Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/168

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
  • ... protected DNA, despite his being involved in the edit war there. This is a violation of the rules for sysops.Lir 19:06 29 January 2004
      • Or: As a participant in a brief multi-party revert war over one paragraph with the above accuser, Lir, 168 reverted DNA to an old version, which he favored, and then protected the page. 168... 01:37, 4 Feb 2004 (UTC)


Unless 168 admits wrongdoing in this case, I must, regretfully, support de-adminship (three strikes, IMO, should only apply to valid judgment mistakes - not to knowingly and blatantly breaking a very important rule). As I stated on 168's talk page, we don't have many rules for page protection, but the most important one is to not use it as a tool to get your version of an article at the top edit in an edit war. This is exactly what 168 did:
  1. 168 reverted DNA, removing Peak's and Lir's edits.
  2. 168 then protected the page.
All this was during a longstanding edit war that involved 168 as a major participant. I don't know what the intent 168 had (it may have been to bring a page he thought was protected back to its protected state), but the result has the appearance of a severe breach of protocol. Admins need to be above the appearance of misuse of sysop privileges. --mav 23:08, 30 Jan 2004 (UTC)
"Edit war" means "revert war." It's a lie that there was a long standing revert war that was ongoing, and also a lie that I was involved in such an ongoing war, and it would be a lie as well to say that in the last thirteen days I had been involved at all even in the civil, if circular, discussions that were taking place on the associated talk page. I had not been seriously involved in these discussion for quite a long time (where by "serious" I mean making posts of more than one or two lines about a side point spread days apart as others posted at length throughout the day). So Mav's portrayal of what I did is seriously seriously skewed, and in effect slanderous. Even if what he described were a fair portrait of the circumstances, he omits discussion of my motive and intent (because as he confesses, he doesn't know them). My motive, as I stated explicitly in the summary comment of my first of two reversions, was to stop unagreed upon changes to one paragraph, which had been extensively discussed on the talk page without resolution. The version I protected was indeed one I favored, but that is not the most pertinent thing to say about it. More pertinent is that the paragraph was an old version that had stood a long test of time and was considered at least moderately acceptable to everybody except Lir. It had only changed when Lir came in, and no other paragraph had been agreed upon as acceptable to more people than the one I protected. People have been searching for an alternate version of this paragraph for ages on the talk page. The process goes in circles, because of Lir's inability to come to a resolution but any of the many bones of contention that others have with the versions he proposes. Each time someone proposes a version that moves a step in Lir's direction, Lir brings back elements that others strongly object to. I could see that that same process was about to unfold within the recently unprotected article itself, and that it was bound to spread, furthermore, to the whole rest of the article. So stopped it in the fastest way possible, which was by protecting the page myself. Mav apparently agreed that protection was called for at that moment, because he told me he'd have done it for me if I'd asked. Cyan said I only barely beat him to it. So there's no controversy about the appropriateness of protecting the page. The issues seems to be "how it looks" that I, given my relation to the page, did it. I think on scutiny it looks just fine. Mav doesn't. How does it look to you? 168... 07:06, 4 Feb 2004 (UTC)

168: It's a lie that there was a long standing revert war that was ongoing, and also a lie that I was involved in such an ongoing war,

Oh really. Some choice reverts you have done at DNA since January 4. Note the lull in activity in between the 7th and 28th because the article was protected from ~9th to the 22nd. Abridged version, here is the complete one. Mostly just showing your reverts (Lir reverted as much as you did - if not more - but isn't the issue here). --mav

168 then protects the page.

(cur) (last) . . 09:40, 29 Jan 2004 . . 168... (rv)
(cur) (last) . . 20:28, 28 Jan 2004 . . 168... (rv to last edit by Lexor. changes should be discussed )
(cur) (last) . . 11:27, 7 Jan 2004 . . 168... (changing article to emphasize the elasticity of string cheese)
(cur) (last) . . M 18:21, 5 Jan 2004 . . 168...
(cur) (last) . . 19:11, 4 Jan 2004 . . 168...
(cur) (last) . . 18:45, 4 Jan 2004 . . Lir (if my quote isn't good enough, neither is yours)

To answer your question, Yes, really. You have to use "choice reverts" because you have to distort the chronological record to make what I did look bad. You haven't disputed a single thing I called a lie. Here is the actual record of week I protected DNA.168... 15:44, 4 Feb 2004 (UTC)

They are all reverts by you at DNA. They show that you have been in an edit war at DNA since early January. --mav
  1. (cur) (last) . . 09:40, 29 Jan 2004 . . 168... (rv)
  2. (cur) (last) . . 09:05, 29 Jan 2004 . . Lir (rv)
  3. (cur) (last) . . 20:28, 28 Jan 2004 . . 168... (rv to last edit by Lexor. changes should be discussed )
  4. (cur) (last) . . 20:15, 28 Jan 2004 . . Peak (This is NOT a reversion; perhaps it will forestall one.)
  5. (cur) (last) . . 18:08, 28 Jan 2004 . . Lir
  6. (cur) (last) . . 18:06, 28 Jan 2004 . . Lir
  7. (cur) (last) . . M 16:33, 27 Jan 2004 . . Lexor (fix image HTML markup, float:right should be part of style attribute)
  8. (cur) (last) . . 15:48, 27 Jan 2004 . . Mulad (tweak image)
  9. (cur) (last) . . 20:02, 22 Jan 2004 . . 168...

A revert war going on for close to a month is a long time in my book. --mav

"revert war going on for close to a month" is a lie, mav. The revert war that was "going on" started 18:06, 28 Jan with a bold edit by Lir, which was effectively a reversion to the same objected-to edits with which he had triggered a still unresolved, month-long dispute. The edit war ended when I protected the page at 09:40, 29 Jan, just fifteen and a half hours later. I reverted exactly twice during that time. It was more like a fleeting skirmish than a war. 168... 15:44, 4 Feb 2004 (UTC)
Note that 168..., in what looks to me like an atempt to cover his tracks, has changed my post above. See [1] Changing of a user's comment is not cool 168. I have put my text back in. I suggest others look at the history of DNA to confirm. --mav
Note track-covering tone of voice in the summary comment line 168 wrote in changing Mav's post. "replacing concocted montage record with chronological record." Actually, that doesn't look like someone trying to be sneaky to me. Note also that Mav, in what looks like a commitment to seeing evil in everything I do, is making mountains out of molehills. Note also that Mav's text is a montage or splice, which looks like a continuous record, and therefore is both ambigous and liable to be regarded by some, for example the accused here, as highly tendentious, misleading and hence unfair. 168... 19:59, 4 Feb 2004 (UTC)
Not misleading. I stated this before listing the data that you removed: "Abridged version, here is the complete one. Mostly just showing your reverts". --mav

Sorry I didn't give exact numbers but the above the the page history clearly shows that you were involved in an ongoing and long term revert war at the time you protected your favored version. --mav

168: and it would be a lie as well to say that in the last thirteen days I had been involved at all even in the civil, if circular, discussions that were taking place on the associated talk page

I didn't say such a thing. But Lir has stated that you refused to talk with him and just reverted him instead (not that I really trust Lir - others can research and judge that point). --mav
you described what I did as happening during an edit war I was involved in. 168... 16:09, 4 Feb 2004 (UTC)

168: So Mav's portrayal of what I did is seriously seriously skewed, and in effect slanderous.

Hardly. But let your own words speak for themself. Here is what you initially said after reading my above post (I see you removed them from this page). --mav

168: While strictly accurate I think it's a little misleading to say that what you described is "exactly what 168... did." It's exactly what happened, but it does not reflect my motive. You said you did not know my intent, and the intent is important.

That was when I thought you were unbiased and capable of dispassionate inquiry, and before you had made me feel so defensive. It's also before I appreciated the slippery use of the word "edit war" as a tool of insinuation. You are a master of this. 168... 15:59, 4 Feb 2004 (UTC)
BTW, I don't care about your intent. That only has meaning if and when you are penalized. It has little to no bearing on the fact finding phase of this process. But you do seem - to me at least - to be so unapologetic for what you did and seem to indicate that you would do the same thing over again given a similar situation. --mav

168: The version I protected was indeed one I favored...

So you admit to violating the letter of Wikipedia policy? It seems like the fact finding part of this process is winding down. --mav

168: More pertinent is that the paragraph was an old version that had stood a long test of time and was considered at least moderately acceptable to everybody except Lir.

The issue here is not the appropriateness of the revert and how right you were in doing so, the issue is your protection of the page of the version you preferred (something you admit) during a revert war. --mav
That may be your issue Mav, but other people may not be so fixed on observing the exact letter of what is not a constitution, but a set of guidlines put together by whatever subgroup of Wikipedians were interested at the time, and which was probably last edited before Jimbo became hands-off and left us to fend for ourselves.168... 15:59, 4 Feb 2004 (UTC)

168: The process goes in circles, because of Lir's inability to come to a resolution but any of the many bones of contention that others have with the versions he proposes.

Lir is being dealt with on another page: Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Lir. I'm a bit disappointed in both of you, but especially you since you are older, much more educated and are an Admin. --mav

168: I could see that that same process was about to unfold within the recently unprotected article itself, and that it was bound to spread, furthermore, to the whole rest of the article.

Then you should have placed a note on Wikipedia:Requests for page protection. I already noted that I would have protected the page, but that does not mean that my intent would be to protect your favored version but to just avoid an edit war. What you did looks like you were trying to protect your favored version, not just to prevent an edit war. See the difference? --mav 09:38, 4 Feb 2004 (UTC)

168 and I have had an extensive discussion on the matter, which can be seen on my talk page. I endorse mav's position. -- Cyan 04:30, 31 Jan 2004 (UTC)[Note our discussion can also be seen a short scroll down below168... 02:13, 4 Feb 2004 (UTC))

Sorry, I do not think what I specifically did, in context, was wrong, and I will not say that I think it was. "Misuse" is wrongdoing. Mere "appearance of misuse" is not wrongdoing. Apparently the sysop privileged act I performed (protection) was due to be performed, because other sysops said either they would have been happy to do the same thing or were indeed were just about to do so before my preemption. So outside of caring what looks proper, my judgment has not been called into question. Is anybody's respect for sysops really going to erode if I am allowed to get away, unrepentantly, with having protected a page from Lir in this instance? Am I really setting a precedent that will foster actual and not merely apparent misuse of sysop powers by others or by myself in the future. I highly doubt this. Lir doesn't strike me as a slippery slope or the thin end of any wedge. His record and his behavior stand out starkly, and so far as I can tell seem to be condemned by everybody. I think it would be easy to articulate a sensible rule to explicitly allow sysops to do the same thing I did...except that I think the thing to do is temporary banning and not protecting. At the time I thought protection was the more conservative thing to do, but I see now I was wrong about that. 168... 06:05, 31 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Discussion from User talk:Cyan and User talk:168...

    • I was wondering when this would show up. Functionally, 168's protection changed nothing, as I was about to do so anyway. I have some simple questions for 168 that will determine my view of this matter. 168, if you were given the chance to change your actions with respect to protection of DNA, would you? If so, how? -- Cyan 03:26, 30 Jan 2004 (UTC)


At the moment I see no reason to regret my action or anything truly wrong with it. I suppose you might be able to persuade me otherwise, but you'd have to try.168... 04:42, 30 Jan 2004 (UTC)

You have invited me to attempt to convince you that protecting DNA was not the best possible action for the circumstances in which you found yourself. Very well, I will give it the old college try.

First, I must state your position as I understand it. You feel that Lir is a vandal, making harmful changes and then being deliberately difficult on the talk page. You therefore feel justified in treating him as a vandal, reverting his edits and protecting the page. This is your position as I understand it.

The argument that I muster against such a position is simply that the best action for the sake of your reputation must take into account Lir's standing in the community. Few people enjoy dealing with Lir during conflicts, as he is... easily offended, shall we say, and apt to be retributive. (You may have noticed his edit summary of 02:45, 5 Jan 2004 on the DNA article, which is typical of the emotions-first approach Lir takes to editing here.) But for all that, there is not a consensus that he may be treated as a vandal. Certainly some editors feel that way, but others do not. In short, there is a significant, although perhaps not overwhelming, segment of Wikipedians here who accept Lir as an editor.

(A point I make much later below is that vandalism is not decided by concensus. An individual sysop has the authority to temporarily ban someone for what to he or she judges to be vandalism. I should have banned instead of protecting, but if I had, then the appropriate thing to question is my judgment, not whether I conformed to the rules, which in that event I would have been explicitly in compliance with.168...)

It's generally considered important that sysops not to use the special privileges they have in conflicts, particularly not conflicts with non-sysops. The principle is that sysop privileges are intended to serve the purposes of the community at large, not the individual sysops. Thus, when I protected DNA, I did it on behalf of the community, and likewise when Snoyes unprotected it. I can assert these things without fear of contradiction because neither Snoyes nor I were deeply involved in the editing of the page, nor had either of us expressed strong views about the text during discussions on the talk page. Your protection, on the other hand, is not such a clear-cut case. You have clearly stated a view on what should be written in the article, and the protection you undertook to perform favoured your preferred version. The thesis that Lir is a vandal could be a justification, but it is not universally accepted, and this is the source of the damage to your reputation.

This damage is not a huge deal: enough people find Lir to be a pest that your actions may be viewed as justified by a significant portion of the community. You will almost certainly not lose your admin privileges over it. Nevertheless, the action was not above reproach; you've generated a certain amount of distrust, and similar actions in the future are now more likely to cause people to distrust you.

Now, having made that argument, I must suggest a course of action that would have been preferable, in the sense that no shadow of a doubt about the propriety of the action could have accrued to you. This course of action is simply to treat yourself as a non-sysop for the purpose of this conflict. Non-sysops in conflict must request protection from a disinterested sysop, and this is the course of action available to you which was above reproach.

(I do not require a counter-argument; if you haven't been convinced by the above, then it is likely we shall not agree about the propriety of your action after any amount of back-and-forth, and I can live with that.) -- Cyan 05:33, 30 Jan 2004 (UTC)

...(long portion removed)....

Let me get this straight: Lir is tolerated because he hasn't been banned by Jimbo. Well, I have not been banned by Jimbo. Therefore I should be tolerated.168... 06:28, 30 Jan 2004 (UTC)


No, no, Lir is tolerated because he was banned by Jimbo, but then had a long email correspondence with him, following which Jimbo specifically unbanned him. Hence my previous comment that to my knowledge, Lir is the only person specifically allowed by decree to edit Wikipedia. -- Cyan 06:31, 30 Jan 2004 (UTC)

What specifically is the "due process" I violated and how did I deny Lir respect as an editor? I didn't ban or block him, which I think is what you said people objected to as a violation of due process. If I denied Lir respect as an editor by protecting the page, then I did the same thing simultaneously to everybody who might have wanted to edit or revert it, and you have done the same in the past. I don't think there is a due process, just a rule about who can do the protecting when, which is somewhat subject to interpretation. 168... 06:54, 30 Jan 2004 (UTC)

When protecting Wikipedia from vandals, you can put on your sysop hat. If you observe an edit war but are a neutral party, then you can put on your sysop hat. If you're in a conflict with another user, you should not put on your sysop hat. That's the guideline. Now, is Lir a vandal? If yes, then you can just protect against him without violating the guideline. If no, then you can't. If the question of his vandal status, as a matter of due process (i.e. arbitration), has not yet been resolved, and you treat him like a vandal anyway, then you are violating due process. I assert that the question of Lir's status has not yet been resolved via due process, ergo I think treating him as a vandal is a violation of due process. -- Cyan 13:55, 30 Jan 2004 (UTC)


I see your argument now. But first of all there are two due processes as I understand them. One is that sys ops have the authority to issue temporary blocks without Jimbo. The other one has until now has depended on Jimbo, but is in transition to a committee-based system. Anyway, as I said before I didn't block Lir from Wikipedia. But I've conflated a couple issues by offering "vandalism" as my excuse for protecting a page. I don't actually know that vandalism officially is an excuse to protect a page. Perhaps it isn't. If it is, because I have authority to issue temporary blocks, and because blocks are only issued for vandalism, therefore I have the authority to decide what is vandalism and what isn't. Are there rules pertaining to temporary blocking (and thus to the assignment of "temporary vandal" status) that say what relationship a sysop is not allowed to have with the page that is being vandalized? I don't think so. I think I stumbled into a gray area, accurately assessed it as such, and behaved both reasonably and--though this is unknowable at the present--for the best of the community. 168... 16:50, 30 Jan 2004 (UTC)
(I do not deny that I am stretching the definition of "vandal" and actually specifically what I said was I regarded Lir as a "class of vandal." I think Lir is bad and I trust my judgment, which has been informed extensively by what others write about Lir. I am using the democratic process, such as it is here, to stretch our notion of "vandal" in such a way as to enable the current system of rules to deal effectively with people like Lir, which it manifestly and despite the complaints of many cannot deal with now.168... 16:59, 30 Jan 2004 (UTC))


[edit] Discussion of the protection and abuse accusation by others

      • Functionally what we are seeing here is the inevitable question posed when the wiki was first founded: what will happen when users disagree about the contents of an article? Its well and good to encourage discussion -- but 168 refuses to discuss. He, of course, will say that he merely doesn't want to discuss with trolls; regardless, he is refusing to discuss. As a community, we still don't know how to deal with debates.Lir. 21:28, 29 Jan 2004
        • Now, personally, I'm glad the page is protected again -- I despise edit wars; however, the fact that 168 cant even follow the few explicit rules of sysoping, kind of gives credence to my argument that I'm not the troublemaker. He is the one breaking rules, he is the one deleting valid information which has been added to the article, and he is the one making personal attacks. I don't think sysops should behave in that manner. Lirath Q. Pynnor21:28, 29 Jan 2004
        • "I despise edit wars." [rolls on floor laughing] Adam 06:15, 30 Jan 2004 (UTC)
          • Yeah, that's hysterical. RickK 04:41, 31 Jan 2004 (UTC)
  • Somebody please move this to Conflicts between users This doesn't belong here by a long chalk. -- Jussi-Ville Heiskanen 07:22, Jan 30, 2004 (UTC)
I tried but lir reverted theresa knott 19:56, 30 Jan 2004 (UTC)
  • Anyone is free to nominate anyone for de-adminship, but shouldn't there be more than one instance of wrongdoing? I would say at least a three-strike type of deal. Sysops are people too, and anyone can make a mistake. I don't think we should be forcing people to be so conservative that they stop taking any sysop actions for fear of people jumping on their back for having committed the wrong decision. Dori | Talk 20:58, Jan 30, 2004 (UTC)
    • But this wasn't a mistake. This is an example of him knowingly violating the rule because he feels that when dealing with me, he is free to do whatever he wants. Im tired of being criticized for doing things which there aren't even rules against; yet, sysops can get away with breaking the actual rules. Lirath Q. Pynnor
      • I wasn't saying sysops should be allowed to break rules, just that in general one should not be de-sysoped for making a mistake (assuming he or she recognized the mistake). I am not familiar with 168's situation so I can't comment one way or the other on that specifically. Dori | Talk 18:10, Feb 1, 2004 (UTC)
  • I'd oppose de-adminship, but I don't think protecting the article was the right course of action either. I don't think Hephaestos blocking Lir (a block that was quickly undone by Tim Starling) was justified either. --Delirium

Ok, this nonsense has gone on long enough. Let me propose a simple solution. Let Lir's complaints stand, and have people vote on them. Lir - cite specific instances where you feel mistreated. Enough of this "he keeps revereting me" garbage. I want him to see specific instances where you made (inarguably) good changes that were reverted. If you can rally up a consensus of people to agree with you, then we'll considered desysopping heph, 168, snoyes, myself, whoever.

And let this stand as a future model. The next person who posts to this section, I want to see page histories that document that person's case. →Raul654 03:33, Jan 31, 2004 (UTC)


  • I support removing the sysop privileges from 168 after that person protected Wikipedia:Conflicts between users while in an edit war with Lir on the self-same page. This after having done the same thing on another article. - snoyes 05:41, 1 Feb 2004 (UTC)
If it wasn't wrong to do it the first time it wasn't wrong to do it the second, in which the case was even more clear cut. I already said I wasn't sorry. Should I say it again? I'm not sorry. Anyway, for the record, I protected this time for probably less than 3 minutes (somebody else might like to check that).168... 07:19, 1 Feb 2004 (UTC)


  • What about something temporary? Some lesser punishment? Can sysops have their status restored? If so I support de'admin'ing 168 AND Hepheastus, temporarilly, as a warning. Jack 05:47, 1 Feb 2004 (UTC)
I suppose that there is nothing keeping someone from reapplying, though I doubt that such an application will be accepted by the majority of people on RfA. - snoyes 05:49, 1 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • I oppose removing admin privileges. 168 was dealing with a problem user. Let this serve as a warning instead. --Jiang

[edit] Removal of a post by Ed on Talk:DNA

Moved to Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Mav

I don't see why people are moving my comments around, instead of replying to them. But my grandpa used to say of such people: "Give them enough rope, and they'll hang themselves." (I always thought that was way harsh, but maybe he was right.)
I'm beginning to lose my patience with 168's antics. Do you want to be the first admin to get "de-opped"? Why don't you knock it off and try cooperating with Mav instead of thwarting him? --Uncle Ed 15:38, 5 Feb 2004 (UTC)

[edit] A note from a somewhat bemused bystander

168..., please, please, please, take a step back and cool off! Until recently you were making a lot of superb edits and additions to wikipedia. Now you seem to be spending all of your time baiting people and trying to defend your aggressive stance. I understand how User:Lir exasperated you, but how did you let that bring you all the way to making (I think unfounded) accusations against people such as Ed Poor? Ignore these stupid pages, and start making useful edits to those science articles again. We've potentially lost Cyan, and don't need to lose you too. Stewart Adcock 18:01, 5 Feb 2004 (UTC)


Actually, this is my way of getting back to editing. Lir and anarchy and the need to struggle for compromise with intrinsically uncompromising individuals have been getting in my way.168... 01:14, 6 Feb 2004 (UTC)

---

re: "notoriously, obstinately antisocial and uncompromising users"

I don't know what experience or training in polling is being brought to bear here, but this phrase blatantly violates any standard of neutrality that would be applied in a credible poll. Cumulative adjectives can easily betray bias in any opus. 172.198.107.153 16:23, 8 Feb 2004 (UTC)

---

user:angela relocated comments contributed to this page to another page User_talk:Soul_kitch, apparently to enforce her personal point of view about what personal points of view should be included in wikipedia discussions.

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../r/e/q/Wikipedia_talk%7ERequests_for_comment_168_a2f1.html"