Wikipedia talk:Possible misuses of sysop rights

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I know this page was just created, but I think it would be a better idea to use Wikipedia:Requests for comment instead. --mav 03:32, 1 Feb 2004 (UTC)~

I like the idea of that page and its cousins - a well laid out process of what needs to happen in various situations of dispute. Having all the actual discussions on article talk pages, with mere pointers from that page is great. The only gripe I have is the page name - it sounds like it is a synonym for what happens at Wikipedia:Peer review. It is a continuation of the neutralisation of page names that has happened over the last few months (e.g. Problem users -> Conflicts between users ). Although such neutral page names have their advantages (they don't inflame people even more) it does make it a little more difficult to learn what they are for! Pete/Pcb21 (talk) 09:11, 2 Feb 2004 (UTC)
I agree that peer review should come before this page. Indeed, perhaps admins should be treated like anybody else? I am also dubious as to the utility of this page. Why not just use the standard process that has just been created? Jack 09:17, 2 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Punishments

this page appears to be being used in a way other than intended. It seems to be all or nothing, either permanantly strip the admin of their adminship, or do nothing, condoning their misbehaviours. I want lesser punishments. Temp de'admin ship, probation, a public clarification of what they did wrong, etc... Jack 08:35, 1 Feb 2004 (UTC)

How about restricting them from certain powers, like banning, or page freezing, or telling them to avoid certain users or subjects? Jack 08:37, 1 Feb 2004 (UTC)
I'm quite upset about an experience with tannin, but I don't think he needs to be desysop'd. I think his problem was due to overriding POV, and I seriously doubt he misuses his authorities in regards to bird photography ;). Can't we just have a good rebuking from the boss, as it were? Whose the boss between you guys and Jimbo? Jack 08:39, 1 Feb 2004 (UTC)
Adminship is not a prize so deadminship should not be a punishment. There's no need for in-between punishments. Temporary suspensions maybe. Anthony DiPierro 14:45, 1 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Make a substantive claim or shut up, Jack. I have tried my best to be patient and concillatory, but your constant trolling would make a saint angry. Tannin 15:30, 1 Feb 2004 (UTC)

You conciliatory? When and where? I'd like a citation ;) Jack 02:12, 2 Feb 2004 (UTC)
Jack: either make a substantive claim or else shut up. I am utterly tired of your eternal and relentless trolling. You have nothing whatsoever to complain about as regards my conduct towards you, so don't you fucking mention my name again unless it is in the direct context of a substantive complaint. Tannin 12:08, 2 Feb 2004 (UTC)
I find your tone, language, and use of "troll" in the edit summary offensive. My complaint against you is summed up best in your preceeding comment. There are other issues (innapropriate usage of CbU) but the sort of behaviour evidenced here is really the focus of my complaint. Jack 12:23, 2 Feb 2004 (UTC)
You need to learn the difference between "offensive" and "offended". Well, your public persona does. In reality, of course, you know exactly what you are doing: trolling. Alas, for once, I responded to it. I must try to remember not to in future, as it is what you feed off. Tannin 12:43, 2 Feb 2004 (UTC) (Still no substantive claim, I note.)
I find your reverts of this talk page sad. Please review Flaming, Wikipedia:Wikiquette, Wikipedia:Staying cool when the editing gets hot and apparently wikipedia:revert. :( Jack 12:52, 2 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Jack, tannin did not do anything wrong on Conflicts between users. Many people are having problems with you and it is absolutly right that your name should be there. What's more - you do not need to be an admin to edit CbU so there is no case whatsoever of abuse of admin status. If you don't like people calling you a troll, stop trolling.theresa knott 14:54, 2 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I reject your insinuations. As far as I know, Tannin has not technically abused admin powers. Rather, they have behaved in manners unbecoming. The unfair manipulations of informations on CbU are the least of my complaints. You need only to look above to see one of the strongest. Furthermore, this is all a red herring. As I have thus far consistently noted, I am not seeking de'adminship for tannin. Rather, I raised him as an example of one worthy of public rebuke. My premise in this dialogue (for the most part avoided) is how one might go about seeking that, who is in charge of the admins, and what penalties other than de'adminship are available. I do not see any need to build a case against tannin, as I am unaware of any fitting penalty that is officially supplied. Rather, I beg the question: What other penalties are available for an admin, outside of the extreme, de'adminship? Jack 15:11, 2 Feb 2004 (UTC)

In answer to your question -who is the boss ? (apart from jimbo), the answer is no is the boss, aletnatively, we all are. Take your pick. Are there other penalties ?(Assuming an actual misuse of admin powers) the answer is there are no penalties. In anwser to you assertion that Tannin indulged in behaviour unbecomming - I woud say that on CbU there was no unbecoming behaviour, and on this page the behavoir was only agressive after you had already listed them. It is quite understandable that someone might lose their temper after being accused on several occasions of wrong doing, when they had in fact not done anything wrong.

Let's look at the facts - you said Tanning needed rebuking. Tanning said -what for? You said you'd like a citation for their nice behaviour! It's not Tannin's place to cite good behavoiur it's you place to cite bad. Tanning then lost their temper (Shame on you Tannin) then you used this as evidence for your complaint. You still haven't cited what they are supposed to have done wrong in the first place. This is trolling. Whether you reject it or not. (Tanning are you male or female - I'm fed up with using their instead of he or she)theresa knott

Please sign your post.Jack

My apologies. It was an oversite theresa knott 16:06, 2 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Tannin's actual name is Tony. I stated previously that I am not looking to review Tony's various acts of unfriendliness at this time, in this place. Tony should be well aware of why I am unhappy with my experiences with him. If you are ignorant of it, it is probably best that you not voice your opinions (accusing me of trolling) so strongly. I am going to take your response (no boss other than Jimbo, no lesser punishments than desysoping) as an answer to my question. Jack 15:57, 2 Feb 2004 (UTC)


[edit] Thoughts from 168...

Maybe there should be no admin privileges. Having to hold a weekly trial for every admin, which is where I think this is going to lead, takes a lot of time away from writing an encyclopedia. That said, I don't mean to oppose the continuation of my trial. 168... 18:04, 1 Feb 2004 (UTC)

When we first went down the road of admins/the rest it was said to be a temporary expedient until the software was sorted out -- basically admins were people trusted to make irreversible changes. That was two years ago. While the software has been given lots of user interface prettification, not much seems to have been done to make admins unnecessary. In the meantime newcomers accept admins as "status quo" rather than as a temporary expedient. How much longer will this go on ? -- Derek Ross 16:17, 2 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I think we'll always need to have admins around, simply because we can't trust everyone banning vandals, and we can't rely 24/7 on Jimbo and the group being around to stop them.
All I can say is the idea of admins being "equals" with ordinary users is a joke. The heirarchy here is all the more awkward for the insistance apon its abscence. Jack 16:30, 2 Feb 2004 (UTC)
It certainly does impose a heirarchy upon the group, but there are certain things (Such as banning users or deleting pages) which we don't want everyone being able to do, but we do need someone to do. I think the problem isn't so much the concept of an administrative user, but rather the method by which the administrative users are chosen. What factors into being chosen as an admin? As a recent nominee, it seems based more on number of edits than anything else. While this may find very active contributors to Wikipedia, this also singles out those who have gotten into huge scale edit wars or made tons of meaningless edits, and thus people begin slipping through the cracks that make us trust sysops as a whole much less than we would otherwise. Metasquares 18:44, 14 Feb 2004 (UTC)
As a frequent voter at RFA, when I look at a candidate, I give much more weight to the time a person has been here than the edit count. I also tend to vote on people I've actually interacted with. I think a lot of the other voters (mostly admins) tend to do the same.
And as the Metasquares points out, *someone* has to do the deletion and whatnot. It's a huge job too - more than one person could handle. Also, consider all the time moderating edit wars, protecting pages, etc. →Raul654 18:57, Feb 14, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Necktie Party

Jack,

If you can make Tannin so angry that he swears at you, I can't think of anything but the probability that you are provoking him on purpose. Maybe to test the new Mediation/Arbitration system? If not, my apologies, but that's how it looks to me.

So, please try harder to be nice! :-) --Uncle Ed 16:38, 2 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Your assumption that others swearing at me is a sign of ill behaviour on my part is just the sort of hierarchical thing I was discussing shortly before. It is quite a sad thing to be a newbie in a place which embraces anarchy. I don't yet have the circle of friends here with which to produce the comforting aura of concencus when ill winds blow. Jack 16:56, 2 Feb 2004 (UTC)
I'm inclined to agree, not because I am familiar with either Jack or Tannin's posts, but for three reasons. 1) When I started making edits here, I saw people side instantly with a person I was arguing with and say that I must be a bad person if I couldn't come to agreement with the angelic so-and-so 2) people don't necessarily know other people here even half so well as they think they do. besides the poverty of raw text as a means of communication, what percentage of anybody's claims here are ever independently verified? the person you trust could have been lying to you about a million things for ages, besides being a dog (as in "no one on the Internet knows" you're one) 3) I have been mildly victimized by rush to judgments that Ed has made before and I don't find his confidence at all reassuring. Also note the suggestions of cronyism I cite on the meta article attached to this talk page.168... 19:45, 2 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I understand that I am at a necktie party, and yet I lack a rope. I furthermore understand that my proclivity for sassmouth increases my likelihood for being hung. Additionally, I comprehend how my reformist behaviors can be seen as unsettling by members of the establishment. I however trust in the powers that be (wikipolicy, and the good king Jimbo) and fear not the wrath of yon neckties. This is what gives me the courage to speak against iniquity, and to demand a step towards justice. I understand how shocking such impertinance may appear, but trust me, trolls are not the only ones who might disagree with an admin. Jack 17:04, 2 Feb 2004 (UTC)

LOL! No, Jack, you're not at a necktie party; I was making a joke, a play of words on your last name Lynch. You have seemed to be out to "Lynch" various Wikipedians, so I thought you might be someone who's been here before and decided to create a new identity.
I'm not saying that you are bad, nor am I judging your behavior as "ill" -- let me be more clear: it looks like you are deliberately provoking people. If it's not deliberate, fine; but if the shoe fits, wear it.
Reforms are okay. I'm a bit of a reformer myself. But telling people what you want and why, is more effective in the long run. What are you trying to do here? If it's something I'm interested in, too, maybe I can help. --Uncle Ed 20:01, 2 Feb 2004 (UTC)
I want a better wiki. One where people are nice. One where there are constructive ways to complain about flaming, mistakes, and editorial disputes great and small. And were on our way. Progress is being made. But there is still a long way to go. As far as the specifics of what I want to do on this page, I suppose I will summarize my opinion thusly: Wikipedia:Conflict resolution is a better way to solve problems than this page. Admins should be held to a higher standard of wikiquette. And in conclusion, don't be mean. Jack 00:12, 3 Feb 2004 (UTC)
If you want community, try Meatball Wiki. Wikipedia is not a community gathered to work on a project, as much as a project which has attracted somewhat of a community.
I agree that admins should set a higher standard, and I remain open to constructive criticism. But it's not mean to tell someone that they seem to be pushing the bounds in a less than helpful way, is it? --Uncle Ed 14:42, 3 Feb 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Cronyism

168... appears to be making alot of good points. Concensus politics necessarilly involves a good deal of networking, and a tendancy towards cliques. Thank God for Jimbo, and the arbitration commitee! While I want to believe the majority of admins are solid contributers, I also feel they have not been held to any standard higher than popularity. Jack 02:00, 3 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Anonymous user:172.196.196.115 added the following off-topic comments to the page (heading level has been changed):

[edit] General abuse of complaint process by sysops

In my opinion, simply not liking a sysops demeanor is sufficient reason to publically ask for deadminship. It is clearly a valid reason to support or not support initial adminship votes.

Since a few contributors recently started actually using the requests for deadminship procedure, a few sysops have decided to treat as vandalism opinions that cloud their shiny sheriffs badges. But some of the same sysops strut around the wiki pages talking over and around other contributors in an elitist rhetoric that casually tosses out insults like "vandal" and "troll". It is time to establish a clear policy about freedom of speech in regard to criticizing public figures. As in public life, if a person wants to enjoy the privilages of public exposure in an official office, then they become fair subjects of public criticism, whether the criticism is well founded our not. Only outright libel is off-limits when it comes to publically criticizing office holders. For starters, lets deadmin for a month every sysop who has reverted or blocked dialogue about sysops demeanor or behavior, whether the sysops in question were acting as Wiki-officials or just as borish snobs exploiting group mentalitity to boost fragile egos. Howard Dean is not qualified to lead the United States because he demonstrates poor control of his public demanor. Angela is not qualified as a sysop because she is a busy-body who agressively intervenes wherever there is the smell of conflict, and almost always intervenes in a way that polarizes the group, leaving her of course, among the accepted in-group.

Under such a policy, sysops can advance their reputation by avoiding and resolving conflict rather than by using and encouraging others to use arbritrary powers and group pressure to influence intellectual debate.

Nothing here can be done in a vacuum. Any such acts by sysops will immediately be put to task by average users. Unless you can cite specific instances where this happened your accusation carries no weight. - Texture 16:13, 4 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Hey, if you're capable of behaving yourself for a while, you'll be a sysop too. Then you can get involved in policing the large volume of crap that goes on in an anarchic system like this.168... 16:17, 4 Feb 2004 (UTC)


[edit] Whether to Desysop 168

This is an attempt to gauge the opinion of the wikipedia community in respect to the recent actions of User:168.... Please add your vote below to indicate whether you think immediate action should be taken.

This is an approval vote. Please add your name to all statements you agree with.

168 should not be desysopped or banned until a more thorough discussion has taken place

  1. snoyes 06:45, 12 Feb 2004 (UTC) - only desysopping. The infractions are non-ambiguous and multiple, so I don't see the specific need for further discussion
  2. →Raul654 06:57, Feb 12, 2004 (UTC) - Should be permanently desysopped after discussion.
  3. 168 has not now edited for about 40 minutes, so I think the need for "emergency desysopping" has passed and there is no need to implement it without further discussion. Angela. 07:12, Feb 12, 2004 (UTC)

168 should be temporarily desysopped

  1. Sam Spade 08:01, 14 Feb 2004 (UTC) -- With the emphasis on "temporary". 168 is a particularly fine member of the community, and while his recent actions are a violation of policy, and as said below, he needs to be made aware of that.
  2. silsor -- he does not seem to grasp the seriousness of this. 06:44, Feb 12, 2004 (UTC)
  3. No-One Jones -- he should be desysopped only as an emergency measure, to be rescinded as soon as he calms down. Reasoned discussion should of course follow.
  4. Jamesday 06:56, 12 Feb 2004 (UTC) for 24 hours as an emergency measure if it resumes.
  5. →Raul654 06:59, Feb 12, 2004 (UTC)
  6. Tannin 07:33, 12 Feb 2004 (UTC) De-sysop as an immediate and temporary measure, pending due process and (one presumes) a more permanent de-sysopping.
  7. Currently support this as he is repeatedly deleting and protecting pages. Angela. 01:37, Feb 14, 2004 (UTC)
  8. Hephæstos|§ 01:38, 14 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  9. Pakaran. 01:38, 14 Feb 2004 (UTC) He's doing things that seem to be causing significant damage to the site. So far they're all things that can be undone, but I don't know how long that will continue.
  10. Maximus Rex 01:39, 14 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  11. Camembert 01:40, 14 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  12. Dysprosia 01:44, 14 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  13. Lirath Q. Pynnor 05:30, 14 Feb 2004 (UTC) he stated that his reason for acting this way was to "irritate" me [1]

168 should be temporarily desysopped and blocked

This poll is not formal; this poll represents no level of authority or power. Decisions involving immediate responses should be made by developers; decisions involving long term solutions should be made by the arbitration committee.

  1. Kingturtle 18:13, 12 Feb 2004 (UTC)


I object to the management of this poll. I also object to the use of the results of this poll to remove the power of a user.

  1. The poll was completely misrepresented. The poll is described as being "an attempt to gauge the opinion of the wikipedia community." No where does the description say "the results of this poll will be used in appeal to a developer to temporarily removing 168...'s admin privileges." Those are two very different intentions. We are talking about someone's privileges here. You need to be more explicit in your description. The soft description with the hard result makes me uncomfortable. It gives the appearance that this was meant to be a covert operation, whether it was or not. Was it intentionally misrepresented? Was the language manipulated to get a desired result?
  2. The poll was not advertized. It was never listed on Wikipedia:Current polls or in Wikipedia:Village pump. This adds to the appearance of a covert movement. It creates questions of your intentions. If you are trying to "gauge the opinion of the community," why didn't you use the established avenues to let the community know? Again, we are talking about a very serious decision here: the removal of someone's privileges. Even if it is a temporary removal, the decision is very serious. For something so serious, you need to have the common courtesy of advertising your poll.
  3. An "approve vote" scheme was used. Raul voted both FOR and AGAINST. With the importance of this poll, each person should get but one vote. The "approval vote" system creates an air that the poll is informal. With the intentions of how to use the results of this poll, it is irresponsible to make it feel informal.
  4. My vote was not counted in the results presented to Tim. The results at Feb 13 17:58:37 PST were 11-3, not 11-2. This really gets under my hide.

In the future, when conducting polls that have severe consequences, PLEASE give an honest description to the potential voters of the purpose and the intentions of the poll, advertise the poll in Wikipedia:Current polls and in Wikipedia:Village pump, do not use the informal "approve vote" system, and COUNT MY VOTE!

Thanks for listening, Kingturtle 18:27, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC)

For the record, I'd be happy to tell people what I'm doing if anybody wants to ask.168...|...Talk 18:41, 12 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Okay. 168, what are you doing and why? --No-One Jones 18:44, 12 Feb 2004 (UTC)
Thanks for asking. For starters, here's a recent exchange between Ed and me at Talk:Nucleic acid


Reversion War
This is not good. Admins should not be conducting an edit war. Please settle this quickly and reasonably, because I don't want this to be the first occasion of someone getting de-sysoped.
I picked the following version simply by scanning the History page. I have not read the article.
   (cur) (last) . . 15:21, 6 Jan 2004 . . 137.131.72.61
If anyone has a proposed change to the article text, even something as simple as a "protection notice", and they've been involved in the edit war, I strongly suggest that you mention it here and let another admin make the change. This will give you a clean "track record", so that no one will have cause to complain about "abuse of sysop rights".
I think this is fair to all, and is best for the long-term interest of the Wikipedia. --Uncle Ed 14:25, 12 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I agree that this is fair and I am very glad that finally someone else sees it that way too. You have protected the version that I have been protecting against Lir. Generally, admins have been reticent or unwilling to deal with Lir as he needs to be dealt with (to the extent we want to make a good encyclopedia and not just fight fires), which is why I am acting in this provocative way. 168...|...Talk 18:50, 12 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Incidentally, results of my polling suggest there is far from any concensus among sysops and others against the kind of thing I've been doing here (reverting/protecting against a notoriously obstinate user).168...|...Talk 19:00, 12 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Also note my edit summary from Possible misuses of admin privileges: "it's redundant here, plus he has it on two other pages. that should be sufficient"

Those other two postings I left untouched are here and here.

If there are any further questions, I would be happy to answer them.168...|...Talk 19:27, 12 Feb 2004 (UTC)

  • I have a further question. It is a question I asked you on your talk page during the activity in question, but you have yet to reply. Why did you continue to edit a page that was protected? Kingturtle 22:50, 12 Feb 2004 (UTC)

a) I happened to know that I was reverting to a version that was fairest to revert to (as attested by Ed), b)I was making an activist political statement. The various ideas I would like people to read from my statement are 1)slavish adherence to "the rules" allows people like Lir to tyranize good contributors, 2)it's very difficult to know a person's motives from a few lines of text or a few clicks of a mouse (e.g. in this case people seem to have assumed my mental state was highly depraved and wicked, whereas Lir as a point of principle people feel obliged to assume is acting ever in good faith), so that 3)we should be paying attention to reputation and 4)my reputation should be that my judgment about edits and people (albeit not decorum) are generally sound and that I am quite prepared to defend my judgment against one or two or five or ten people who are simply trying to stop me without offering any reason but allegiance to a tentative and manifestly imperfect set of guidelines and 5)if this place bans me for doing the right thing to a notorious bad-faith acting individual, then I will be very happy to have been saved the trouble of giving up and leaving it.

This is a democracy, but it's also a very conservative one-party system, with seemingly little patience for civil disobedience. 168...|...Talk 03:47, 13 Feb 2004 (UTC)

  • Thank you for answering. I am developing a picture now of your intentions. I do not agree with your tactics, but I am not about to condemn you. Kingturtle 08:56, 13 Feb 2004 (UTC)
Your civil disobedience worked. The community realised that it needed a fast process, developed one to deal with you and implemented it in real time to give a developer consent to de-sysop you for use of your technical capabilities contrary to the restraint expected of sysops. Congratulations, and I expect that we'll see more use of rapid straw polls to deal with such situations, without having to rely on unilateral action. Jamesday 19:01, 14 Feb 2004 (UTC)


I'd be fascinated to read what people see as having been my crime here. Guessing what people are likely to say, I will offer a reply in advance that what happened was 99% entrapment. I made edits that I think were justified, and I only had to keep making them because others, unjustifiably I believe, reverted them. Why am I the guilty party instead of the people who were reverting me, and what am I guilty of? If my crime pertains to "due process," was I granted due process by the prosecutors? I would say the answer is very clearly no. But by not granting me due process, you others have mistreated a valued and good faith contributor to the project. Meanwhile it seems to me that I got into my trouble with you for a) not giving due process to the notoriously undesirable Lir and b) interfering with attempts to railroad me and shame me and prosecute me in wanton disregard for due process. I'm not a social historian, but I suspect what has happened here is not so different from McCarthyism or a Stalinist purge. 168...|...Talk 19:22, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC)

You edited a page while it was protected and you repeatedly deleted whole pages without any consensus whatsoever to do so. These are considered to be abuses of your admin power (see Wikipedia:Protection policy and Wikipedia:Deletion guidelines for administrators for the reasons why). Administrator powers are not given so that you can preserve your version of articles (or indeed the very existence or non-existence of articles) over those of non-admins. They are granted so you can perform certain potentially destructive and relatively difficult to undo functions in line with the wishes of the community.
The situation you put yourself in is virtually unprecedented, so it is difficult to say exactly what constitutes "due process". However, you were stripped of your admin powers as a temporary and emergency measure. They may be restored at some point in the future - that's for mediation committee, arbitration committee and/or community as a whole to decide. I don't think that is unreasonable. --Camembert

I agree it's hard to say what would have been due process, but I think there are community norms and explicit standards I can appeal to (and will for the arbitrators) that make the process that transpired contrary to policy. I suspect whoever drew up the deletion and protection guidelines was thinking primarily of encyclopedia articles, rather than the peripheral and somewhat controversial kind of page I protected and deleted (a meta page devoted to complaints about a sysop). Obviously, I see the potential for conflict of interest in censoring complaints about myself, but I would be surprised if there were an explicit rule against me modifying such a complaint page, because these things are new and not very well established. Given the absense of any explicit procedure for doing what was done to me and plenty of vaguely pertinent rules against it (i.e. the rules about taking disputes to mediation and arbitration), I can easily imagine another political party prosecuting the people who prosecuted me. I would like to point out the hypocrisy at work here. When I tried to organize a straw poll to assess community support for Lir, who damages and creates irresolvable conflicts to interfere with encyclopedia articles, Mav immediately objected that this was not due process and nobody voted. Meanwhile, when I move to help encyclopedia articles through actions that many people here sanction towards vandals, but I stretch the definition of "vandal" in taking the actions against Lir, Mav and others come down on me like a ton of bricks. Who is doing the greater service to the end-goal of creating an encyclopedia? Who is doing the greater service to the goal of creating an open and welcoming community? Excuse think grandiosity, but I think plainly the answer is me. 168...|...Talk 20:25, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC)

[edit] protected pages

It does not matter what your status is. A protected page is to be honored by everyone. Kingturtle 06:48, 12 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I protected the page to (theoretically) prevent 168 and the other sysops from reverting Lir's complaint. That edit war is now over, as most people are so appalled by 168's actions that they want to desysop him. →Raul654 06:51, Feb 12, 2004 (UTC)


Is this about the stuff that happened a week or two ago, or did something new happen today? Tannin 07:04, 12 Feb 2004 (UTC)

New stuff. Look at the page history for Wikipedia:Possible misuses of admin privileges. Lir made a complaint about 168, 168 reverted. Other sysops reverted back to Lir's complaint, 168 reverted them. I protected the page, put a msg:protected tag up, 168 reverted the tag. Other sysops reverted back to the tag, he reverted them. In all, something like 2 dozen reverts, half belonging to him, mostly against other sysops. →Raul654 07:07, Feb 12, 2004 (UTC)
I believe it started with his edits to Nucleic acid while that was protected and then turned into a fight over this page. Angela. 07:09, Feb 12, 2004 (UTC)
See also [2] and [3] -- Tim Starling 07:10, Feb 12, 2004 (UTC)
I wonder why he couldn't just see the edit war is futile. No one is your enemy in wikipedia. Regardless if you won the war or not, it is a lost game. I hate to admit but if he keeps having confict with people including me, he would eventually be gone. -- Taku 07:16, Feb 12, 2004 (UTC)
Oh dear. That is unfortunate. Each of us may agree or disagree with the individual controversial actions taken by various admins over the last few weeks, but in evey case it was possible to apply the benefit of the doubt and ascribe those actions, at worst, to a good-faith error of judgement. I cannot see any way to put this sequence down to an error of judgemet. In this case, I don't see that we have any choice. That's just beyond the pale. Tannin 07:29, 12 Feb 2004 (UTC)
(Thankyou for the explanations and links, Raul, Angela, and Tim.) Tannin

[edit] category three

I think category three should read:

However if it does happen, a consensus on this page might arise to take the matter to Jimbo the Mediation Committee and to the Arbitration Committee. If he also is concerned by the behaviour he may chat privately to the user, or ask for de-adminship The Mediation Committee will determine whether the situation warrants a ruling from the Arbitration Committee; the Arbitration Committee will then decide whether admin privileges will be suspended or revoked. These are not common events. Please note also that no de-adminship (unless it is self-requested) will occur solely as a result of discussion here - Jimbo the Mediation and Arbitration Committeeswill always be involved.

Kingturtle 23:14, 12 Feb 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Developer decisions

This poll is not formal; this poll represents no level of authority or power. Decisions involving immediate responses should be made by developers; decisions involving long term solutions should be made by the arbitration committee.

I'm not a ruler for crying out loud. Don't expect me to make any decisions beyond evaluating community opinion. I set the poll up for the purposes of gauging community opinion on immediate developer action. Based on the outcome, I won't be desysopping 168 without arbitration committee approval. -- Tim Starling 00:53, Feb 13, 2004 (UTC)

For the latest situation, please see: Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/168#168_has_been_temporarily_desysopped
Tim is correct. Developers are not super-sysops. Their job is simply to implement the view of the community when those have become clear. Unilateral action by developers is as wrong as it would be by a sysop. We're supposed to be a community and use at least a straw poll for these things whenever that's practical. Jamesday 18:35, 14 Feb 2004 (UTC)

[edit] New straw poll

See Wikipedia talk:Possible misuses of admin privileges#Whether to Desysop 168 and Wikipedia:Requests for comment/168 for context.

Yes, it was temporary. Re-sysop 168 now.

  1. Angela
  2. silsor
  3. Seth Ilys 18:37, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  4. sannse
  5. Jamesday
  6. Cimon Avaro on a pogostick
  7. Wik (if Hephaestos, Rick, and Ed can misuse their admin privileges with impunity, 168 should not be punished either)
  8. Martin (with the understanding that it can likewise be re-implemented on a temporary basis)
  9. Sam Spade 20:28, 21 Feb 2004 (UTC) (agree with above caveats, and point out that 168's honesty and integrity make him well suited for positions of power)
  10. →Raul654

No, 168 should remain desysopped.

  1. mav (Until I see statements by 168... saying that he will not abuse his sysop user rights in the future. So far he has indicated that he did not do anything wrong. For me that means that he will continue to do the same things that resulted in his de-adminship in the first place.)
  2. Maximus Rex 02:05, 21 Feb 2004 (UTC) (One of the committees should resolve the matter first.)
  3. No, if I can't be a sysop for fear I might break the rules; 168 who advocates breaking the rules (and does break them) should also not be a sysop. Lirath Q. Pynnor
  4. No, he hasn't shown any remorse for his actions, and hasn't said that he won't do it again in the future. RickK 00:52, 22 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  5. —Eloquence 03:43, Feb 22, 2004 (UTC)
  6. No, specifically because he said that he will continue to revert reverts no matter what. That is the issue that led to his temporary de-admin. At least if he is NOT an admin, his reverts will take him a few more keystrokes, thus slowing down his edit wars a little. Kingturtle 10:41, 22 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  7. No, need an indication that misuse of admin privileges will not continue. - snoyes 17:10, 22 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  8. No. As Maximus Rex said, the appropriate committee should resolve the matter first. Tannin 22:31, 22 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  9. No. Whatever instigated 168's extreme behavior should be resolved first. --No-One Jones 03:43, 25 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  10. No. Based on his actions a few hours back on the DNA article, I don't currently believe that he's likely to change the behaviors that got him de-sysopped in the first place. Sysops should be held to high standards of behavior. Bryan 05:56, 7 Mar 2004 (UTC)

The [original] vote was supposed to be about temporarily desysopping 168.... I initially voted against it, changing my mind when it became apparent that emergency action was required. However, it seems that it has been less than temporary and 168 is still desyopped. I propose that this be immediately reverted, and that if anyone wants more permanent action taken, then they proceed through the normal channels of arbitration to have that done. So, here's another straw poll to check that I am not the only person who thought the results of the poll above were only a temporary, emergency measure. Angela 18:32, Feb 20, 2004

[original] was above before but was changed when Angela's post was moved. --mav

We do need some fast and non-extreme approach to use. That's one reason why it's important that 168 be only a tempoprary de-sysopping. If it is not reversed it will create the impresion that it was not temporary and people will be reluctant to use this approach for similar ongoing situations in the future. I urge everyone to select the poll choice to re-sysop 168, knowing that if misuse happens again, we can repeat the process rapidly. Jamesday 14:23, 21 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Re: Mav's concern. It is true that if in the future I make an edit that I feel certain is justified (for example the reversion to the sentence in Nucleic acid that Ed said he viewed as the fairest version to revert to), and if people revert me without discussion, then even if they are fellow admins I will revert the article back. As I did this last time, I will give my reason for reversion in the summary comment, and if that is ignored by someone who comes along and reverts again, then I will revert again as well, even if the other person is an admin. It is also true that if people post complaints about me on an inappropriate page without discussing the issues with me, then I will revert that page. (The complaints to Requests for comment/168 that were being made during the straw poll were inappropriate for that page. They should have been made to Possible misuses of admin privileges and not to a page that was created [without adequate justification according to the rules, I might add, and which you can see discussed on the page] for the purpose of a different event). Deleting is another matter. I stopped using the delete function as soon as I was made aware that it is hard on the servers, and so I will not be using it again in the way I did. The hardened belief that this experience has left unchanged is that I don't think anybody here has the right to revert me just because I'm me and without discussing the disagreed upon issue with me. I'm a smart and good-spirited Wikipedian who is the primary author of several Featured articles, is somebody who has significantly spruced up and increased the functionality of important articles on Wikipedia conduct (such as the NPOV tutorial, Wikiquette, and Staying cool while the editing is hot) and someone who has helped to resolve several very heated neutrality disputes (such as those relating to Norman Finkelstein and Gaia Theory). I believe that at least as much as any other admin, I deserve to have good faith assumed of me, and I consider myself to have been grossly mistreated recently, thanks to many people rushing to judgment under the leadership of people like Mav.168...|...Talk 02:32, 21 Feb 2004 (UTC)
I believe that 168 is probably valuable contributor. I don't believe that his conduct justifies a ban, but I think a discussion on permanent de-sysopship is in order, as 168's comments above clearly violate community standards. Sysops should be model users. -- Seth Ilys 02:47, 21 Feb 2004 (UTC)
I agree with this assessment by Seth. 168 can continue to edit as a non-sysop; adimn status is certainly not necessary to be a good contributor. Later, he can apply again (or can be recommended) to admin status—when all this bruhaha has settled into foregetfulness. Just as new users become admins by proving themselves, 168 should simply be expected to start over down that road - Marshman 17:52, 21 Feb 2004 (UTC)
Wikipedia is an evolving democratic system. How is it to change if sysops don't model new behaviors? Who better to model new behaviors? Most of my bad looking behaviors come from people reverting me without discussion. Those behaviors aren't liable to happen again, if people ever come to see how they happened and adjust their own bad behavior accordingly (read the edit summaries! discuss before reverting!). Protecting against Lir and reverting Lir are the root behaviors that started this whole thing and are the ones I had hoped would become the subject of discussion. The discussion I think should be about whether they are reasonable and consistent with our values...and not simply whether they are consistent with the letter of the law as it now stands, since it isn't really law and is subject to democratic change. According to some, the worst thing I did was to protect against the immediate implementation of a vote, which had been declared non-binding by nearly half of all initial participants, in order to demand the discussion of the voter-approved edit. If we find a way to swiftly exclude notorious bad faith users like Lir (which is why I started all this), such an event will unlikely ever to happen again, because voting is unconventional way to edit around here, and that particular vote was only called as a way for dealing with Lir.168...|...Talk 07:10, 21 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Has the Do-Nothing Comittee Arbitration Commitee had a hearing yet? Has 168 been cleared? Condemmned? Ignored? Forgotten? Lost in the paperwork? What goes on? Where is this information posted? What steps are being taken to keep the Wikipedia community informed of progress (if any)? Tannin 19:34, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Arbitration is not taking care of the matter right now. No one ask them to. However, I promise I did not ignored 168, nor did I lost him in the paperwork (though I lose *myself* in the paperwork :-)). I have been talking with several people involved in the DNA conflict. Unfortunately, Mav was not much there around this week, so it was not possible to talk with him much. And I was not there at all the week before, and I am a working mother, so can't swim many miles a day. But try to do my best nevertheless. As for information, I guess a couple of links were posted on the mailing list precisely in this intent, and a mention is on the board. Otherwise, I regularly keep the mediation committee informed, as well as Jimbo.
Following a question by Camembert, I mentionned here that I thought I saw no sign of the emergency still being going on. I guess the community should give its opinion on the matter and it be discussed with 168 as any decent contributors can discuss together and justify their positions, before this goes to arbitration.
Hope that answers your question :-) I might give you more details, but keep in mind that mediation is rather a private procedure, and no conflict is ever solved in a couple of minutes :-) Anthère0
The arbitration committee is still in the process of setting up shop; they're only handling cases referred to them by Jimbo at this point, and I believe that this matter falls outside their jurisdiction, anyhow. -- Seth Ilys 19:41, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)


It's in mediation. Wikipedia:Requests for mediation shows the latest progress, which is basically that Anthère is mediating. If that fails, then it is possible Jimbo would refer it to arbitration, but I feel that arbitration should decide the permanent desyopping, not the above straw poll. Angela. 19:51, Feb 20, 2004 (UTC)
Thankyou for the helpful and informative answers Anthère et al. Wups -- the sun is up and it's Saturday. Time I wasn't here. Tannin 20:12, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I see the vote is 4-2 in favour of reinstatement. There are 6 bureaucrats capable of reinstating him. Don't be shy. -- Tim Starling 14:03, Feb 21, 2004 (UTC)

No takers? Oh well, so much for that. 168 is now a sysop again. -- Tim Starling 10:19, Feb 22, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] A proposal for admin supervision

Adminship is a privelege granted by the community as a whole on the Wikipedia:Requests for adminship page based largely upon past performance as a user; consequently, shouldn't it also be revokable by the community as a whole when an admin abuses his powers? Given that we're presently having a crisis of procedure as to how to handle sysops who take actions which violate community standards, I'd like to suggest an alternative approach...

What I'd suggest is a sort of "running vote of confidence" procedure. The community grants sysop rights when there's a strong consensus to do so (it generally feels to me like this level is about 75% support -- I think we should formalize a percentage for the sake of consistency). Presently, we simple archive these votes.

I propose that we hold onto them and use them as a confidence indicator in the particular admin's behavior. If someone believes that an admin's behavior warrants de-sysoping, they can register an "oppose" vote on the the admin's page. Once the admin's support drops below the threshold, they're de-sysopped. (This, of course, requires that the page be monitored on a regular basis by a someone with de-sysoping powers, unless this can be formalized into the Wiki software.)

If folks are generally of the opinion that the person should be only temporarily banned, they can change their vote back to "support" once they feel the problem sysop is ready again, and when their support creeps back above the threshold, they get admin priveleges back. If an abuse of trust is so glaring that folks don't later change their votes back to support, the problem sysop stays desysopped "permanently." In any case, the will of the community, as reflected by the running vote of confidence, is implemented.

I honestly think that opinion shifts resulting in de-sysoping would happen very rarely; kooks and trolls demanding desysopping of good sysops would be drowned out in the approval from the community at large. But right now, there's no real formal process for de-sysoping or censuring sysops, and the situation with 168 reveals a need for a process to deal with this...

(I'd additionally suggest that, if the system is instituted, that a 1-week period be allowed for all users to express approval or disapproval of current sysops -- some of whom were made admins so long ago that they're not in the adminship archives -- and that no adminship decision be made without at least 20 votes registered. But both of those are relatively minor points...) -- Seth Ilys 19:41, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I'm not convinced as to the exact proceedure you suggest, Seth, but the general principle is good, IMO. Tannin
I agree with Tannin. Angela. 19:51, Feb 20, 2004 (UTC)

Old votes should expire at some point, so we have a Meatball:DynamicValue. de-sysopers should apply their common sense in defending against sock puppets, just as for deletion. Martin 21:49, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)

We do need some fast and non-extreme approach to use. That's one reason why it's important that 168 be only a tempoprary de-sysopping. If it is not reversed it will create the impresion that it was not temporary and people will be reluctant to use this approach for similar ongoing situations in the future. I urge everyone to select the poll choice to re-sysop 168, knowing that if misuse happens again, we can repeat the process rapidly. Jamesday 14:23, 21 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I don't understand. 168 breaks the rules, and you think he should be a sysop. I don't break the rules, but I don't get to be a sysop. It seems a little unfair to me. Lirath Q. Pynnor

There is a negative correlation between sassmouth and sysop status. Get used to it. Sam Spade 03:56, 22 Feb 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Kils

Kils desysopped - (this links to false information. I deleted it seven times, but some are digging it out again and again. If you want to ban me please make a discussion first and then a vote, as it is democratic in Wikipedia. I kept on cooperating with Wikipedia and donated over 40 images in 7 languages. Professor Dr. habil. Uwe Kils 22:33, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC))]

[edit] A proposed restriction on sysop/admin privs

The use of the special rights, that sysops/admins have, should be restricted (by rule or by convention as this could not be automated) to disputes in which they have no other part. Wikipedians get upset when, in a dispute, one of the participants in the dispute uses their special powers to enforce their point of view. A recent example: A used was blocked for 24hrs by the same sysop at whom the user swore. That is an abuse of privelege. In the UK, when a neighbour throws rubbish into a policeman's garden the policeman is supposed to call the police, he is discouraged from arresting the culprit himself. This is probably not a new suggestion but I think it's a good one. Paul Beardsell 18:52, 10 May 2004 (UTC)

The principle you propose is already applied to the "protection" privilege. In theory, it also applies to the "rollback" privilege, but in practice, sysops have been known to use the privilege in edit wars. As for blocking, the recent example you cite is very vague. Could you post links to the edit in question and give the names of the parties and the time and date of the blocking? It's hard to judge the appropriateness of the action and formulate a general principle without knowing the details. Also, I would like to point out that some persistent trolls target certain sysops with obscenities. It only makes sense for the first sysop to notice the edit to block such users, even if the first sysop to notice is also the target. -- Cyan 23:00, 10 May 2004 (UTC)

Err, I don't want to be telling tales! Rest assured, it happened and it has been discussed not too far from here, I was not involved. That there should be a general prohibition on such behaviour or that there should be an expressed preference that syspos do not block users with whom they are having an argument, but rather call attention to the alleged offensive behaviour to other sysops, should be easy enough to talk about without having to cite an example. Paul Beardsell 23:54, 10 May 2004 (UTC)

The best place to discuss this would most likely be Wikipedia talk:Blocking policy. --Camembert