much Deep Blue Something. Definitely not Random Garage Band.) On the whole, my relationship to Random Garage Band is total apathy. What blows my mind - what completely melts my brain - is the people who make arguments like "This article exists on Comixpedia, so we should junk it." Or who claim that published, peer-reviewed academic articles shouldn't get articles (Or, at least, that their authors should, with all their articles mentioned and summarized). Or who want to delete something that got coverage on a major news site. It blows my mind that there are people applying the "is it worthy for inclusion" model of thought.

No article EVER has to prove its worthiness for inclusion. Some articles have to show that they are so useless that they/re worth holding an extended AfD debate, burdened with tons of stupid rules, just so we can get rid of them.

And, to clarify, I don't think the above is my personal opinion. I think the above is the very foundation of what Wikipedia is. I think the above is our mission. I think that people who do not understand the above are wrong, and that they absolutely must be stopped from having their way regarding inclusion debates.

Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~ ):
 * 1) Snowspinner 15:08, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 2) Tony Sidaway Talk 17:17, 3 October 2005 (UTC) I tend to find myself in agreement with Snowspinner more than I disagree with him.  He sails close to the wind, but that's in the interests of the wiki when some areas of Wikipedia have become the domains of factionalism and blatant disregard of longstanding policy. Tony Sidaway Talk  00:27, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
 * 3) David Gerard 20:02, 3 October 2005 (UTC) "Sour grapes" is precisely what this is about. And I remember you as a deletionist, railing against those inclusionist feckwits ...
 * 4) James F. (talk) 15:04, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 5) Hipocrite - « Talk » 17:01, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 6) Theresa Knott  (a tenth stroke) 05:33, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 7) I agree with this but just because the cabal supports you shouldn't mean you can act with impunity. I find it absolutely astonishing that editors discuss articles in terms of "deserving" to be in Wikipedia though. Did they not notice that we were doing the sum of all human knowledge, and not just another Britannica? Grace Note 00:05, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 8) What Grace Note said, except she has said elsewhere on the page that she thinks you should step down, and I don't. -- Jacqui ★ 23:47, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 9) --Pypex 23:35, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 10) Seems to be much to do about nothing. 172 | Talk 15:44, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

Outside view
''This is a summary written by users not directly involved with the dispute but who would like to add an outside view of the dispute. Users who edit or endorse this summary should not edit the other summaries.''

{Add summary here, but you must use the endorsement section below to sign.}

Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~ ):

Outside view by RN
I don't know Snowspinner personally all that well, but I have very little reason to believe the admin was acting in bad faith. One thing I that the admin should realize is that by speedying discussions like this it can be rather offensive to the people on AfD who take time out of thier days to carefully review each and every article put there and give thier opinion on the matter, which include Blackcap, me, and spinboy, as well as many other AfD regulars. Also, it can be disruptive to the process as well. However, I do not believe the admin should be desysopped, at least not yet. The process does have its flaws, and I think rather then simply trying to take charge of it this way the admin should instead try to articulate why the articles in question should be kept on the applicable AfD pages.

Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~ ):
 * 1) Ryan Norton T 07:12, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 2) Agree with: Acted in good faith, no deadminning. Talk page now. -  brenneman (t) (c)  07:17, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Agree more below. - brenneman (t) (c)  05:03, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 1) Agree that desysopping is not warranted or necessary--inksT 07:44, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
 * I think I'm in over my head on this one. Will just watch from the sidelines.--inksT 20:42, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 1) I also agree that desysopping is not warranted by these actions, but would be if he continued to act in this manner before this dispute is settled. Thryduulf 07:59, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
 * David Gerard 09:02, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 1) As per Thryduulf. I think the wrong action was taken and to continue in that manner would be innapropriate. However, there are plenty of things for admins to do except for AfD and I would want Snowspinner to be strongly advised to either abide by the policy or keep away from that page, while raising his legitimate views elsewhere.The Land 09:48, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 2) When a nomination is outside of policy, votes will reflect it. AFDs should never be speedy deleted. I don't think this warrants de-sysopping though.. - Mgm|(talk) 11:06, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 3) Splash talk 01:26, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 4) I know this is way, way too late, but count me in here. -- Jacqui ★ 23:41, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

Outside view by David Gerard
This verges on RFC abuse. AFD needs a dynamite enema in general. The fetishisation of process over product is a great part of what makes AFD such a bad idea in practice. (Note that I strongly agree we need a deletion mechanism. It's this one that's sucking.) As such, I find it hard to consider this any sort of great offense in the context of the general AFD wars. I've given Snowspinner an Ed Poor barnstar, FWIW.

Note: Blackcap's responses in Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Large_scale_AfD_unlisting are an excellent example of process over product. This is not to question in any way Blackcap's good faith. But it's still the real problem IMO.

Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~ ):
 * 1) David Gerard 09:44, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 2) 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)
 * 3) --Apyule 11:52, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 4) I don't agree that this is even close to RfC abuse (if it is, we can just WP:IAR and speedy delete RfC :P ), but I agree that AfD is a hellhole that needs some shaking up, and I specifically second Kelly's comments above. -- grm_wnr Esc  12:34, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
 * OK, I've struck "This verges on RFC abuse." That would seem to be questioning Blackcat's good faith, which I'm not - David Gerard 13:00, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 1) Strong Keep Endorse ➥the Epopt 13:39, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 2) I agree that AfD has become fetishised. Please see the standing Request for Comments against all members of the Associations of Inclusionist and Deletionist Wikipedians, those who beat o salivate over AfD the most. Alphax τεχ 14:08, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 3) This endorsement is here for formal purposes only.  If and when Snowspinner writes a response, I may review again. I have endorsed Snowspinner's response, but want to comment on this outside view.  I completely agree with David's view and Kelly's comment.  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.  Process has triumphed over substance.  --Tony Sidaway Talk  14:26, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 4) As a Wikipedia deletionist who had previously defended AFD, I now agree with David Gerard that it is rotten to the core. It will never stop producing silly disputes like this one. I'd like to take this as another opportunity to advance the pure wiki deletion system. --Ryan Delaney talk 16:06, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 5) Snowspinner 17:07, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 6) Rob Church Talk 17:15, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 7) As a frequent participator in the AfD process (usually as nominator), I'm seeing the same problems that David is describing, and my review of the 'case' leads me to believe that it's clear Snowspinner was operating in good faith. The system is broken, the WP:CSD should be amended to return AfD to something that allows community involvement.  The RFC process is all the protection needed against a theoretical "speedy delete abuse" because the people pulling the trigger are held to a higher standard. - C HAIRBOY  (☎) 22:11, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 8) — Laura Scudder | Talk 23:37, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 9) Eclecticology 00:43, 4 October 2005 (UTC) I praise Snowspinner's efforts in this. The horde that keeps making these phoney deletion proposals show that they are guided by a desire to enforce their own POVs than any kind of constructive editing.  If they can be driven away: Good riddance.
 * 10) James F. (talk) 15:07, 4 October 2005 (UTC) I agree, absolutely. Snowspinner's actions are without question in the interests of the project.
 * 11) Hipocrite - « Talk » 17:02, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 12)  r  speer 20:14, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Outside view 2 by David Gerard
I should also note: for Blackcap to seriously think for a moment someone would deadmin themselves on request over an issue such as this shows less understanding and feel for the project than one should really have to discuss such matters in a serious and weighty manner - Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~~~~):

 * 1) David Gerard 20:04, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 2) 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 Sidaway Talk  20:11, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Blackcap just doesn't know that Snowspinner is supported by the establishment obviously. He probably felt that behaviour that would get an ordinary user banned should not be tolerated. But it is. If you're Ed Poor, Tony Sidaway, Snowspinner, Raul, one of the boys in other words, you can do what you like. Taking Blackcap to task for thinking that the rules apply to everybody is well out of order. Grace Note 00:07, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
 * I was one of the boys at one point in time. Guanaco 21:09, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Outside view by Nickptar
"Process over product" is a red herring. The brokenness of AFD, or lack thereof, is irrelevant. This is a simple case of an admin thinking he's above policy, resulting in reckless, disruptive actions.

Admins should not be allowed to unilaterally act, in contravention of policy, on their personal views. All this does is disrupt the project and piss people off. I think there are a few users Wikipedia would be better off without, even though they haven't committed any direct policy violations; should I block them and try to purge evidence of their existence? I think AFD works fine and the "deletion reform" proposals are a bad idea; should I unilaterally delete them? If I did either of those things, wouldn't I be in hot water, and quite possibly lose my adminship? The only difference between those actions and Snowspinner's, that I can see, is that "AFD is broken" is such a popular viewpoint that many people are willing to support anti-AFD disruption.

"Process" vs. "product" has nothing to do with this case. Snowspinner's actions were indisputably of line and disruptive. Speedy-keeping and delisting alone would have disruptive (though much less so), but his deletion of the AFDs smacks of a bizarre attempt to suppress discussion. I'm not for desysopping, but I do think this RFC should be a sort of "final warning" to Snowspinner that he can't cross the line again.

BTW, see the statements by myself and others at WP:AN/I. Fubar Obfusco has much wisdom. Essentially, this is like the debacle on RFA when GordonWatts thought he was entitled to adminship and people violated policy by opposing him. Nowhere does policy say that AFDs can only be valid for certain reasons - if we could only delete articles in certain well-defined classes, there would be no point in the discussion that is AFD.

Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~~~~):

 * 1)  N (t/c) 14:09, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 2) 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)
 * 3) I endorse this as well. The Land 14:15, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 4) Of course, the above is true as well. I don't necessarily disagree with Snowspinner on this, but raising such a stink should be frowned upon - our goal is creating (not necessarily writing!) an encyclopedia. Part of that is maintaining an atmosphere that makes doing that as tolerable as possible. In this case, I see lots of people on barricades with relatively little merit to the original action taken. In essence: IAR, but be prepared to take the backlash. This is the backlash. Was it worth it? -- grm_wnr Esc  14:30, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 5) As per Sjakkalle above. Process does matter, it is a guarentee of transparency and accoutnability in making key decisions. Ther is a reason why fundamental civil rights are said to be covered by a gurantee of Due process. While wikipedia is not a government, many of the same reasons why process is important apply here. DES (talk) 15:52, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 6) Those who keep trying to break Afd are the only reason that people have the perception Afd does not work --TimPope 18:00, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 7) Gamaliel 18:50, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 8) See new section lower down this page. Thryduulf 00:07, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 9) android  79  01:11, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 10) Ryan Norton T 01:13, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 11) --Sean Jelly Baby? 01:17, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 12) Splash talk 01:26, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 13) User:Zoe|(talk) 02:14, 4 October 2005 (UTC) Hear, hear.
 * 14) [[Image:Ottawa flag.png|20px]] Spinboy 02:22, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 15) Also second the comment of TimPope above. Xoloz 04:46, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 16) Admins should never use their powers to enforce their own views, only the community consensus. moink 07:18, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 17) Absolutely. Filiocht | The kettle's on 09:53, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 18) Eugene van der Pijll 11:58, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 19) Exactly: There are whole fleets of red herrings swimming by in Snowspinner's and David Gerard's responses.  "AfD is broken" is not the subject.  "Ed Poor was right" is not the subject.  None of that is on the table.  Further, "Snowspinner should keep his admin status" is not on the table, as an RfC doesn't get to specify the injunction.  Frankly, all of that hand wringing and bell ringing ought to be ignored.  Geogre 12:18, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Yes, this is correct. Deleting the actual AfD nomination pages seems iffy. With speedy keeps, this just isn't done, to provide a historical record and a transparent deletion process. Deletion of those nominations is a misuse of the sysop capabilities. Bratsche talk 21:01, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 1) If one believes there is a desperate problem, WP:POINT still is not the answer. --Tabor 01:23, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 2) --cesarb 02:54, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 3) I agree, also see my talk page, which is how I found this page. I think his comments are deceptive. While notability may not be in the deletion policy, it is widely used in practice. Other users may have taken his comments without question because he is an admin. -- Kjkolb 05:41, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 4) The above all seems obviously true. The only question on the table is did Snowspinner violate policy. The answer seems to me to be, obviously, that he did. Only WP:IAR could be used as a valid defense (of course IAR can always be invoked by anyone who violates any policy) But I don't think IRA is justified here, and it looks as if a majority would agree. Paul August ☎ 16:28, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 5) AFD has many problems, but this did nothing to solve them. I feel Snowspinner knows this, and was not being bold to solve a problem, but was making a point. - A Man In Black  (conspire | past ops) 06:47, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 6) Yes indeed gkhan 15:23, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 7) Bravo. Lord Bob 00:46, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 8) Susvolans ⇔ 11:07, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 9) Absolutely right. Trying to piss off the deletionists like this is not a route to resolving the issues, and Snowspinner knows it. He just likes to throw his weight around. It's disgraceful that the arbcom are out in force to defend him. They'd be banning an ordinary editor for disruption if they did something like this. I am an "inveterate edit warrior" because I put a picture on a page in a dispute over consensus. Snowspinner is a hero of the people for deleting attempts to reach consensus. Grace Note 00:10, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 10) I've always tended to see Snowspinner as more of a RickK type than a Guanaco, but this makes me seriously, seriously reconsider that view. Ambi 12:06, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 11) Yes. Andre ( talk ) 13:57, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

Outside view by DES
It is my view that there is general consensus that a subject must be notable in order for it to have an article on Wikipedia. I point to the recent discussion at Deletion reform/Brainstorming where it was suggested as part of proposed reforms of the deletion process that this requirement be removed. The overwhelming agreement on those who have commented is that notability is now a requirement and that it should remain one. And I note that these discussions, as part of the deletion reform proposal, are likely to be disproportionaly viewed by people who think the entire current deletion process is "broken" -- but of course they are even more disproportionatly likely to be viewed by people who have a significant interest in the deletion process and deletion policy.

I cite additional support for my view that there is a consensus that non-notable subjects should not have articles, even if they are verifiable. There is a general agreement that bands not meeting the WP:MUSIC criteria should not be the subjects of articles, and that such articles, when they are created, should be deleted. Such articles are almost always deleted at AfD, and a proposal to make this a speedy delete criterion got majority supoort (but not consensus, in significant part due to issues about definition and explicit reliance on a non-policy page). Many such bands are verifiable, but the issue of verifibility pretty much never comes up in AfD debates on such bands, it is always an issue of notability.

The subject of WP:CSD A7 have been discussed elsewhere including on AN/I. It is new, and it has been somewhat contentions, and it IMO needs clearer support standards. But when there have been disputes they have been over what is or is not notable, or over what consitutes a "claim" of notability. No one has been arguing that biographies of non-notable people ought to be retained.

Indeed, does anyone really argue that verifiable but admittedly non-notable subjects should have articles here? To borrow an example recently used on VfU, my left shoe is verifiable, (I can send you a picture if you like) but does anyone really want an article about it? Consider a thunderstorm that occured in New Jersey in 2004. It is easily verifiable -- I can produce newspaper reports. But should there be an article on Wikipedia on every storm that got newspaper coverage? Or to be a little more reasonable, consider me. I was, earlier this year, an unsuccessful candidate for local elected office. This is verifiable -- there were quite a number of newspaper stories local and regional about the campaign. I have previously been the chair of a professional sub-orgianization (ACM's SIGAPL) and have published professional papers and edited professional conference proceedings. This is easily verifiable. Still I am probably not notable (I wouldn't meet my own standards on AfD) Should there be David E. Siegel? Would you vote to delete it on AfD? If not, why not?

I would argue that if a subject is not notable, an article about it is not encyclopedic, because an encyclopedia only has articles about notable subjects. It is is certianly policy that Wikipedia includes only encyclopedic articles. Notability is really just a shorthand for encyclopediacicty, or more accurately, it is one criterion for encyclopediacicty (verifibility is another, as is a factual tone).

So I think that notability is a current requirement for being the subject of a Wikipedia article, and it should be -- even though there is not always clear consensus on what constitutes notability, and like any other critierion of inclusion or deletion, it can be abused. Thus I feel that unilaterally deleting AfD pages where non-notability was cited as a reason for nomination, or ignoring AfD votes that site non-notability as a reason, is against consensus and therefore violates policy.

Therefore Snowspinner's actions are a violation of policy, in that the AFD pages did not meet any speedy deletion criterion, but more importantly that taking unilateral action to change policy or solve a policy problem, rather than acting through discussion, violates basic wikipedia policy.

Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~~~~):

 * 1) Forgot to sign my own comments. DES (talk) 16:26, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 2) Well put. --fvw *
 * 3) 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)
 * 4) There is an argument that notability is a contentious criterion for deletion, but neutrality/verifiability alone as a criterion for inclusion commands less consensus --TimPope 18:02, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 5) Gamaliel 18:50, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 6) I endorse this insofar as it repeats the points about discussion-rather-than-delete-button, but think that the questions of notability are tangential to the core of the RfC. -Splash talk 01:26, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 7) I endorse this view in full.  The Literate Engineer 03:22, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 8) If WP ever drops notability requirements entirely, I'll have loads of fun writing verifiable articles on every one of my pimples, all of which have names, and some which have extensive life histories.  If WP does sadly become an indescriminate collection of information (and this is where the notability requirement originates in my view, at WP:NOT), it might as well catalog every cell in my body. Xoloz 04:53, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 9) Absolutely. Sjakkalle  (Check!)  08:15, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 10) Ryan Norton T 08:17, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 11) Without consensus and non-notability as a cause for deletion, Wikipedia will never become a work of reference. Filiocht | The kettle's on 09:54, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 12) Eugene van der Pijll 11:58, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 13) Precisely: "notability" is just the magic word used by some to argue "it's not in the deletion guideline, and therefore there must be a keep." Notability = encyclopedic, and one must only wonder whether anyone would be complaining, and how, if any other admin decided to "be bold" and speedy delete every school article on the site, as they do not demonstrate notability.  Would that be "bold," or would it be an offense?  Would it warrant consideration of that person's access to the delete and undelete powers?  In this debate, reason is more rare than passion and hypocrisy is more common than words.  Geogre 12:21, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 14) Well said -  Tεx  τ  urε  16:49, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 15) · Katefan0(scribble) 21:17, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 16) Lectonar 11:58, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 17) Again, bravo. Lord Bob 00:47, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 18) Susvolans ⇔ 11:06, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 19) Those who think notability has no place in wikipedia need look no further than the "-pedia" at the end. -R. fiend 18:27, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 20) Anyone who has to deal with AfD knows that notability is an issue there. Article quality is another. In my experience, good articles about non-notable subjects survive; bad articles about non-notable subjects don't. Seems fair enough to me—if the subject is non-notable, who is going to bother to improve the article? These actions constitute a premature closure of debates about article qulity, which I cannot accept. Physchim62 20:18, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 21) Completely hit the nail -- ( ☺ drini ♫ | ☎ ) 14:19, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 22) Snowspinner, you have finally crossed the line. Ambi 12:06, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

Outside view by Unfocused
Snowspinner's actions were disruptive and against speedy deletion policy. However, the actions were in support of the actual greater overall deletion policy, instead of established guidelines. And there is a growing view that AfD has become a forum where a small group of regulars enforce their view regarding deletion, calling it "consensus" even when only as few as three of the 450,000 editors participate. Enforcement of these guidelines, which are formed by in one small corner of Wikipedia by a small but very interested minority, must not be permitted to override the actual specific policies or lack thereof in the project as a whole. The overriding consideration we must apply is that there is no consensus to delete articles for lack of notability. Snowspinner was bold and he ignored all the rules but he was too much of a dick to deserve thanks for what he did. Please don't do this again.

Blackcap's response was obviously in good faith, and directly in line with policy regarding when to call a "Request for Comments". We should thank him for responding in the proper manner. However, everyone should note that the offense committed is not delisting AfD nominations made for lack of notability. The offense in question is speedy deleting discussions already in progress.

We need to have this discussion, especially as the interested minority that frequents AfD has started considering the precedents of the interested minority to be of nearly the same importance as the official policies (and lack of official policies) themselves. Un focused  16:50, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 1) Exactly. -- grm_wnr Esc  16:55, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 2) David Gerard 19:54, 3 October 2005 (UTC) Of nearly the same importance? They consider them of greater importance. In between driving off non-regulars then claiming they should be participating if they think the system is rotten.
 * BTW, could whoever removed my endorsement from here please not bloody do so. Thanks ever so much. - David Gerard 12:07, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 1) I agree. I share Snowspinner's views on "notability" and it never ceases to amaze me that people actually care what articles other people want to write, as though it were some personal insult that we have an article on some small-time band. However, if someone who wasn't well-connected made widescale deletions of ongoing discussions (or disrupted them), we'd be seeing them banned. An editor was disciplined, I seem to recall, just for making sarky comments on VfD, and again for "disrupting" VfU. Yes, I agree that a living, dynamic wiki can be strangled by insistence on process, but it's not much helped either by the creation of a hierarchy in which some can do as they wish and others are bound very strictly by rules that are incremented almost daily. Here Snowspinner is given free rein to disrupt others' conversations because he doesn't agree with their tenor; elsewhere, he is being empowered to block users for calling each other "fuckheads" and to check the IPs of those he doesn't like. Inveterate POV pushers act as they like because they are part of the gang; dissenters are punished and policed. Kid yourselves all you like that any of this has anything to do with creating a great encyclopaedia, but you are kidding yourselves. Grace Note 00:21, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Radiant's view
Well. We can spend all week bickering on whether we should blame Snowspinner, or blame the people who blame Snowspinner, or blame those who blame those... - well, you get the idea.

Or, we could consider that AFD is unwieldy, bureaucratic, factionalizing and generally unpleasant, and find some way to fix that. Looking over AFD it is obvious that the vast majority of nominations don't need the debate - many end up as unanimous deletes; many others get a plethora of keeps because the nominator overlooked something, or the article had a source added; and yet many others are actually nominated for NPOV'izing, merging, or renaming and don't need AFD.

In the spirit of the latter, I would suggest this extremely simple deletion system...
 * 1) If you want some article deleted, for whatever reason, edit it to add reason.
 * 2) If someone else disagrees, they can edit the article and remove the template. End of story.
 * 3) No edit warring - no user is allowed to place that template on the same article twice.
 * 4) If the template remains in place for some specific period of time, the article may be summarily deleted by any admin.

To ensure that this works, the template should add the article to Category:Deletion 4-10-2005, and a bot should update the template each day to point it to the new date. Advantages? Less bureaucracy. Less room for violent debate. Less chance of a cabalistic subculture. Less backlogs. And it requires no software upgrade. Disadvantages? It doesn't work on articles that are sock-supported or controversial, and it may be necessary to have some process to get rid of those. That process should not be invoked until this simple process has been tried and failed a couple of times.

Similar processes have been proposed in the past, but to my knowledge none as simple as this. It makes deletion easier if nobody objects, and makes it harder in case of controversy. Both seem like a good thing to me. So this is my view of what is going on between AFD and Snowy, and what should be done about it. Anyone who concurs should feel free to turn this into an official proposal on some other page, and discuss and advertise it. Radiant_ >|< 22:28, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

 * The Pure wiki deletion system is simpler, aside from the initial step of getting it implemented in software. But what you're describing is approximately how Experimental Deletion works right now in practice, except your proposal has more specific rules.  r  speer 20:20, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Outside view by Thryduulf
Policy exists for a reason, and the reason AfD policy exists is to provide an inclusive and transparent method for discussing the merits of including or not including a given article in the encyclopaedia. Whether or not the policy is broken is irrelevant, just because some (but not all) people agree that a law is wrong or unjust does not mean breaking it is acceptable.

Only a tiny minority of AfD listings are made in bad faith, even if the nomination does not correlate exactly with policy the nominator might not be aware of the policy or alternative article improvement methods. In my opinion there should only be two occasions when articles should be speedily kept. In both these situations, the AfD page should be closed and kept. It would be up to the discretion of the closing administrator whether or not to make a record of the debate on the talk page of the article. They should mention it was speedily kept in the edit summary when removing the AfD tag though. I can see no situation where the deletion of AfD pages has any benefit to anybody. It also allows for accusations of cabalism by leaving adminsitrators wide open to accusations of trying to hide things. To my mind, Snowspinner acted improperly on this occasion but he did so in good faith. If he, or anyone else, repeated the actions before consensus on this issue is reached - whether the consensus is with my suggestions or not - would imho be a bad-faith breach of WP:POINT. Thryduulf 00:27, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 1) When the nomination is obviously bad faith (e.g. nominating an extremely high profile article like George W Bush, or when someone nominated Israel for deletion on the grounds that the government's (alleged) breaches of internation law had invalidated its existence).
 * 2) When at least some of the first few people expressing an opinion call for a speedy-keep, there are no votes for actions other than Keep and nobody has stated they object to it being speedily kept.

Users who endorse this summary (sign with --~ ):
 * 1) OF COURSE. N (t/c) 03:27, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 2) Agreed. Might I also remind people that one of the disruptive actions LevelCheck got reprimanded for was nominating Votes for deletion/Jesus for deletion. (Votes for deletion/Votes for deletion/Jesus). Sjakkalle (Check!)  08:19, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 3) enceph  alon  18:47, 4 October 2005 (UTC) Beautifully—and kindly—said.
 * 4) --Blackcap | talk 19:35, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 5) Deletion of nominations is unnecessary and problematic. Bratsche talk 21:02, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 6) DES (talk) 15:03, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Yes, of course. I see no possible good reason for deleting an AfD page. (Whether Snowspinner's actions were wholly in "good faith" or not, I cannot know, but I'm willing to asume that they were.) Paul August ☎ 16:41, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

I have now made this into a formal policy proposal at Articles for deletion/Speedy keep proposal. Thryduulf 20:11, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

Outside view by Gmaxwell
Although there are still open concerns about the quality of Snowspinner's judgement in deleting discussion pages (rather than a more easily undone speedy keep), this RFC should be closed because the parties involved have successfully taken it completely offtopic: This has become a discussion of AFD policies overall. Such discussions would be better held in the appropriate place so that they can reach the wider interested audience.

 * 1) Gmaxwell 01:34, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 2) Ifnord 00:11, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

Outside view by Fubar Obfusco
This is getting to be a complex issue, largely because people are using it to comment on lots of the usual perpetual gripes. I'm going to see if I can get some relatively simple points out:

 * 1) This isn't about inclusionism or deletionism. A number of people posting above (including Snowspinner) have tried to turn this into a branch of the perpetual faction struggle. There's nothing at all in the original complaint about inclusionism, deletionism, mergism, this-ism, that-ism. Bringing up this eternal hooraw is a distraction from the issue here -- a specific set of disruptive administrative actions; and the broader issue of disruptive administrative action.
 * 2) Don't disrupt Wikipedia to make a point. It is in no case acceptable to screw up other people's work just so you can make a point about Wikipedia process or policy. So you think AfD is "broken" -- that doesn't give you any business breaking it further. So you don't like that articles get deleted for being "non-notable" and that AfD is "overloaded" -- that doesn't mean you get to delete AfD discussions.
 * 3) "Be bold in updating pages" is a guideline for editing, not administrative action. A number of people have erroneously cited "the 'be bold' policy" as a defense of disruptive administrative action. But there's never been anything resembling a policy (or consensus) that administrators are supposed to "be bold" in the sense of running roughshod over their fellow editors.
 * 4) Administrative action is subject to review by all editors. Several people posting above have stated or implied that calling for review of administrative action is wrong, misguided, or "insane". To the contrary -- it is utterly necessary. If an administrator is going to break things, that's a problem, and needs to be dealt with. In order for that to happen, discussion on administrative actions needs to be open and candid -- people mustn't be silenced by accusations that review is "insane" or that they're engaging in "conspiracy theory".
 * 5) Deleting active discussions is particularly nasty disruption. Quite aside from the baseline issue of disrupting Wikipedia, the specific type of disruption here was pointedly troubling. Discussions (including those on AfD) are how we seek and try to establish consensus. They're essential to how we work here on all sorts of issues -- not just deletion. So deleting an active discussion is a particularly nasty kind of disruption, since it's an attack on the mechanism by which we build this project. --FOo 02:38, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

Or, in brief, for those who've been affected by PowerPoint:

 * Disruption is bad, no matter who does it.
 * WP:DICK trumps WP:BOLD, especially for administrative action.
 * Don't delete active discussions, even if you think they're "invalid".

I think that about wraps it up. --FOo 02:38, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

 * 1) android  79  02:40, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 2) Ryan Norton T 02:45, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 3) User:Zoe|(talk) 02:51, 4 October 2005 (UTC) Excellent response.
 * 4) Exactly. --Blackcap | talk 02:53, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 5) The Literate Engineer 03:21, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 6) N (t/c) 03:28, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 7) Xoloz 04:57, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 8)  brenneman (t) (c)  05:05, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 9) Sjakkalle (Check!)  08:20, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 10) Thank you for putting everything in perspective. Gamaliel 08:29, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 11) That makes sense, which is a Good Thing. Proto t c 09:00, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 12) Agreed, Snowspinner's actions were a particularly nasty form of disruption. Filiocht | The kettle's on 09:57, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 13) Agree in outline - but I think the word 'nasty' is unhelpful. Tell him not to do it again, and let's move on and try to fix the deletion process. --Doc (?) 10:14, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 14) Eugene van der Pijll 11:58, 4 October 2005 (UTC). Agree, and with the word 'nasty' too.
 * 15) Beautifully said and extremely concise. Geogre 12:25, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 16) Well put. -Splash talk 13:07, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 17) To the point, thanks. Bunchofgrapes 14:55, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 18) Well said, Fubar --TimPope 16:39, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 19) My left shoe agrees -  Tεx  τ  urε  16:47, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 20) I Agree --JAranda | yeah 18:38, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 21) enceph  alon  18:43, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 22) Thryduulf 19:03, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 23) · Katefan0(scribble) 20:15, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 24) Agree in entirety. Bratsche talk 21:03, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 25) Ilmari Karonen 22:13, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 26) Well said. --Tabor 01:23, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 27) --cesarb 02:57, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 28) --[[Image:Ottawa flag.png|20px]] Spinboy 03:35, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 29) The summary implies all disruption is bad, but it's more complex than that. I fully support the long version of this view. --Gmaxwell 03:40, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 30) Lectonar 11:59, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 31) I fully agree. DES (talk) 15:23, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 32) Very well put, I completely agree. Paul August ☎ 17:02, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 33) moink 20:19, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 34) Very nice summary gkhan 15:24, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 35) WP:DICK is required reading for all... Secretlondon 17:09, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 36) Very well put.--Sean Jelly Baby? 01:08, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 37) Huzzah. Lord Bob 01:26, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 38) Susvolans ⇔ 11:05, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 39) Robert McClenon 21:09, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 40) I agree. The idea that admin action cannot be criticised has become far too prevalent. They're just ordinary editors, remember. Grace Note 00:25, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 41) Nice statement. CarbonCopy 21:36, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 42) Point 5 is especially valid.  Joyous  (talk) 02:57, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 43) This sums it up nicely.  --Aquillion 03:49, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 44) Concur wholeheartedly. If only this were adopted by all parties to this mess. Ambi 12:09, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 45) Andre</b> ( talk ) 13:58, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 46) Absolutely concur. Nandesuka 00:45, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 47) — Asbestos | Talk   (RFC)  07:05, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Outside view by Zzyzx11
This dispute is a symptom of a number of enormous diseases that will eventually affect the credibility and reputation of Wikipedia in a very negative way. No wonder why many long time contributors such as RickK have left in droves. If we cannot get a clear consensus of our deletion policy, if we cannot stop admins from taking controversial actions, if we keep on bickering at each other, I fear this project will be doomed. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 20:01, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

Outside view by Doc
As much as I cannot suport Snowspinner's actions, they like Ed Poor's, evidence a frustration with the deletion process that we ignore at our peril. The criterion 'notability' is contentious, and that is unlikely to change. However, the notability criteria is not afd's main problem. Snowspinner deleted 16 'notability-based' nominations out of 130 that day. (And some of the 16 nominations could have been made on other grounds - OR, verifiability etc). My anecdotal conclusion is that over 80% of afd's work has nothing much to do with notability. If afd cannot upscale with Wiki-growth, then we have a problem. Deletion reform is essential - notability   is largely a sideshow. Consensus on reform might be possible, consensus on notability is not. We need to spend a little less effort on tribal point-scoring, wiki-lawyering, and unilateral action (all well evidenced in this debate), and more on trying to work together to constructively solve the problems. --Doc (?) 12:48, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Outside view by Mindspillage
The deletion of the AfD pages was a poor call; it removes the ability of non-admins to review the action fully, and it breaks the practice of usual practice of retaining discussion pages even when the actions they propose are soundly rejected. A speedy keep and delist would have also drawn attention, and not involved the use of administrative actions to handle an "invalid nomination" (whether or not they actually were invalid isn't the issue here: there does not seem to be consensus there and this incident has not resolved it). Ignore All Rules, yes, but not in order to perform an action that one can assume with some reasonable forethought will generate ill will and inflame arguments rather than provide a quick and elegant solution to them. Disruption is not necessarily bad (whether to prove a point or not), but the costs to the community of his actions outweighed the benefits and it was partially the use of administrative powers to do so that caused that. Be bold in actions that anyone can do; be conservative in using admin rights.

Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~ ):
 * 1) Mindspillage (spill yours?) 13:27, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 2) Actions like Snowspinner's create unnecessary animus within the Wikipedia community, weaken its cohesion, and foster the notion that some editors think they are above others. Paul August ☎ 17:13, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 3) Deletion policy is a difficult area, and there's a lot of people on different sides of difference fences here, without much agreement. Unilateral action like this is dangerous, and should probably be avoided.  Time will tell whether this action ultimately benefited or harmed Wikipedia; however, a speedy keep would have had the same effect without involving the use of any admin authority.  Eradicating all evidence of an AfD should only be done when the AfD was clearly brought in bad faith (e.g. deletion attempt of George W. Bush by an anon).  These were presumptively good faith AfDs.  Kelly Martin 17:54, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 4) Certainly true. N (t/c) 00:29, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 5) --Blackcap | talk 00:55, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 6) Sjakkalle (Check!)  06:40, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 7) Gmaxwell 13:21, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 8) Filiocht | The kettle's on 07:39, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 9) Susvolans ⇔ 11:04, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 10) Totally. Snowspinner did not abuse his powers to protest the discussions or to fix the deletion policy. He abused them to bully other users. This should not be supported by the establishment, even if you agree with the reasoning behind it. There are plenty of ways of disagreeing with the listing of articles for deletion. Grace Note 00:28, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 11) Any misuse of admin powers is a bad thing, regardless of motive. Filiocht | The kettle's on 07:35, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 12)  enceph  alon  09:04, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Outside view by gkhan
Most all that needs to be said has been already, so my comment might be seen as piling it on. But I would like to make one point that isn't made often enough (and it's about more than just this case, so oh well...)

The only time I really see people invoke WP:BOLD is when they have done something destructive. That is not what the policy is about. You're bold when you feel that something needs to be changed, and you do something constructive, if perhaps unconventional about it. This was not constructive. Unilaterally deleting a number of discussions is not bold, it's arrogant. What wikipedia needs is not another (to borrow Gerards excellent, if rather graphic, phrase) dynamite enema, no, what wikipedia needs is for all of us to sit down and hammer out a policy that we can all find reasonable. The power of inertia is a strong one, but this is not the way to fight it.

In the future, can we all try to be less Malcolm X and alot more Dr. King. (note: I have nothing against Malcolm X, I'm a huge fan, but you get my point)

Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~ ):

 * 1) Susvolans ⇔ 11:04, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 2) I respect Malcolm, but I respect Dr King more. Paul August ☎ 17:39, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Discussion
All signed comments and talk not related to a vote or endorsement, should be directed to this page's discussion page.

authors: ಮಲ್ನಾಡಾಚ್ ಕೊಂಕ್ಣೊ


text:
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Viral Lode

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Presumably Kjkold doesn't object to deletion either. I'm not going to make the redirect myself, though, as I don't think it's useful. -Splash talk 17:49, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

Viral Lode
band created early this year, nn. -- ( ☺ drini ♫ | ☎ ) 06:36, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Redirect to viral load, perhaps? -- Kjkolb 08:43, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete unless a redirect is considered sensible, but I'd have thought in general people would spell 'load' sooner than 'lode'. Mallocks 13:10, 3 October 2005 (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 article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
 * 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 article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/


text: Category:Sega stubs

title: Category:Sega stubs


text: Category:Capcom stubs

title: Category:Capcom stubs


text:
San Luis Obispo Railroad Museum

The San Luis Obispo Railroad Museum, in San Luis Obispo, California, was founded to preserve and present the railroad history of California, and specifically the Central Coast, by collecting, restoring, displaying, and operating historic railroad equipment. The museum also maintains a research library, and document and photographic archives, and is developing an oral history program. The museum is open every Saturday from 10 am to 4 pm, and other times for groups by arrangement. The museum hosts special events in May and October each year. The museum's website, periodic emails, and the quarterly Coast Mail newsletter provide information on activities and resources.

The Facility
Opened in 2013, the museum occupies the restored former Southern Pacific Freighthouse (built 1894) at 1940 Santa Barbara Avenue, adjacent to the Union Pacific main line and about one-quarter mile south of the San Luis Obispo Amtrak station. A standard-gauge display track extends along the east side of the building, and a short narrow-gauge display track is on the west side. The Freighthouse contains an exhibit hall and a model railroad depicting the three-foot-gauge Pacific Coast Railway at Port San Luis circa 1920 and the standard-gauge Southern Pacific Coast Line from Surf to Paso Robles, including the Cuesta Grade crossing of the Santa Lucia range circa 1950 (under construction in 2018 but largely operational). There is a children's play area incorporating hands-on train tables and a Museum Store offering railroad books, lanterns, and clothing, and other items. The building, its restrooms, and the model railroad area are fully accessible. The platform along the display track provides a safe place to view and photograph passing and waiting trains.

The collection
On display are express wagons, station furnishings, switch stands, signal components, telegraph equipment, historical and contemporary photographs, a handcar, a velocipede, push cars, mine and orchard railway equipment, and locomotive headlights, bells, and whistles. Library books, documents, and photographs are being cataloged and are available to researchers by arrangement.

Rolling stock

 * La Cuesta, a 1926 Pullman observation-lounge car originally built for the Santa Fe Railway, is undergoing restoration and can be boarded from the freighthouse platform.
 * Southern Pacific bay window caboose No. 1886 is on the display track and almost completely restored inside and out.
 * A former Southern Pacific tank car manufactured in 1903 (pressed and riveted steel) is on the display track and undergoing restoration.
 * A former Southern Pacific steel gondola with wood side extensions, used in sugar beet service, is on the display track and is undergoing restoration.
 * Former United States Army Corpse of Engineers (Quartermaster Corps) No. 2038, a 20-ton Plymouth switching locomotive, acquired in 1941 and used to development and supply Camp Roberts near San Miguel, California, during World War II; it is on the display track, in good condition, but not its original appearance.
 * Pacific Coast Railway boxcar No. 706 has been cosmetically restored on the exterior and the interior has been converted to storage and restrooms, accessible from the Freighthouse interior.
 * Pacific Coast Railway boxcar from the 1200 series is undergoing cosmetic restoration and is displayed on the west side of the building.
 * Southern Pacific Class C-30-1 wood-sided, cupola caboose is awaiting restoration and is viewable by docent-led tours in the museum's nearby storage and work yard.
 * Southern Pacific Class B-50-13, outside-braced boxcar, is awaiting restoration and is viewable by docent-led tours in the museum's nearby storage and work yard.
 * Southern Pacific subsidiary Pacific Motor Trucking semitrailer is awaiting restoration and is viewable by docent-led tours in the museum's nearby storage and work yard

title: San Luis Obispo Railroad Museum


text:
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/School Science Experiment - Demonstrating the properties of waves on an Oscilloscope

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

The result of the debate was delete · Katefan0(scribble) 20:25, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

School Science Experiment - Demonstrating the properties of waves on an Oscilloscope
Delete this how-to that's already been transwikied to Wikibooks. Angr/undefined 06:38, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete; WP:NOT a how-to. MCB 07:00, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete as per nomination. Qaz  ( talk ) 14:13, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete - I've completed the transfer in Wikibooks and put the images on common -- Egil 11:03, 8 October 2005 (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 article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.


text: User talk:80.219.17.174

title: User talk:80.219.17.174


text:
Brad St. Louis

Brad Allen St. Louis (born August 19, 1976) is a former American football long snapper. He was drafted by the Cincinnati Bengals in the seventh round of the 2000 NFL Draft as a tight end. He played college football at Southwest Missouri State University.

Early years
St. Louis attended Belton High School in Belton, Missouri, graduating in 1995. St. Louis lettered in football, wrestling, tennis, and track. In football, as a tight end, he caught 42 passes for 508 yards over two years, and was named his team's Lineman of the Year as a junior. As a senior, Brad was a Missouri State champion in wrestling.

College career
St. Louis attended Southwest Missouri State University where he earned a degree in dietetics. St. Louis was inducted into Missouri State's Athletic Hall of Fame February 5, 2011. St. Louis graduated as the top tight end receiver in Bears' football history. He was a four-year letterman, and three-year starter, from 1996 to 1999. He closed his playing career with 93 catches for 1,074 yards and seven touchdowns, becoming the first Bears tight end to reach the 1,000-yard receiving mark. St. Louis played for the Bears under coach Del Miller for three seasons and coach Randy Ball for one year. In 1999, St. Louis earned Football Gazette Football Championship Subdivision All-America honors to go with three Missouri Valley Football Conference all-league first-team selections for his receiving and blocking skills. He was the first Bear to play in two postseason all-star games, competing in the East–West Shrine Game and the Hula Bowl following his senior season.

Cincinnati Bengals
St. Louis was drafted by the Cincinnati Bengals in the seventh round (210th overall) of the 2000 NFL Draft. St. Louis was the first long snapper drafted in team history. Besides being the starting long snapper, St. Louis saw action on the kickoff return and punt return teams during his first three seasons with the team. In a game on November 12, 2000, against the Dallas Cowboys, St. Louis' snap was high. This caused Bengals holder and punter Daniel Pope to stand up and do an emergency punt from the Cowboys 24 yard line. The ball rolled into the end-zone, and the play went down as the closest punt to an opposition's end-zone in NFL history. St. Louis also saw action as a tight end during his first three seasons. St. Louis spent 10 seasons with the Bengals before being cut in October 2009.

title: Brad St. Louis


text:
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gazer (Band)

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

The result of the debate was Delete --Gareth Hughes 13:04, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

Gazer (Band)
Mikal and Zack met in a church which they both attended, but they sadly fail WP:MUSIC. -- ( ☺ drini ♫ | ☎ ) 06:38, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete as per nom. Mallocks 12:30, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Relisting for more comment. Rx StrangeLove 18:23, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

 * Delete per Drini chowells 18:42, 16 October 2005 (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 article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.


text:
USS Alfred A. Cunningham

USS Alfred A. Cunningham (DD-752), an Allen M. Sumner-class destroyer, is the only ship of the United States Navy to be named for Alfred Austell Cunningham, a USMC officer and aviator.

Construction and commissioning
USS Alfred A. Cunningham was laid down on 23 February 1944 at Staten Island, New York, by the Bethlehem Steel Company. She was launched on 3 August 1944, sponsored by Mrs. Alfred A. Cunningham, the widow of Lieutenant Colonel Alfred A. Cunningham and commissioned on 23 November 1944.

World War II
Following shakedown training out of Bermuda, Alfred A. Cunningham returned to New York on 17 January 1945 for post-shakedown availability. Proceeding to Norfolk soon thereafter, the destroyer spent the next three months operating in the Chesapeake Bay area as a training ship for prospective destroyer crews. Here the ship introduced hundreds of trainees to life on board a destroyer, engaging in gunnery exercises, damage control drills, and maneuvering practice.

Following a brief availability for repairs and alterations at the Norfolk Navy Yard, Cunningham got underway on 7 May, and rendezvoused with the new heavy cruiser USS Chicago (CA-136) off Brown Shoals, Delaware Bay, and proceeded with that ship to Chesapeake Bay for gunnery exercises. The two warships then steamed to Guantánamo Bay, then Panama, transiting the canal on 18 May, and arrived at Pearl Harbor on 31 May. Over the next two weeks, Cunningham remained in Hawaiian waters, undergoing an availability alongside the USS Black Hawk (AD-9) and carrying out training.

On 13 June, the destroyer joined Task Group (TG) 12.4 and sailed for the western Pacific. A week later, while en route, Cunningham screened carriers launching air strikes on Japanese-held Wake Island. The group arrived at Leyte on 26 June.

Cunningham got underway the following day for Okinawa, and while en route to her destination conducted a depth charge attack on what she evaluated as a "good" submarine contact, but with negative results. Shortly after arriving at Okinawa on 29 June, she served on radar picket duty off the island's southwest coast. From 1 July until the end of hostilities she served on patrol, escort, and screening duty in waters surrounding the Ryukyus. Following Japan's capitulation, Cunningham remained in the Far East, operating off the coast of China between the Yellow Sea and the South China Sea. She performed escort services and served on an antismuggling patrol between Korea and Japan. The destroyer returned to the United States on 28 March 1946, went into reserve at San Diego on 12 May 1947, and was decommissioned in August 1949.

Korea
During the buildup of the fleet in the wake of the North Korean invasion of South Korea in late June 1950, Alfred A. Cunningham was recommissioned on 5 October 1950 and joined the Pacific Fleet. Following training exercises, the destroyer got underway for the western Pacific (WestPac) on 2 January 1951. Cunningham was involved in a variety of operations, principally serving with Task Force (TF) 77, the fast carrier task force, off the coast of Korea.

Early in this deployment, on 18 February 1951, the ship was released from her "Bird Dog" station (plane guard) with TF 77 to carry out a night shore bombardment mission on "targets of opportunity" near Tanchon, on the east coast of Korea. Cunningham arrived on station at 2130 and opened fire, conducting harassing and interdictory fire; her targets included railroad tracks, two grade crossings, a tunnel, and lights on the road leading south. After expending 90 rounds of 5-inch, the destroyer ceased fire at 0605 on the 19th.

Returning to San Diego on 4 September 1951, Cunningham again sailed for the Far East in March 1952. As before, she steamed with the fast carrier task force off Korea and performed shore bombardment missions. On 19 September, the destroyer was operating in Task Element 95.22 (the "Songjin Element") to prevent the movement of trains along the railroad at that point by preventing clearance of the roadbed and repair during the day, and destroying trains at night. Patrolling some 6,000 yards off the beach at about 1340, Cunningham fired on enemy workers she had seen in the vicinity. A little over an hour later, detecting the workers at a tunnel, the destroyer stood in toward the shoreline, turning slowly to starboard to take a northeasterly course to fire on the enemy at the tunnel mouth.

At that point, at least three enemy guns opened fire on the ship. The first salvo was a direct hit, on the main deck, starboard side; several pieces of shrapnel penetrated the shield of mount 51 and wounded three of the mount's crew. Two air bursts followed in quick succession, one on either side of the bridge. Within two minutes time, the North Korean guns had registered four more direct hits and at least seven air bursts near the ship.

One shell penetrated into the forward fire room, destroying a forced-draft blower; shrapnel holed a nearby bulkhead. Another shell struck a depth charge on the forward K-gun, blowing the charge apart and scattering burning TNT as far aft as the fantail; shrapnel from this hit set another depth charge afire, and ruptured four others. The fourth hit on the starboard side, two feet below the main deck; shrapnel from this hit caused extensive damage to the motor whaleboat. The last shell to hit struck about two feet below the waterline, but did not penetrate. The air bursts near the bridge rendered the SG radar inoperative.

Immediately, one of the ship's 3-inch mounts opened up to return the shore battery's fire, expending both hoppers full (ten rounds); these rounds landed in the target area but did not slow the enemy's rate of fire.

With Cunningham under fire, Lieutenant Frederick F. Palmer, USNR, the officer of the deck, sounded the general alarm, ordered the rudder shifted to left full, rang up the port engine back emergency full, starboard engine ahead flank, in order to come left and open the range.

Although mount 53 had reported a fire on the starboard K-guns, the blast from the guns of that mount and the nearby 3-inch mount, 34, prevented a repair party from approaching the blaze from that angle. Men from another damage control party got to the fire and battled the blaze, while as the ship sped to seaward, weaving but keeping at least one main battery mount bearing on the target guns at all times.

As the ship opened the range to 9,000 yards and worked up to 26.5 knots, Ensign Charles E. Dennis, USNR; Chief Torpedoman William J. Bohrman; and Electrician's Mate 2nd Class Victor J. Leonard manhandled one burning depth charge over the side, performing this task at great personal risk while the fire on the K-guns was being brought under control. All three men were later recommended for the award of the Bronze Star.

Having suffered 13 men wounded, principally to shrapnel, Cunningham pulled out of range and stood down from general quarters, steering toward Yang Do Island to receive medical assistance from HMS Charity (R29). After emergency repairs, Cunningham was able to continue her combat operations. Cunningham ultimately returned to the United States and reached her new home port, Long Beach, California, on 6 November.

Cunningham operated in the southern California area through the first five months of 1953 before getting underway on 13 June for another WestPac deployment. During her five months in the Far East, Cunningham operated twice with TF 77. The first of these periods saw her escorting the heavy cruiser USS Bremerton (CA-130). On 29 and 30 July 1953, Cunningham participated, with Bremerton and other United States Navy ships, in the search and rescue effort to recover the crew of a Boeing RB-50 that had crashed in the Sea of Japan. The searching ships managed to recover only the co-pilot.

The destroyer also participated in intensive antisubmarine warfare (ASW) exercises with TG 96.7 and joined in operations near Taiwan with other ships of Destroyer Division (DesDiv) 131. She returned to Long Beach on 20 December 1953.

A regular overhaul kept her at the Mare Island Naval Shipyard from February through April 1954. Then, after two months of training, Cunningham got underway for WestPac on 10 August. En route, she stopped at Pearl Harbor for gunnery and antisubmarine exercises and then continued on to Yokosuka, Japan. Cunningham joined TG 70.2 for maneuvers and division exercises and made two brief port visits to Manila. Next she operated with TF 72 as a part of a patrol in the Taiwan Strait. Cunningham then escorted USS Yorktown (CV-10) to Hong Kong and on to Manila, where she spent the holiday season.

Cunningham continued her work as plane guard for Yorktown into 1955, and returned to Long Beach on 6 February. After a leave and upkeep period, she resumed operations off the California coast. On 11 May, the destroyer took part in Operation "WigWam."

Following five months of preparation, Cunningham departed the west coast on 11 October, bound for Japan. She made fuel stops at Pearl Harbor and Midway en route to Yokosuka. Upon completion of voyage repairs, the destroyer joined TF 77 for three weeks of duty, broken once by a port call at Kobe, Japan. Cunningham spent the Christmas holidays at Yokosuka.

1956–1965
Antisubmarine exercises were her first assignment of 1956 before she proceeded, via Subic Bay, to join the Taiwan Strait patrol for a fortnight. Then the destroyer visited Hong Kong and stopped briefly in Yokosuka for repairs before sailing for home. After arriving at Long Beach on 31 March, she entered the San Francisco Naval Shipyard in May for an overhaul which was followed by two months of underway training out of San Diego. On 6 November, Alfred A. Cunningham got underway to escort Bremerton to Melbourne, Australia, where the ships participated in festivities surrounding the XVI Olympic Games. After 10 days in that port, the destroyer sailed for Yokosuka.

In January 1957, Cunningham took part in exercises near Chinhae, Korea, with ships of the Republic of Korea Navy (ROK). She then joined TF 77 in the South China Sea for plane-guard duty. This work was followed by another stint with the Taiwan Strait patrol. Cunningham made stops at Subic Bay, Hong Kong, and Yokosuka before sailing for the United States.

She arrived at Long Beach on 12 May and devoted the next few months to air defense, hunter/killer operations, and shore bombardment exercises along the California coast. In December, the destroyer entered the Long Beach Naval Shipyard for an availability.

On 13 January 1958, Cunningham sailed for another Far East tour. Following stops at Pearl Harbor; Pago Pago, American Samoa; and Wellington, New Zealand, the destroyer arrived at Hobart, Tasmania, on 7 February. There, the members of her crew were graciously entertained by officials of the Royal Hobart Regatta.

On 12 February, Cunningham got underway for Guam, where she received two weeks of repair work. The destroyer then shifted to Yokosuka, arriving on 1 April. During the following months, the ship took part in numerous exercises, escorting and screening USS Ticonderoga (CV-14) and other warships. During the cruise, she visited Hong Kong; Subic Bay; and Buckner Bay, Okinawa, before arriving back at Long Beach on 21 July. In early September, she entered the Long Beach Naval Shipyard for overhaul. She left drydock in early December and spent the holidays in leave and upkeep.

The destroyer held refresher training during the first three months of 1959, departed Long Beach on 28 March, and steamed to Yokosuka. On 15 April, she left that port in company with USS Shangri-La (CVA-38) to take part in Exercise "Sea Turtle", off the coast of Korea.

Late in May, Cunningham assisted in Exercise "Granite Creek." After a visit to Hong Kong, she returned to Yokosuka for an availability to prepare for the voyage home where she arrived on 27 August. The ship spent the rest of the year participating in gunnery exercises, ASW exercises, and acting as a school ship for Fleet Training Group, Pacific.

In January 1960, Cunningham, took part in STRIKEX 30–60. On 1 February, she became a unit of DesDiv 132 and was assigned to TG 14.7, a hunter/killer group. From 1 February to 7 May, the destroyer trained with that unit in the eastern Pacific.

Leaving Long Beach on 17 May with Destroyer Squadron 13 and USS Hornet (CVS-12), Cunningham proceeded to Pearl Harbor where she arrived on 23 May. The force remained in Hawaiian waters conducting ASW exercises until their departure on 5 July. The destroyer reached Kobe, Japan, on 16 July and began an upkeep period. She next sailed for ASW operations in the area off Okinawa, conducting these until 29 August, when the ship entered Subic Bay. Except for two brief visits to Hong Kong, she remained in the Subic Bay area until 3 December, when she sailed for Yokosuka. After a brief upkeep period, the ship left on a return voyage to the west coast, arriving at Long Beach on 18 December.

In late January 1961, the ship entered the Long Beach Naval Shipyard for a fleet rehabilitation and modernization (FRAM) overhaul. She held sea trials in July and August and resumed operations on 22 September. On 9 October, she sailed for Seattle. The ship conducted sound trials in Puget Sound from 12 to 20 October and then returned to Long Beach, whence she held refresher training in San Diego waters with the fleet training group from 30 October through 8 December.

Throughout the first five months of 1962, Cunningham alternated periods at sea with upkeep in her home port. On 7 June, she departed the west coast for a six-month WestPac cruise. Upon her arrival at Pearl Harbor on 13 June, the destroyer conducted ASW operations off Oahu before proceeding on to Yokosuka. In August, the destroyer took part in combined operations with the Japanese Maritime Self-Defense Force and made port calls at Kure, Kobe, and Sasebo, before returning to Yokosuka on 31 October. She got underway again on 3 November for patrol duty in the Strait of Tsushima and, after completing this task on 14 November, sailed via Hong Kong to Subic Bay. On 2 December, the ship participated in a weapons demonstration, then began her voyage back to the United States, arriving at Long Beach on 21 December.

The destroyer spent the first three months of 1963 in local operations, including its participation in the filming of the Warner Brothers family film The Incredible Mr. Limpet, starring Don Knotts and Carole Cook.

On 1 April, she became a part of DesDiv 232 and spent April and May in availability at San Diego. Putting to sea in early June, she began a series of intensive ASW training exercises. In August, Cunningham sailed north with Carrier Division 19 on a goodwill and training cruise to Seattle, and the Alaskan ports of Skagway and Dutch Harbor. After a month back at Long Beach, the destroyer got underway for Pearl Harbor and several weeks of ASW operations. She returned to Long Beach in December for leave and upkeep.

On 20 February 1964, the ship left Long Beach in company with the other ships of DesDiv 232 for a six-month WestPac tour. Reaching Pearl Harbor on 28 February, Cunningham operated locally until sailing for the Far East on 23 March. Soon after leaving Hawaii, the destroyer took part in Operation "Crazy Horse", off the coast of Okinawa. On 7 April, the ship began a week of upkeep in Yokosuka. Other ports of call during this deployment included Kure, Sasebo, and Hong Kong. From 9 June to 4 July, the ship operated out of Kaohsiung, Taiwan, on the Taiwan Strait patrol. Alfred A. Cunningham. then steamed to the Sea of Japan for Operation "Crossed Tee", a joint operation with ships of the Japanese Maritime Self-Defense Force. Then, following stops at Hakodate and Yokosuka, Japan, the destroyer arrived back in Long Beach on 11 August for leave, upkeep, and local operations. On 15 November, she entered the Long Beach Naval Shipyard for an overhaul.

Upon completion of this renewal effort on 15 March 1965, the ship departed Long Beach for seven weeks of refresher training in San Diego waters. Early in June, she embarked 30 midshipmen for a two-week training cruise in the Puget Sound area. On 12 August, Cunningham got underway for her 13th WestPac cruise. The ship stopped at Pearl Harbor for a two-week ASW operation held southwest of Molokai. A fortnight's upkeep at the Pearl Harbor Naval Shipyard ensued before the destroyer continued on to Yokosuka.

Vietnam
In October, Alfred A. Cunningham joined TF 77 for patrol and surveillance duties off the coast of North Vietnam and in the Gulf of Tonkin. Following a week of recreation in Hong Kong, the destroyer got underway on 10 November to steam to Kaohsiung, and operated out of that port on patrol in the Taiwan Strait. On 5 December, she proceeded through the Tsushima Strait into the Sea of Japan for a joint ASW exercise with ships of the Republic of Korea (ROK) Navy before returning to Sasebo for the Christmas holidays.

In January 1966, Cunningham again patrolled off the Vietnamese coast and provided naval gunfire support in the area of Quang Ngai, South Vietnam. The final weeks of her patrol were spent on radar picket station south of Hainan Island. After a brief respite at Yokosuka, the ship sailed back to the United States, reaching Long Beach on 3 March.

For the next seven months, she held numerous training operations and availability periods but was underway west again on 4 November, bound for Oahu on the first leg of her deployment. Once in Hawaiian waters, the destroyer held exercises with combined American and Canadian forces and then continued on to Yokosuka for a brief upkeep period before sailing to the Taiwan Strait for patrol duty.

Cunningham proceeded to the Gulf of Tonkin early in January 1967 to serve as a plane guard for USS Bennington (CVS-20) to assist in recovering downed aviators. In February, the ship was assigned to Operation "Sea Dragon", a logistics interdiction effort in the coastal waters of North Vietnam, and continued this duty into April. Another stint of service in the Taiwan Strait followed, lasting from 6 to 12 April. On the 28th of that month, the destroyer sailed for home where she spent one and a half months preparing for an overhaul. She entered the Long Beach Naval Shipyard on 14 July and underwent extensive repairs and alterations. Upon completion of the yard work in November, Cunningham spent a month in independent steaming and undergoing tender availability.

The destroyer began 1968 with refresher training in San Diego and then was deployed once more to southeast Asian waters. She repeated her former pattern of plane guard and search and rescue operations off the Vietnamese coast. On 23 October, the ship set course for home, made fueling stops at Midway and Pearl Harbor, and arrived back in Long Beach on 9 November.

On 2 January 1969, Cunningham took part in Operation "Quickstart", and plane guarded for USS Oriskany (CVA-34). The destroyer maintained a full schedule of exercises and availability periods until 1 July, when a shaft bearing casualty caused her to enter the Todd Shipyard at San Pedro, California, for repairs.

Emerging from drydock on 6 September, Cunningham began an intensive one-month period of preparations for deployment. The destroyer left Long Beach in early October and sailed to Pearl Harbor for refueling; she then conducted port calls at Yokosuka, Buckner Bay, and Subic Bay. On 14 November, the destroyer stood out of Subic Bay for duty off Vietnam. From 19 November until 4 December, she supported forces ashore with fire from her 5-inch guns. On 5 December, she joined Hancock on "Yankee Station" and remained there until the 20th when she headed for Sasebo for the holidays.

Cunningham began the year of 1970 with ASW and flight operations in Okinawan waters which were followed by a five-day visit to Hong Kong. On 17 January, she sailed to join Constellation on "Yankee Station" and remained on this assignment until 21 February when the ship paid a brief visit to Kaohsiung. The destroyer sailed on 21 March to return to Long Beach. Upon her arrival on 9 April, she began a leave and upkeep period and then resumed operations in the southern California area in May. She spent the early summer months in training exercises and a midshipman training cruise, sailing from Long Beach to San Francisco, Victoria (Canada), Pearl Harbor, and then back to Long Beach. On 7 August, slated for inactivation, Cunningham unloaded all her ammunition at Seal Beach, California (USA).

Decommissioning and disposal
Decommissioned on 24 February 1971, Alfred A. Cunningham was placed in reserve. Her name was struck from the Naval Vessel Register on 1 February 1974. Utilized as a target for weapons tests off the coast of Southern California, she was sunk after being hit with five laser-guided bombs on 12 October 1979.

Honors and awards

 * Asiatic-Pacific Campaign Medal with one battle star
 * World War II Victory Medal ribbon.svg World War II Victory Medal
 * Korean Service Medal with six battle stars
 * Vietnam Service Medal with seven battle stars

Cunningham earned one battle star for World War II service, six for the Korea War, and seven for the Vietnam War.

title: USS Alfred A. Cunningham


text: Category:Konami stubs

title: Category:Konami stubs