Wikipedia:Requests for comment/PMA

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In order to remain listed at Wikipedia:Requests for comment, at least two people need to show that they tried to resolve a dispute with this sysop and have failed. This must involve the same dispute, not different disputes. The persons complaining must provide evidence of their efforts, and each of them must certify it by signing this page with ~~~~. If this does not happen within 48 hours of the creation of this dispute page (which was: 01:03, 27 November 2006 (UTC)), the page will be deleted. The current date and time is: 11:00, 13 June 2008 (UTC).

Please note: This template is for listing disputes about actions that are limited to administrators only, specifically these actions:

  • protecting and unprotecting pages
  • deleting and undeleting pages
  • blocking and unblocking users

For all other matters (such as edit wars and page moves), please use the template at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Example user.

Contents

[edit] Statement of the dispute

[edit] Description

PMA has misused his blocking power by blocking users for inadequate reasons ("POV pushing", "article degradation"), blocking without warning beforehand, blocking without notifying the editor of the reason on his talk page, using misleading blocking summaries, and, most seriously, blocking editors with whom he is involved in content disputes. In addition, PMA has not responded to the concerns of several editors who have questioned his behavior privately on his talk page; in the most recent incident, he explains on the administrators' noticeboard that he has "second sight" [1] for POV warriors and cranks, and displays no awareness that his blocks have been problematic. He seems to see himself as fighting against "POV pushers." I suggest that PMA's aggressive stance has led him to issue inappropriate blocks for ordinary content disputes, and I urge him to moderate his blocking policy or refrain from blocking editors for "POV pushing" without consulting with another admin. Under no circumstances should PMA block an editor with whom he is in a content dispute.

"POV pushing" and "Article degradation" are not acceptable reasons for blocking users. Blocking a user for reverting one of his edits once is a grotesque misuse of the blocking power. If PMA does not respond satisfactorily to this RFC, and does not moderate his behavior in the future, I will recommend an arbitration proceeding to consider de-sysopping.

[edit] Powers misused

  • Blocking (log):
  1. Elsmlie (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)
  2. Lindons (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)
  3. Bart Versieck (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)

[edit] Applicable policies

  1. Blocking without first warning
  2. Blocking editors with whom he is in a content dispute
  3. Blocking without explaining on the user's talk page
  4. Blocking for inappropriate reasons ("POV pushing" and "Article degradation" are not valid reasons for blocking)

[edit] Evidence of trying and failing to resolve the dispute

(provide diffs and links)

  1. This thread at the administrator's noticeboard [2]
  2. PMA's talk page beginning here
  3. A prior incident
  4. The issue being raised back in June 2006.

[edit] Case by case analysis

[edit] Elsmlie

Note that PMA issued no prior warnings to Elsmlie and did not post a block message on her talk page, so it is hard to know exactly which edits she was blocked for.

In the 5 days prior to the block, Elsmlie made only 6 edits, 4 to Goulash Communism, which seem to be uncontroversial, and two to János Kádár (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs). These edits involve a content dispute with PMA.

  • PMA notes that Kadar was "forced to resign" [3]
  • Elsmlie reverts [4] with edit summary (rv edit by PMA (resignation was in principle consensual))
  • PMA reverts [5] with edit summary (World Book Yearbook for the year says forced to resign)
  • He then blocked Elsmlie with no further edits on his/her part and no warning or discussion on the article talk page.

[edit] Bart Versieck

Bart has not made any vandal accusations in article talk or user talk spaces. Only 4 edits in the prior 48 hours had the word "vandal" in the edit summary. Two were vandalism or a test by anons [6] [7], one was a data change by an anon [8], and one was an edit to Gerald Ford in which Bart reverted PMA.

Bart's use of the term "vandalism" in edit summaries could be moderated, as some changes may be testing or good faith changes. However, rather than counseling Bart on this, PMA simply blocked Bart without warning after Bart reverted PMA on one article. The block summary (accused two long standing editors of being "vandals" for reverting POV edits, disruption, personal attacks ) appears to be in error (empahsis added) unless PMA can provide diffs I have missed.

(addition to this: there had in fact been another incident with Bart using this summary a week before, over which a complaint had been made on Bart's talkpage. Fut.Perf. ☼ 01:24, 27 November 2006 (UTC))
Agreed that Bart has been warned before about using this edit summary and should probably be warned again. However, that does not excuse PMA blocking him without warning and leaving an incorrect block summary, especially when the reverted editor was PMA himself. Thatcher131 01:42, 27 November 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Lindons

  • 12:54, 11 November 2006 PMA (Talk | contribs | block) blocked "Lindons (contribs)" with an expiry time of 31 hours (POV pushing)
  • At the article Paul Keating (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs), Lindons added some information, [11] (Added to legislative agenda info, removed some bias against Keating).
  • PMA reverted, [12] (as Adam would say "Oh, please!" - removing outright Keating fawning though im sure i missed some).
  • Lindons reverted [13] with the edit summary (Added info, removed bias, deleted para re-inserted by ACarr as info is already contained in article) and made two more edits, at which point PMA blocked him with the block summary (POV pushing).

This is clearly a content dispute. No attempt was made to discuss the changes with Lindons on his talk page or the article talk page. No warning was given. No block message was posted to Lindon's talk page. Blocking for a single content revert is completely inappropriate. PMA may respond that he has a "second sight" for detecting disruptive POV pushers, and will point to the fact that Lindons has not contributed since his block as evidence that Lindons was such a POV pusher. It is also possible that Lindons was a good faith contributor driven away by an aggressive admin. It should be noted that PMA has a history of removing positive information from Paul Keating (latest). In addition to violating the blocking policy, this incident is a massive violation of WP:BITE and WP:AGF.

[edit] Summary

In all three cases, PMA blocked editors for making a single reversion of one of his edits. His block summaries mischaracterize the block reasons as "POV pushing" when they are really content disputes. In the case of Bart Versieck, the block summary is factually incorrect bordering on dishonest. "POV pushing" and "Article degradation" are not valid blocking reasons. In none of these cases did PMA attempt to discuss the edits with the editors, or warn them that their content was inappropriate (which it plainly was not in any case.)

[edit] More cases

(added by Fut.Perf.. These are not all equally clearly wrong as the above, but they serve to illustrate the pattern.)

  • 22:25, 17 October 2006, blocked 142.55.127.194 (talk • contribs • info • WHOIS) with an expiry time of 48 hours (vandalism, article degradation)
    For all I can see, the IP had made a single edit, removing a flag icon image from an infobox on Steve Irwin (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs).
  • 07:32, 15 October 2006, blocked Le baron (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) with an expiry time of 1 month (persistent vandalism, requested by User:Adam_Carr)
    This user had been making good-faith but rather stubborn edits about honorific titles in various European nobility articles. Admittedly, he'd been warned previously by two users that he was editing against consensus, and he had one previous block in his log (from May). Nevertheless, 1 month seems very harsh. There'd been no 3RR violation or anything. The user has so far not returned after his block.
  • 23:35, 8 October 2006, blocked 129.240.216.34 (talk • contribs • info • WHOIS) with an expiry time of 30 days (POV edits, vandalism, article degradation)
    Justification of this block can't be assessed now as the IP has no edits preserved. No evidence about what articles (deleted in the meantime) this was about, no warnings on the IP's talk, nothing in the block summary.
  • 13:56, 5 October 2006, blocked Cyberspace (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) with an expiry time of 75 hours (POV edits, article degradation).
    Cannot reconstruct what the dispute was in this case, no warnings, no discussion on talk. Again "POV" used as a block reason counter to blocking policy. Shortened the block a little later himself and then unblocked.
  • 12:41, 5 August 2006, blocked Porphyrios (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) with an expiry time of 31 hours (POV edits, article degradation, insulting administrators, violating policy (as per ChrisO))
    Again, an edit war in which PMA (together with his friend Adam Carr) was himself involved, and where Porphyrios himself had reported Adam Carr for 3RR previously. (Porphyrios had made 3 reverts, but the block wasn't for edit-warring but again for his "POV" and for following a different opinion about naming policies than PMA.) Block overturned by FrancisTyers (talk • contribs • blocks • protects • deletions • moves • rights).

[edit] Users certifying the basis for this dispute

(sign with ~~~~)

  1. Thatcher131 01:03, 27 November 2006 (UTC) I agree with Future Perfect's additions. Thatcher131 01:31, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
  2. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 01:14, 27 November 2006 (UTC) I agree with all additions made after my initial certification. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 17:45, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
  3. Fut.Perf. ☼ 01:29, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
  4. --Zleitzen 01:42, 27 November 2006 (UTC) You can also add the blocking of Kozlovesred (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) for "admitted political bias" - which was rightly overturned as an "Invalid block reason given by admin who appears to be involved with the situation" by User:Geni.
  • MichaelW (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) was blocked by PMA for "POV edits, article degradation, POV pushing, abuse of other editors, lack of good faith" - this amounted to MichaelW simply having a different view of Cuban politics on the talk page than PMA who was editing the same article. It was rightly overturned the following day after discussions with other editors. I don't know how many more are out there, but those two involved a significant amount of detective work by myself to figure out why and on what grounds these users were blocked. It transpired, of course, that there were little or no grounds for these blocks.
  • (Update) See also PMA's blocks of GeorgeSears (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) and Solidusspriggan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) which were also for "POV bias" on articles he was editing, they too were overturned after a conflab on the Admin noticeboard and stern words from other admins. The summary reasons given for these blocks were "admitted political bias, lack of regard for opposing views and editors, stated intention to "guard" articles related to socialism/communism from opposing views and editors" --Zleitzen 01:42, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
  • (Update) Chicocvenancio (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) was blocked with an expiry time of 100 hours (POV pushing on the Cuba page, suspected sockpuppet) - this user merely made a few comments on a talk page where PMA was engaging in a dispute, took minor issue with a couple of points - was neither disruptive nor uncivil, and does not appear to be a sockpuppet of anyone I have encountered.--Zleitzen 18:24, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Other users who endorse this statement

(sign with ~~~~)

  1. Bishonen | talk 01:44, 27 November 2006 (UTC). Wow, talk about trigger-happy! We really can't have newbies and good-faith users driven away by this kind of admin abuse. I hope this goes on to arbitration as soon as possible.
  2. The day will come when those professing an "admitted political bias" as myself will be banned outright, but today is not that day. El_C 05:01, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
  3. I knew we had trigger-happy admins, but this is so egregious that it must be addressed (Fut.Perf. and I simultaneously acted regarding lifting of Bart's block). Duja► 08:00, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
  4. Absolutely. Defrocking is perfectly in order. --Ghirla -трёп- 13:40, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
  5. Shocking. Kimchi.sg 15:09, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Update

It appears PMA has chosen to react to this RfC by resigning his adminship rather than responding here. [17]. I guess there'll then be no need to keep this RfC open? Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:16, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

I guess this can be archived. We shouldn't keep this open if he isn't going to defend himself. Thatcher131 12:29, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Assuming it's confirmed the RfAr/Giano precedent, which would require Paul to submit to an RfA, is applicable I think closing and archiving is appropriate. Paul has indicated that he will not respond to this RfC [18], and since he has resigned his adminship, it doesnt seem necessary to continue. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 13:39, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

The resignation and RFC have also been noted over at the ArbCom elections pages. See here and here. Carcharoth 16:23, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 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.

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

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

[edit] 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.

[edit] Outside view by Newyorkbrad

Review of today's discussion on the noticeboard and the diffs provided by Thatcher131 and Fut.Perf. confirms that PMA has recently imposed several unwarranted, unduly harsh, and/or unexplained blocks on seemingly good-faith users. PMA has been a contributor to Wikipedia since 2001, soon after its inception, and an administrator since 2003 or 2004, so his long-term dedication to the project is not in question. However, what PMA described on the noticeboard today as a lengthy Wikipedia career of "fighting POV warriors and cranks" appears to have jaded him. I recommend that for a time this administrator focus his contributions on areas of responsibility other than blocking users and addressing POV issues. Newyorkbrad 01:46, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

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

[edit] Discussion

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