User talk:172/sysop status

<From WP:RFA

blah blah
172: I won't support banning, but I'll certainly support a removal of sysop powers. I was disappointed when Eloquence reversed his decision -- I don't think the kind of blatant, repeated abuse of powers 172 has demonstrated should be tolerated. Sysophood is for trusted, respected users. -- Tim Starling 03:04, Aug 15, 2003 (UTC)

I second the request for his sysop powers to be permanently removed. This disrespect of other users is not tolerable of sysop's, and this is not the type of impression we should be giving to new users. 172 needs to take his witch hunts elsewhere. &#12510;&#12452;&#12459;&#12523; (MB) 03:36, Aug 15, 2003 (UTC)
 * (What users? Users who post crap like this: Pat Robertson has recently felt hardship, for he knows he is losing the war against gay rights and his small penis. Pat Robertson has even been known to give $150,000 to a scam artist who told him he would sell him machines for $275 that would create perpetual motion, or endless power. Clearly not a scientist, Pat Robertson suffers from many diseases of the brain. He also has publically announced that he wishes that the 3 supreme court justices that are ill who voted for sodomy to be legalized to die. He is a sham and uses his position to accomplish vendettas of his own in the name of the christian populus. What a coward.") 172
 * That was a couple weeks ago. Since then, Nostrum has denounced his own actions, and thanked people for helping him see the error in his ways.  You need to stop BITING THE NEWBIES. &#12510;&#12452;&#12459;&#12523; (MB) 14:38, Aug 15, 2003 (UTC)

Thirded. He is a good editor, and can work cordially with someone he respects, but he won't take constructive advice. I would hope he keeps editing the wikipedia, but not as a sysop. Losing sysop powers shouldn't be a big deal. Let him join the 1700 plus editors who also lack those powers. -- Cimon Avaro on a pogo-stick 03:46, Aug 15, 2003 (UTC)

Fourthed because he refuses to even try and work with those who disagree with him. He stated on my user-talk page that he would "never work co-operatively" with me after he didn't like the way I summarised something he wrote on my page. Angela 04:07, 15 Aug 2003 (UTC)


 * You people keep budding into disputes and taking sides with little knowledge of what the disputes actually entail. The issue is banning a vandal, not me. Every edit by this user has been blatant vandalism. He has vandalized Catholicism with his illiterate POV rant; he defaced the Holocaust article; and he persistently vandalized the Pat Robertson article, wanting to put in the article that 'Pat Robertson has a small penis.' This user is just a troll looking to stir up trouble and provoke and manipulate people. And making me the issue rather than his vandalism means that he is accomplishing that. Shame on all of you for attacking me rather than his blatant vandalism. Shame on all of you for being easily manipulated by a troll. 172 03:57, 15 Aug 2003 (UTC)


 * I'm not being manipulated by a troll. I'm influenced by your own actions, both now and in the past few months. Perhaps if you didn't let yourself be influenced by trolls, this would not have escalated so far. Angela 04:18, 15 Aug 2003 (UTC)


 * And what, exactly, is your issue with trolls? A troll is merely one who cares more about the encyclopedia than the so-called "community" (ha).


 * I hate to say that I told you so. --mav 04:58, 15 Aug 2003 (UTC)
 * I will not continue editing if my sysop status is revoked. I'm not going to be subject to the humiliation of being demoted. Why the hell should I care if Wikipedia loses a historian and gains yet another vandal like Michael. You people seem to have more respect for someone who comments on Pat Robertson's penis size anyway. 172 05:08, 15 Aug 2003 (UTC)
 * Without wanting to comment on whether it would be justified or not to remove sysop-hood from you, I think that having sysop status removed is certainly not humiliating (or at least it should not be). After all, of the more than 17500 registered users of Wikipedia, less than 1% are sysops, and the contributions made by a non-sysop are just as valuable and appreciated as those made by a sysop. -- Schnee 14:36, 15 Aug 2003 (UTC)

I am sorry, but this is the precise point where you seem to be most clue-deficient. What we are all trying our best to do is to extend courtesy to all users. Even to you. If you do not appreciate that... -- Cimon Avaro on a pogo-stick 05:51, Aug 15, 2003 (UTC)

Please clarify: 172 seems to think he's been accuse of overprotective of WP of Michael-like blatant vandals (who obviously disagree with him, and many other Wikipedians, I'd assume), but Tim, MBecker, Cimo, and Angela don't seem to be talking about this (are they?) But rather, they speak of a behavioral and attitude flaw that cause those who disagree with him (in their argument, loyal Wikipedians, not vandals) cannot work on WP as easy as it could be.

So is it the vandal over-reaction or the attitude instability? Hostility toward vandals or toward loyal Wikipedian? --Menchi 06:33, Aug 15, 2003 (UTC)


 * I am quite surprised by what I am reading here. 172's edits that I have seen have always been good. If some people I trust, like mav, think the decision to demote 172 is appropriate, then I will accept it. Otherwise, I would like to keep the case open for a while. olivier 07:37, 15 Aug 2003 (UTC)


 * Hmm. I haven't worked with 172 on any page, so I couldn't tell you what that is like. I think I wrote that many people who he respects get no trouble from him. To me it isn't his attitude, even though he has told me some quite unpalatable opinions about my actions. I dare say he hasn't loved all my views.


 * To put it bluntly, there is nothing wrong with 172. And hence he feels that no-one else should make any mistakes either. And if someone does make a mistake, well that is why he has these sysop-powers...


 * But that isn't how it should work. At least that is not my view. Take my rights away, if sysop-rights are meant as a way to shun the imperfect. -- Cimon Avaro on a pogo-stick 07:45, Aug 15, 2003 (UTC)

I don't support the de-adminship of 172. However, as a suggestion, I ask for a change in his attitude. The edit war we had over whether to include a NPOV dispute warning was quite ridiculous. He should try to work for consensus rather than doing blanket reversions when he is not happy with an edit. I ask that when there is a dispute that he leave the revert button alone until a consensus is reached on the talk page, especially when there is more than one person against his actions. Maybe this will keep him out of these edit wars. Let this page serve as his warning, but give him a chance to change for the better. Don't act now.

I'd hate to see 172 go. He's been a valuable contributor. It seems the actions of 172 (to merit deadminship) are being overshadowed by the proposed ban of Nostrum. 172 should not be deadmined simply for advocating the ban of another user, but for any reason, his overall and entire conduct. The issue of Nostrum is dominating this discussion, and has been the basis of 172's defense. Perhaps Nostrum truly deserves banning (as other users have supported). If that is so, we definately should not penalize 172 for instigating it. We ought to archive this discussion and come back after the issue with Nostrum has been resolved. --Jiang 08:02, 15 Aug 2003 (UTC)


 * I agree with your first paragraph but I don't with the second; the issue here is not just about Nostrum, but a long history of edit war after edit war that 172 is in. An Admin should be a model Wikipedian and try to seek consensus. It just makes all Admins look bad when one is constantly in the middle of a fight. 172 has also used his autorevert power as a tool in edit wars; this is not good at all because the other waring parties do not have this ability. The edit waring has got to stop. --mav 08:11, 15 Aug 2003 (UTC)


 * That's right, Mav. We should seek consensus at the expense of accuracy, objectivity, standards of proper location and placement, proper development of historical context, proper organization, and good writing. I should just compromise and give in to users who feel that Mormons are Catholics, 6 million Jews didn't die in the Holocaust, and Pat Robertson's penis size is relevant. Where's your evidence, Mav? Sometimes illiterate POV rants have no places in articles and someone has to eliminate them. I hate dealing with these mindless edit wars, but sometimes it's the only way of saving a good history article. But oh well. It looks like I'm going to have to leave in disgrace. Why don't you all restore Nostrum&#8217;s POV rant in Catholicism to celebrate my forced exit? 172 08:26, 15 Aug 2003 (UTC)


 * It's your own decision to take the actions you do, and have, and you are not helping the wikipedia by being so over-protective. The community will be fine with out you.  It's your own choice weather to stay or leave, and you can't blame anyone but yourself for the actions that have put you in this position.  &#12510;&#12452;&#12459;&#12523; (MB) 15:00, Aug 15, 2003 (UTC)

GAAAHH!! Understand this. No-one wants you to leave! Period.

This is not about you, it isn't about Nostrum, it isn't about Whatchacallem PP/Lir/blrrrrrr.

It is about what the actions of a sysop should be like. Not about how many hashmarks a sysop gets for foiling a vandal or a proto-vandal or whatever. Wikipedia can survive temporary crappy content just fine. It can easily accomodate a vandal masquerading as a useful member of the editing community. What it cannot tolerate is the creation of a reality or even a perception that sysops are here as gatekeepers. That priviledge should be reserved for the editorship as a whole, and subverting that even in the slightest degree is worse than 2000 articles stating that John Paul II buttfucks all the cardinals. -- Cimon Avaro on a pogo-stick 09:29, Aug 15, 2003 (UTC)


 * Just a thought:
 * Separation of power is very important in real live. Police does not have to judge, Judges don't have to execute.
 * We sysops, what are we. Police or Judges? I would say Police. We don't have to judge if something is right, We just have to look after the people that they behave. If there are problems, we have to stop them and say "please think again", but the "public" is the judge and only the public can take a decision. For this I would say "police should NEVER enforce a POV", even if you think, you are absolutely right. Let the public, the judges, decide. WE ARE EXECUTIVE and we have to do that what the public says, not what we think is right. Fantasy 10:10, 15 Aug 2003 (UTC)
 * PS: We have even to help the people that have a POV! Everyone should know, he can come to us and tell us his problems. They have to trust us! They have to know, we are here for everyone. Having a POV is something that we can not forbid! EVERYONE SHOULD TRUST AN ADMIN!


 * Agreed, also, Admins should be careful when looking for vandals. 172 clearly thinks Nostrum is a vandal.  He has already judged him.  Nostrum has stated that he is still learning, and that he appriciates peoples help.  I provided some links to him yesterday, and told him to slow down and observe.  He thanked me.  So, we can be sure that Nostrum is not a vandal.  However, 172 has continued to insist that 172 is a vandal, using his past actions (which Nostrum admits were wrong) as proof.  It's just ridiculous!  He's partaking in witch-hunts!  I don't trust 172 to represent the community!  And above all, sys-op's represent the community! He is abusing his status.  &#12510;&#12452;&#12459;&#12523; (MB) 14:30, Aug 15, 2003 (UTC)

This is a ridiculous discussion that reflects wiki at its worst. In my time on wiki almost every sysop on wiki (bar Deb!) has acted in a less than fair way at some time or other. In almost every case, it was a lapse that was motivated not by attempts to vandalise wiki but by a misguided and misjudged attempt to deal with what they saw as a problem. I can think of many sysops who could have been picked up incidents, told "this is conduct unbecoming a sysop" and had their adminship removed. But did not happen, rightly, because people were able to see the bigger picture and distinguish between people deliberately trying to destroy wikipedia and people who in their defence of wikipedia unintentionally went too far.


 * Firstly, I think the very fact that Wikipedia discusses these things reflects the very best feature of Wikipedia. To continue, I have no problem with 172 making mistakes. What I have a problem with is his inability to recognize the fact when brought to his attention. -- Cimon Avaro on a pogostick

172 has made mistakes but only the most outspoken 172-haters (and there are few) could suggest that those mistakes were motivated by anything other than a passion to make wikipedia into a serious, professional, quality encyclopædia, not a toy scribble box where inane rubbish, wacky fiction and pure POV bullshit is accepted or tolerated. And on many many occasions, he has been the person who stood up to vandals that most people were unwilling to, even where privately people agreed that something had to be done about the vandal, but they didn't want to be the one to put their head over the parapet and take these people on. Adam is a classic example of someone where plenty of people thought something had to be done, but no-one was willing to do it. Abe did it, maybe not always tactfully, maybe sometimes too agressively, but he did it, and for his passion in upholding the highest standards of content, rather than having a "sure it will do. OK it is crap but hopefully no-one will notice" attitude, we should be thanking him, not launching a lynch mob.


 * I have never stated that any of his misguided actions stemmed from malice. That is not at issue here. One does not have to be a terrorist, to not warrant being given oversight over missile batterys. A fool, no matter how well-meaning, as a sysop; makes us all look just as foolish as himself, for not adjusting his behaviour. -- Cimon Avaro on a pogostick

With its current size, wiki is no longer a small community of people, but a complex and frequently cumbersome, occasionally haphazard organisation of many people, some focused exclusively on small areas. We need people who will be willing to act as bullshit detectors. Call it the hard cop/soft cop routine; we need Mav's 'lets hold hands and share wikilove' style of team building and 172's tough cop 'now hold on a minute. You can't write bs like that' approach. If everyone had 172's style of dealing with people, wiki could easily have wiki world war I on our hands. But if everyone acted like Mav, we would be destroyed in weeks as vandals swooped onto wiki and, abusing our trust, destroyed article and article in the knowledge that we'd be too busy being nice and presuming the best of motives to actually stand up to them. (Look at how Adam has been able to get away with so much, while we fall bend over backwards to make excuses for him, to his own amusement).


 * We do need bullshit detectors, but we must also act as bully-detectors. Furthermore, I do not for a second believe that courtesy toward other users is an invitation to vandalism. -- Cimon Avaro on a pogostick

The suggestion that having one's sysop powers removed would not be seen as a demotion is patiently absurd. Being a sysop involves publicly been given greater responsibilities and power. Taking them away sends the message to the community 'this person is not to be trusted'. Ask yourself, would vandals like DW, Michael and Adam be glad or sorry to see Abe demoted? Which would serve their purposes better?


 * Your view of the vandals is already a humongous victory for them. We only win if we don't let their feelings affect our behaviour in any way whatsoever. If we excuse abuses because acting upon them would please vandals, they have a huge victory already. It would validate their view of Wikipedia. -- Cimon Avaro on a pogostick

The most disappointing thing is that so many of Abe's critics here (but not them all, I hasten to add) as longterm critics, who have been sniping at him for months. And the irony is that one of those most passionate in his longterm criticism bent over backwards to accept and defend some of Nostrum's wacky edits, which in terms of accuracy and constructiveness are on a par with Michael, while constantly attacking 172 and everyone else who tried to stop Nostrum's garbagisation of wiki. And while continuing to defend Nostrum, whose edit history's contents is of a scale that got others banned (today removing a mention of rascism in fascism, before calling Mormons Catholic, making up nonsense about 10% of popes being paedophiles, deciding that 6 million jews weren't killed by the Nazis and it shouldn't be called genocide, merely slaughter, etc, ), that user here and elsewhere launches continuous POV attacks on 172, who has contributed more to wiki in 5 minutes than User:Nostrum has in two months. Sometimes 172 may be the proverbial 'bull in a china shop' but if having that 'bull' keeps the bullshit off wiki, then it is a price we need to pay. FearÉIREANN 18:48, 15 Aug 2003 (UTC)
 * MB is now taking his crusade to Eloquence's user page, begging him to suspend my sysop status. What is wrong with him? What have I ever done to him? This seems to be a personal crusade to him. How can someone this vindictive have so much influence over the opinions of others, more influence it seems than months of substantial contributions? If this is all about him getting back at me for my mild criticism of his actions weeks ago, then will me admitting that I was wrong get him to stop trying to gather up this lynch mob?172 19:09, 15 Aug 2003 (UTC)

blah blah
Again, I ask that this issue be postponed. We should not be debating here whether Nostrum should be banned. Nostrum should or should not be banned based on his own actions, not whether 172 was the one who first advocated his banning. 172 should or should not be deadmined for his own actions, not whether Nostrum should be banned. That issue is polluting this one. The attack should not be that 172 advocated the ban of Nostrum. The defense should not be that Nostrum deserves banning. Please separate these issues and let the actions of each user speak for themselves. Whether Nostrum should be banned should have no effect on the outcome here. --Jiang 19:04, 15 Aug 2003 (UTC)

I haven't had much contact with 172, but here's my opinion based on my reading of the above issue. I don't see it being asserted that 172 has overstepped the bounds of good-sysophood any further than many others (who still have their sysop status) or with actual malice. Unless someone shows me persuasive evidence to the contrary, I'm opposed to revoking 172's admin status. --Dante Alighieri 19:08, 15 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Thats kinda my feeling on the matter -- the strongest arguments rest on specific cases where 172 allegedly was discourteous to other Wikipedians. This should be documented -- as much care should be given this as to the recent PP issue. I dont know about bad karma or mojo -- All I know is that not enough has come my way to make me agree with the removal.- &#25140;&#30505sv 19:23, Aug 15, 2003 (UTC)

First of all, there are three reasons I believe he should not be representative of the community (i.e. a sys-op) 1. He has used his sys-op power improperly in the past (protecting pages, editing protected pages, deleting his user page etc etc) (remember, User:Kils's sys-op status was removed for only one offense like this).

2. He is excessively rude to other users. I have a whole lot of examples like this. Nostrum (who only became rude after rude remarks from 172 in edit comments), Me (he said I should have my sys-op status removed because he didn't find your contributions all that impressive), Zoe "I had to defend the defenseless new user. We don&#8217;t want this potentially valuable contributor scared off by your venom, do we?", The Cunctator "THIS IS NOT AN ARTICLE ON THE POLITICAL AND ECONOMIC THEORY OF MARXISM-LENINISM. THIS IS AN ARTICLE ON THE CONSTITUTIONAL STATE STRUCTURE OF A COMMUNIST STATE!!!!!! READ THE ARCHIVED PAGES SO THAT I DON'T HAVE TO REPEAT WHAT HAS BEEN ESTABLISHED OVER AND OVER AGAIN.

ALSO, SITE OWNER JIMBO WALES AGREES THAT FRED'S CONTENT DOESN'T BELONG IN THIS ARTICLE (SEE THE MAILING LIST), SO YOUR EFFORTS TO INSERT FRED'S (PERHAPS YOUR) POV COULD GET YOU BANNED." (before 172 was a sysop).  Before 172 became a sysop, a couple users requested he not become a sys-op, solely on the basis that he had no sense of Wikipetiquette/Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines.

3. His constant witch-hunting for vandals, banning of ip's before discussion, and requests for banning of users he disagrees with. I think Jimbo said it best when he said "Comments about banning should be among the sad, tragic, final things that we bring up in a dispute, rather than among the first." 172 doesn't follow this guideline one bit. In his crusade to find vandals, and protect the history articles, he is constantly asking for people to be banned, and acting extremely rudely towards people he disagrees with.

Because of these three reasons, I believe 172 should have his sysop status removed. His actions are not becoming of a sysop. At the very least, I would hope that 172 would be banned from partaking in any further witch-hunts, and stick to constructive tasks. Additionally, I hope that in the future, he can learn to work constructively with others he doesn't agree with. &#12510;&#12452;&#12459;&#12523; (MB) 20:08, Aug 15, 2003 (UTC)
 * MB's pathetic witch-hunt against me is getting increasingly desperate. Before he was rehashing all the resolved disputes with respect to the protection of Catholicism from weeks ago. Now, he's going back to a dispute over one user's insistence on adding irrelevant propaganda to an article on a government-type and state structure resolved before I even became an administrator. Never mind that he has no idea whatsoever of the nature of the content of all this "evidence" he's presenting; he's just picking out a few quotations here and there out of context to vilify me. The viciousness with which he is waging this crusade against me should prompt a debate over his sysop status. This guy is just a hard-core 172-hater rehashing stale, resolved, and dubious arguments against my insistence on content that meets proper encyclopedic standards. 172 21:13, 15 Aug 2003 (UTC)

It seems that this issue is come to a need for a formal statement -- those in favor of 172's de-adminship should condense their thoughts and evidence to a statement maybe here Adminship of 172/de-adminship. - &#25140;&#30505sv 20:50, Aug 15, 2003 (UTC)
 * There is no reason to, the reasons are listed above. &#12510;&#12452;&#12459;&#12523; (MB) 20:59, Aug 15, 2003 (UTC)


 * So what? You can pick out terse statements written on talk pages by almost any user who has been as active as I have been. When will people see that this is really MB's vindictive, hateful witch-hunt against me? He is just getting back at me because I criticized his actions with respect to Paektu and he has no respect for professional academics. 172 21:03, 15 Aug 2003 (UTC)
 * I just reviewed the case you are refering to, and I never held any ill-will against you for it. &#12510;&#12452;&#12459;&#12523; (MB) 21:35, Aug 15, 2003 (UTC)
 * You claimed earlier that you didn't even know what the Paektu matter was. That isn't believable. YOU HAVE TWO TALK ACHIEVES FILLED WITH IT. If that isn't the source of your ill will, then it's something else that has nothing to do with what you're claiming. You have never worked with me, but you've taken it upon yourself to be the ringleader in this unfair lynch mob. 172 21:47, 15 Aug 2003 (UTC)
 * You seem a little paranoid. I in no way hold a grudge against you.  I just want to make sure you stop your inappropriate actions.  If you simply admitted you were wrong, and said you would work on it, I would leave you alone.  I'm sure others would too.  However, it is your stubbornness to do so that has gotten you here.  You won't admit that you can't get along with others.  You won't admit that you misuse your sysop status.  You said "I cordially work with people capable of editing the articles in my fields of interest as colleagues."  However, anyone you deem not capable, you attack ruthlessly.  You revert their additions (not even considering their contributions at all), if they refuse to be censored by you, you call them vandals, and try to get them banned.  This is not becoming of a sysop.  I wish we had met under different circumstances, because you are obviously very intelligent, and very dedicated to the wikipedia.  I just don't trust you with sysop powers, and I don't want you representing wikipedia (sysops represent wikipedia).  &#12510;&#12452;&#12459;&#12523; (MB) 22:14, Aug 15, 2003 (UTC)
 * I was wrong about what? Nostrum committed vandalism and I stated my case in favor of a ban, along with Vancouverguy, Wik, Jiang, Jtdirl, and some others. What did I do? And aside from the Nostrum matter, why should I respond to you with respect to past disputes that have already been resolved that had nothing to do with you? 172 22:22, 15 Aug 2003 (UTC)


 * There was a decent effort made by Evercat to document PP as Lir/etc... In this issue should come to a vote at some point -- and specific reasons given therin should be verifiable and documented. Otherwise people are just being lazy. --- &#25140;&#30505sv 21:07, Aug 15, 2003 (UTC)

Process for de-adminship
Those who think that 172's sysop status should be removed should take the matter to the wikien-l mailing list or to Jimbo Wales personally. He has made clear to me that he wants to handle these cases himself.&mdash;Eloquence 21:09, Aug 15, 2003 (UTC)


 * It is so decreed. - &#25140;&#30505sv 21:16, Aug 15, 2003 (UTC)

Page moved
I have moved this page because The latter hasn't been done before, to my knowledge, but because ban/desysop pages are notoriously controversial, I don't think they should be subpages of a user's user page.&mdash;Eloquence 00:05, Aug 16, 2003 (UTC)
 * 1) it is a discussion page, so it should be in the talk namespace
 * 2) it is a page about an individual user, so it should either be a subpage of that user's page, or a general collaboratively edited page in the user namespace.

Since 172 seems to be making a big deal about this (see here, and here), I will bring it up frist. I consider myself friends with User:Nostrum, which is the reason I knew he wasn't trying to vandalise (He made mistakes though, which he admitted). This in turn was the reason I found out 172 was being mean, and unfair to him (and others). It wasn't until after looking into the situation futher that I found out just how deep the rabbit-hole named 172 goes. I have personally asked him to try and deal with his issues, so that this won't have to continue. We will see, he seems to have a past of not being able to let things go. I would also like to point out that 172's issues are seperate from Nostrum's issues. It wasn't until Nostrum brought the issue to my attention that I noticed 172's issues. &#12510;&#12452;&#12459;&#12523; (MB) 00:15, Aug 16, 2003 (UTC)


 * And JT isn't friends with 172? I don't get why that is important. Is JT's defense of 172 also suspect then since they are both friends? --mav


 * Every word of our conversations has been strictly on Wiki and the focus has always been Wikipedia. Every word of our correspondence can be viewed right now by anyone with internet access. This is not a private conflict of interest, as was the case with respect to MB. Our professional relationship is no secret. However, there is nothing personal about this. I don't know his real name and he doesn't know mine (Abe isn't my first name, but the name of a late relative). We have disagreed from time to time, on issues ranging from Adam to Mugabe. Don't be absurd. 172 03:45, 16 Aug 2003 (UTC)


 * Removing personal attack. You should know better 172. If anything MB's friendship with Nostrum is a strong indication that Nostrum is not a vandal, but just a newbie who had the misfortune of editing badly in your presence. When you treat somebody like a criminal instead of assuming they simply don't know what they are doing, then more often than not, you fullfill your own prophesy. --mav


 * Mav, don't be so hypersensitive. I said you were "so smart." I attacked your statement, which was 'idiotic.' "I can't believe that I heard something idiotic from someone so smart" indicates my opinion of you is high. It's more of a personal complement than a personal attack. However, the statement deserved to be attacked. 172 04:07, 16 Aug 2003 (UTC)


 * In my neck of the woods; stupid is as stupid does. So yes, you did attack me. That's OK, though, because I know it wasn't warrented. --mav
 * I know this is getting silly, but reread the sentence. You were being praised. Your stance was being criticized. Criticizing someone's stance isn't necessarily a personal attack. In my neck of the woods, that was a friendly word of constructive criticism wrapped in a personal complement. 172 04:14, 16 Aug 2003 (UTC)


 * I am so new I probably shouldn't even be commenting on this. But can't we take a game reset?
 * 172 stated that he is going to recede into the background on the Nostrum issue which is a professional attitude
 * Nostrum is going to observed carefully by lots of folks...if strange stuff happens he will be gone....if strange stuff does not happen it turns out well
 * 172 is now aware of the perceptions of his tone and zealousness and ought to have the opportunity to disprove or repair them
 * Criticism of Nostrums actions on some pages and 172's actions on some pages were apparently dealt with at the time. I would say deal with anything new as it comes up and ditch the dossiers from the past.
 * Everbody refrain from using all caps, profanity, personal attacks, and say please and thank you from time to time. Nostrum avoid major edits to major category headings without discussion first and do good work on non-controversial stuff for awhile.
 * Okay, thats my say. I hate office politics and factionalism.  Hope I did not scorch anybody's toast here and that this ends.  Thanks Ark30inf 03:26, 16 Aug 2003 (UTC)

I would like to speak on behalf of 172. 172, you are clearly very intelligent, enjoy contributing to the free network of this system, and clearly have donated a lot of your own time, resources, and information to wikipedia. After reading what other people have written, I don't want you banned, besides, that wouldn't work anyway. Let us now envision a Commander, off topic. What are the desirable qualities of a person that both works for an organization and must also provide structure for it. It's important he is competent. It's important he can collaberate with others. However, it's also important above all that he sets an example for those beside, above, and especially below him. His ethics and decisions must be received with the utmost respect and honor so that his crew can both respect his decisions and entrust him that he makes the right choices in extreme situations. 172, I believe this is your failing. To be blunt, you have the skills, but you lack the underlying ethics and ability to make command decisions that require you place your job above your personal feelings. At the moment I believe you should be relieved of duty. However, because I think, rather, I know you are capable of learning and because I know you can see the error of your ways, I would like you to consider a compromise. Accept your dishonor honorably and maintain your presence in Wikipedia. After a couple of months, if Wikipedia feels that you have displayed a turnabout worthy of commendment, I, myself, Nostrum, would vouch for you to be reinstated as an Op. There is one condition I would like you to consider, that you no longer are placed under the duty of banning members on a regular basis. I don't want you to dishonor yourself just as much as you don't want to accept dishonor. This whole situation brought the worst out of you, more than I expected, and I don't think others should view you like this. I would rather view you as a friend than an enemy. From this point on I just want you to remember that no matter how harsh your words may be to me, I will make it a point to ensure that people like yourself and myself are treated with honor, if they make mistakes. I will make it my duty to resolve issues on this system, to teach those who have erred, and to promote, without negetive criticism or my own personal feelings, the learning and understanding of what Wikipedia really means. People here gave me a lot of room, despite heavy criticism and my own mistakes, and I feel I must ensure the same for others. Good day friendNostrum 10:06, 16 Aug 2003 (UTC)
 * You yourself admitted that your edits were deliberately provocative and sometimes vandalistic. And you are here solely on MB's word. Due to your friendship with another sysop, and his promises that you will be reformed, we are now assuming that you were merely grossly unaware of Wikipedia policies and the norms of the Wikipedia community at the time. In the past, similar new contributors were banned even more swiftly and without my involvement, such as Zog and DW. Paektu, Palestine liberator, and JoeM, while not banned, are subject to auto-revert, although they could be in your situation. Perhaps they too could be reformed and perhaps they too think that they were treated unfairly. The only difference is that we don't notice their cries because they don't have the strong backing of a sysop. My actions with regards to you completely followed the protocol established by combating the dubious edits of these contributors. However, unlike them, you will be given many chances. And that's not because you've showed much evidence of reform, but just because of the trust and faith we place in MB.


 * Due to the unrelenting efforts on the part of MB, you will be given yet another second chance and I will not have anything to do with reverting your edits, no matter how questionable I feel they are. And yes, I will not even touch your edits even if I see factual errors. So please, start proving that you're a worthy contributor and stop campaigning against a sysop who acted according to the protocol.


 * You are no longer on the verge of banning ever since MB admitted that he can personally attest for your intensions to reform. I am no longer a threat to you. You are the only one that can get yourself banned right now. Got it? Take responsibility and shape up. Part of reforming and winning trust will be admitting that your had acted in very inappropriate manners. Quit trying to blame me for your conduct. You should admit that you and only you attracted all that negative attention from many users including myself. 172 15:42, 16 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Nostrum, there are no "commanders" on Wikipedia; this is a fundamental misunderstanding of what it means to be an administrator. Administrators are simply normal users who are trusted to use the few additional privileges they are given (which are all revertable and revokable) responsibly. They are not "leaders" or editors.

I think your case has shown once again that it is important to maintain Wikiquette at all times, even towards those who we believe to be vandals. Your own early edits were highly questionable. I hope that you will become a valuable contributor. But if anyone on Wikipedia is unsuitable to dictate any conditions to 172, it is you.

172, I think that you should continue to correct Nostrum when he makes factually incorrect edits. I also think you and Jtdirl are a bit too irritable to deal with newbies who make silly mistakes. Whenever you feel that you must type an emotionally strong response, it may be better to calm down and ask someone else to handle the situation. This increases your own credibility and helps to solve the problem quicker -- you can't lose.&mdash;Eloquence 18:29, Aug 16, 2003 (UTC)
 * No way! I'm not going to cross this guy again! I don't want to have to deal with all this fuss next time I correct him. My actions were no different from previous responses by sysops when a user was adding POV rants. However, he and his friend MB decided to dig up (groundless) dirt on me and try to get me publicly demoted. I've suffered needlessly enough already. 172 18:43, 16 Aug 2003 (UTC)

My final statement
While your emotional suffering is quite evident, 172, I don't believe your reputation has suffered one bit. You already had a reputation for being a hard-ass, this discussion has just help us (especially me) understand why you are such a hard-ass, and why it is helpful. It has also helped everyone (especially you I hope) understand where your hard-ass stance can be harmful. I have more respect for you now than I ever did before. I'm glad you and I (and Nostrum) were able to work out our differences without any banning or removal of sysop powers. I don't feel that there is currently anymore need for your sysop status to be removed. I think we all have learned a valuable lesson. I will be archiving this page in my own personal space, so that I won't ever forget this issue (I have a terrible memory), and hopefully it will provide motivation to me in the future. I will be putting this page up for deletion on VfD. &#12510;&#12452;&#12459;&#12523; 19:16, Aug 16, 2003 (UTC)

(to Martin) Regarding the deletion of [this page], see my talk page. 172 made a personal request to me, which I understood, which is why I listed it there. &#12510;&#12452;&#12459;&#12523; 20:00, Aug 16, 2003 (UTC)

October 2005 page move
The move was necessitated by the exploitation of the page name by User:172 sysop status, apparently a sock puppet of User:SuperTroll. --Nlu 05:47, 23 October 2005 (UTC)