Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Mav v. 168/Evidence

This matter was accepted for arbitration on April 20, 2004. It concerns (User:168... and mav)

Requests for comment/168 and Mav - Requests for comment/168 - Requests for comment/Mav

Discussion by arbitrators is at Requests for arbitration/Mav v. 168.

Version of what happened primarily written by mav
As a participant in a multi-party dispute over one much-discussed paragraph in DNA, 168 reverted to an old version, which he favored. When User:Lir undid the reversion, 168... reverted again and protected the page (04:18, 7 Mar 2004 168... protected DNA ). Other admins said protection was called for, but said the fact that 168... had done it made the act improper. 168... also protected Conflicts between users while a participant in a brief multi-party dispute involving Lir over that page then unprotected it again two minutes later.

Days later he used the rollback feature to revert the protected page Nucleic acid (another article he was in an edit dispute over) to his preferred version. He then engaged in a full revert war using the rollback feature with 3 other admins (168... used the rollback feature in that revert war more than 10 times in less than 20 minutes). Other admins also used the rollback feature to revert 168...       (this last one was a self revert) (Nucleic acid history One of his edit comments was "so de-sysop me." At the same time he also used the rollback feature to repeatedly remove warnings on his talk page about his behavior.     (User talk:168... history Also at the same time he was in another revert war at Possible misuses of admin privileges. There he repeatedly used the rollback feature to revert a note by Lir that 168... had reverted a protected page (Nucleic acid). During this revert war another admin protected the page hoping that that would stop 168... but 168... continued to revert. Other admins involved in the revert war also used the rollback feature on 168...            (Wikipedia:Possible misuses of admin privileges history A poll was then started asking whether or not 168... should be desysoped but no action was taken at that time.Wikipedia_talk:Possible_misuses_of_admin_privileges

During this episode 168... explained that he was doing this "to irritate Lir and keep him and the need for ban enforcement topical." He called this a kind of "civil disobedience." 

Between February 12th and 13th 168... repeatedly reverted DNA, removing the first two paragraphs that were voted on and passed (4 to 1 with Lir being the 1 and 168.. not participating in that particular vote but instead voted for the version he would later revert to) on the talk page (see vote at Talk:DNA/archive_4 ; four people were reverting him).       On the 14th he again reverted DNA to his favored version and then protected the page (01:14, 14 Feb 2004 168... protected DNA, Revision as of 01:14, 14 Feb 2004 ). Note that Lir also would later revert the voter version of the intro to his own version. 168... also claims that the vote had no power since it was not listed at Current polls.

At around the same time he was using the rollback feature and regular reverts to revert all the most recent updates to his RfC page (five different people were reverting 168).         After one revert 168... protected his version of the page twice but that page protection was lifted by another admin. Note that the above diffs may no longer work due to the fact that version numbers were reassigned after each deletion. (05:53, 13 Feb 2004 168... protected Wikipedia:Requests for comment/168,

On the 14th he also deleted his RfC page 10 times and blanked it four times. 

01:47, 14 Feb 2004 Bryan Derksen restored "Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/168" 01:47, 14 Feb 2004 Pakaran restored "Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/168" 01:45, 14 Feb 2004 168... deleted "Wikipedia:Requests for comment/168" 01:44, 14 Feb 2004 Maveric149 restored "Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/168" 01:44, 14 Feb 2004 168... deleted "Wikipedia:Requests for comment/168" 01:43, 14 Feb 2004 Pakaran restored "Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/168" 01:42, 14 Feb 2004 168... deleted "Wikipedia:Requests for comment/168" (content was: 'c') 01:35, 14 Feb 2004 Maveric149 restored "Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/168" 01:34, 14 Feb 2004 168... deleted "Wikipedia:Requests for comment/168" 01:32, 14 Feb 2004 Maveric149 restored "Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/168" 01:32, 14 Feb 2004 Hephaestos restored "Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/168" 01:31, 14 Feb 2004 168... deleted "Wikipedia:Requests for comment/168" 01:30, 14 Feb 2004 Maveric149 restored "Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/168" 01:30, 14 Feb 2004 Hephaestos restored "Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/168" 01:30, 14 Feb 2004 168... deleted "Wikipedia:Requests for comment/168" 01:29, 14 Feb 2004 168... deleted "Wikipedia:Requests for comment/168" 01:29, 14 Feb 2004 Maveric149 restored "Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/168" 01:29, 14 Feb 2004 Hephaestos restored "Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/168" 01:27, 14 Feb 2004 168... deleted "Wikipedia:Requests for comment/168" (ibid) 01:27, 14 Feb 2004 Maveric149 restored "Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/168" 01:26, 14 Feb 2004 168... deleted "Wikipedia:Requests for comment/168" (ibid) 01:25, 14 Feb 2004 Maveric149 restored "Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/168" 01:24, 14 Feb 2004 168... deleted "Wikipedia:Requests for comment/168" (became more trouble than it's worth)

Then, based on a clear majority at 168...'s desysoping poll, Tim Starling temporarily desysopped 168... and asked for a review of the situation. 

Mav requested mediation on the above points at Wikipedia:Requests_for_mediation#168..._and_maveric149 but mediation later failed and the item was de-listed by Anthere.

On February 20th a new poll was conducted on whether or not 168's sysop user rights should be reinstated. The next day Angela added mention of that poll at Current polls. Less then a day later on February 22nd Tim Starling resysoped 168 when there were 10 votes for reinstatement and 5 against (67% in favor). In the days following more users voted and as of early April there were 10 votes for reinstatement and 10 against. 

On March 5 DNA was unprotected by Kingturtle. On the next day, Anthere asked Kingturtle for the article protection to be restored at first sign of necessity. 168's first edit to that article was a revert to his favored version the next day. Mav reverted the article back to the version most people who voted on the February_5_Version liked. 168 reverted the article to his favored version again. Mav responded with a proposed compromise version that combined the information contained in both versions. 168 reverted that as well. Mav tried another compromise, but 168 reverted back to his favored version again. Bryan Derksen then reverted 168. Mav saved another proposed compromise version, which 168 reverted (marking the revert as a minor edit and not giving an edit summary). Bryan Derksen reverted 168's revert. 168 auto-reverted Bryan and protected the page. 

Note that that was a total of 6 reverts by 168 in a 24 hour period and that a poll that would make a 3-revert per day limit policy has 45 votes to 6  Jimbo has not decided yet whether to allow admins the ability to block users for 24 hours for breaking this rule.

A developer then de-sysoped 168 again and 168 left the project.

On the "legality" of 168...'s first controversial action against Lir

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


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

I have searched extensively for community support for Lir and met with nothing but silence. Perhaps I didn't search in the right way or in the right places, but I feel very strongly that I have done due diligence in this regard. While I'm inclined to trust your take on the community, because I see you get around, nevertheless I feel it is reasonable to take a position of skepticism regarding your claim that Lir has people who want him here who are themselves people who are wanted here. I am very much more skeptical as to what my reputation might be at this moment and how my protection of DNA might have changed it. That said, you might well rid me of my areas of skepticism if you showed me where to look for the evidence. Regarding the distinction between you protecting DNA and me protecting DNA, I certainly see it, and I think you draw the line in a reasonable place. The rule however seems to me to draw the line somewhere else--seemingly it says that if you have had any connection with the article ever, you are not allowed to protect it. That struck me as absurd and a principle that manifestly was not conformed to, most obviously because I knew you had made at least one edit to the DNA page and so were bound to have a preestablished preference for the status quo version. So I inferred that precedent existed for sys-ops using their judgement as to what is allowed when. I also inferred that there is precedent for direct democracy and for creating custom here by just doing things that haven't been done before. I am also not aware of a clear hierarchy of rules or of grades of rules or indeed of any rules here that are actually enforced except for the rules against vandalism and offensive names. I think we have something not so distant from anarchy going on here, and at the very least a fluid system of rules and government. When I see bad things going on, I feel like it's reasonable and indeed best for the community to just do what I think is right, irrespective of convention. I think if people scrutinize what I did, it does not represent a bad example. But I accept the reality of PR. If my action becomes a bad example, then I will feel bad about that. I just don't see it as having become that yet. Yet I made a remark to you before about martyrdom. I figured scrutiny of my action would bring more scrutiny on Lir and a realization of the cost to the community of tolerating people like Lir--"good people being driven to bad things"/"good people being driven away by the bad". I figured ultimately I might be run out of town, but even if that happened, I would have made some kind of dent in the community consciousness. Also I figured, if I'm ridden out of town for that, then good riddance to the town. The town has problems. It needs a system of driver's licenses and drunk driving laws more than it needs a clampdown on the police.168... 06:09, 30 Jan 2004 (UTC)


 * In the block log, you will find evidence of both views of Lir. I don't think anyone actually defends Lir's behavior; rather, there are those who think he must be accorded respect as an editor because of due process, and those who would circumvent due process out of frustration. In short, custom decrees that it isn't for any one of us to decide when a contributor has become more of a burden than he or she is worth; that privilege has always rested in Jimbo and his designated agents. So when you treat Lir like a vandal by protecting the page against him, you violate due process. -- Cyan 06:24, 30 Jan 2004 (UTC)

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


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

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


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

I see your argument now. But first of all there are two due processes as I understand them. One is that sys ops have the authority to issue temporary blocks without Jimbo. The other one has until now has depended on Jimbo, but is in transition to a committee-based system. Anyway, as I said before I didn't block Lir from Wikipedia. But I've conflated a couple issues by offering "vandalism" as my excuse for protecting a page. I don't actually know that vandalism officially is an excuse to protect a page. Perhaps it isn't. If it is, because I have authority to issue temporary blocks, and because blocks are only issued for vandalism, therefore I have the authority to decide what is vandalism and what isn't. Are there rules pertaining to temporary blocking (and thus to the assignment of "temporary vandal" status) that say what relationship a sysop is not allowed to have with the page that is being vandalized? I don't think so. I think I stumbled into a gray area, accurately assessed it as such, and behaved both reasonably and--though this is unknowable at the present--for the best of the community. 168... 16:50, 30 Jan 2004 (UTC)

(I do not deny that I am stretching the definition of "vandal" and actually I specifically what I said I thought Lir was is a "kind of vandal." I think Lir is bad and I trust my judgement, which has been informed extensively by what others write about Lir. I am using the democratic process, such as it is here, to stretch our notion of "vandal" in such a way as to enable the current system of rules to deal effectively with people like Lir, which it manifestly and despite the complaints of many cannot deal with now.168... 16:59, 30 Jan 2004 (UTC))

The same events Mav described as edited primarily by 168... and somewhat by Peak
As a participant in a multi-party dispute with User:Lir over one much-discussed paragraph in DNA, 168 reverted to a long-standing older version, which 168... favored. When User:Lir undid the reversion, 168... reverted again and protected the page. Other admins said protection was called for, but said the fact that 168... had done it made the act improper. 168... also protected Conflicts between users while a participant in a brief multi-party dispute involving Lir over that page then unprotected it again two minutes later.

Later 168... used the administrators' "rollback" feature to revert one sentence fragment of the article Nucleic acid, which had been protected due to a revert war between 168... and User:Lir about a vocabulary issue that had been fruitlessly discussed at length on talk: DNA, in the context of which Lir demonstrated disinterest in reaching a resolution through reasoned dialogue. 168 reverted the sentence fragment to an earlier version that had been stable for a long time until Lir made his change. The page was protected at the time. When others tried to revert 168...'s reversion, 168... reverted theirs using the rollback feature. The others included 3 other admins and 168... used the rollback feature more than 10 times in less than 20 minutes. No one has recorded how many times the other admins may have used the rollback feature during this dispute. Note there is evidence to suggest that 168... was engaging in this behavior in order to provoke political action. (Nucleic acid history. "So desysop me" 168... posted as summary of one reversion. 168...'s use of the rollback feature resulted in the removal from 168...'s talk page of accusations that 168... was violating rules and commands that 168... submit to the will of other administrators and decist.     ([http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=User_talk:168...&action=history User talk:168... history]

Note that it is rare, if not unprecedented, to read about a user's removal of content from a user's own talk page in the context of alleged misbehavior. Pages in a user's personal directory tend to be regarded more or less as the property of those users. Note also that use of the rollback feature seemingly has not been presented as a kind of misbehavior in the evaluation of any other administrator prior to 168.... Some might take the citatation of these two behaviors in the case of 168... as reflecting presuppositions about 168... that are not usually made when the behavior of other sysops is raised for public scrutiny. 168... claims that Mav and others are behaving in the manner of a lynch mob.

At the same time 168... was using the rollback feature to revert a posting by Lir to Possible misuses of admin privileges, in which Lir made a complaint he had already made on two other public pages. 168... offered this is a reason not to allow Lir's post, but 168... was reverted without discussion again and again.

A poll was then started here asking whether or not 168... should be "desysoped" (stripped of administrator powers). The poll was not widely advertised (e.g. not on Current polls)

Between February 12th and 13th 168... attempted to preserve the much-discussed intro paragraph of DNA described above. A new paragraph had been produced by a multi-day open polling procedure, which allowed voters to move their votes around until the arrival of a deadline which had been set previously. Although 168... and Lir had objected to voting, no one expressed objections to the specific deadline proposed. The process produced a paragraph that emerged with the support of more than a two-thirds majority of the witnesses who made their presence known on the talk page (-- see Talk:DNA/archive_4). The vote was not advertised widely (not e.g. on Current polls) which some consider a requirement for voting, according to 168.... Absentions were not solicited, and no one explicitly posted that they were abstaining. Prior to the start of a 72-hour final voting period, 168 reintroduced the original long-standing version of the paragraph and voted for it. No one else did. 168... says this posting was an attempt to redirect the process and to poke fun at the proceedings, which at the time (as can be examined in the page history) showed few voters voting for the same choices of phrase. As more votes came in and people moved their votes around, however, support converged on a single version.

The emerging paragraph had the support of five participants united in their opposition to Lir. 168... acted to prevent implementation of the voter-approved paragraph by reverting attempts to post it and calling for discussion. During 168...'s actions to preserve the long-standing older version of the introductory paragraph, four people were reverting it to the voter-approved version. Ultimately 168... protected the older version.

Before and during the vote, 168... had posted multiple times (e.g. ) that 168... would not recognize the vote's outcome. Lir also indicated that he regarded the vote as having no authority. Still, participants were surprised by their behavior afterwards.

According to Peak, who called for the vote, his intention and the intention of other vote-supporters was to try to produce a paragraph that a wide majority of participants could feel allegiance to, and which they could collectively defend against changes by uncooperative participants. The prior weeks of discussion had touched on all of the phrases in question and produced a variety of alternatives that could be evaluated by voting. 168... and Peak both believe that the weeks of discussion preceding the vote were done in the spirit of "consensus decision making" as per Consensus decision-making. The process described in that article does not strictly require unanimity, but User:Cyan, the sysop who was protecting DNA, had called for it.

168... had offered arguments against holding a vote, saying that the various options incorporated many accomodations to Lir, but in the end would neither satisfy nor be recognized by Lir. 168... proposed "reasoned discussion" as an alternative. This proposal was not seriously debated, partly because attempts toward reasoned discussion with Lir had already been tried in vain for weeks. In calling for reasoned discussion, 168... explicitly proposed that Lir be excluded from the process. According to Peak, this seemed meaningless, in the sense that without banning Lir could edit the talk page anyway, or trivial, because if 168... wanted to ignore Lir 168... was free to do so. 168... ignored Lir as others continued to discuss issues with Lir and to strike compromises with him. In the end, the call for unanimity was rejected by the five voters and their supporters in the community, who think the results of the vote should be binding without further discussion.

At the same time as 168... was blocking immediate implementation of the voter-approved paragraph, Lir was making his own edits to the article, acts that suggest Lir did not consider the outcome of the vote as any constraint on how editing or discussion should proceed. It is unclear whether Lir would have paid more respect to the vote if 168... had treated the results as binding. According to Peak, many doubt he would have. Because 168...'s expectations of Lir's response to the vote were correct, it might be argued that 168...'s proposed alternative to voting--a reasoned discussion excluding Lir--would have been the better option to pursue. This does not say whether 168... was obliged to go along with the choice of most others to hold a vote and treat the results as binding.

Peak and others respect 168...'s preference for the old version of the paragraph in question, and 168... respects the voters' decision to pursue a compromise by voting. Both are disappointed with the other. Voters are surprised that 168... put a campaign to end tolerance of users like Lir ahead of efforts to deal with Lir in a somewhat more conventional way. Peak says what 168... did was contrary to the democratic principles of Wikipedia, and he says he is disillusioned that 168... would act in such a way.

Many Wikipedians called 168...'s protection of the older paragraph an abuse of sysop powers. Policy says that administrators should not use their powers of protection on articles they have edited. 168... had reverted Lir's edits to that page many times in the past and still farther in the past had been involved in its editing. 168... had also been an active participant in discussions on the talk page several weeks previously and had made recent posts. It is not clear how many Wikipedians, if any, took the time to personally evaluate the extent to which 168...'s involvement with the article constituted "recent editing." Nevertheless, it was widely publicized on Wikipedia that 168 had protected a version of page that 168... had recently edited and engaged in "edit wars" over and which 168... preferred. Following a previous campaign by Mav to call attention to 168...'s behavior, the recent charges were widely and rapidly embraced as accurate in detail. 168... claims the details paint a different picture from the characterizations that circulated, which 168... calls coarse and slanted.

Mav, and others have repeatedly used the phrase "consensus" to describe the vote (Peak described it as "near-consensus") and described 168...'s intent as to simply over-rule it (rather than to introduce an extra step of discussion prior to implimentation). This is important to mention, because the manner in which 168...'s behavior was described may account for the swift and widespread condemnation of 168... and subsequent stripping of sysop status. Many expressed outrage that 168... had used sysop powers to block the immediate implementation of an edit that had received overwhelming support from voters. Peak adds that 168... had said Lir should be ignored, so that it was hypocritical to regard the vote as other than unanimous. 168... does consider the vote unanimous among the reasonable participants in the vote, but does not consider the vote a legitimate final stage in the process of agreeing on a paragraph. As the final stage, 168... called for a reasoned discussion of the merits of the voter-approved paragraph vis-a-vis the long-standing older paragraph, and 168... used sysop powers to try and force this course of action.

At around the same time 168... was using the rollback feature to revert the addition of new, undiscussed accusations to this Requests-for-comments page, which was created to address a distinct but related episode of behavior that is decribed above at the top. Five different people were reverting 168. 168... protected the old version of the page twice but that page protection was lifted by another admin. 

168... went on to delete this page 11 times and blank it four times. Based on a clear majority at 168...'s desysoping poll, Tim Starling then temporarily desysopped 168... and asked for a review of the situation, which has yet to take place

Complaint by 168... against Mav
168..., an admin, feels that mav, another admin, has attempted to intimidate him by citing what are regarded by many others as rules of thumb as if they are absolute rules that demand de-adminship when breached ([example below]). 168... feels that the manner of mav's continuing inquiry into 168...'s actions shows a prejudice, which continued to characterize Mav's conduct, despite evidence of more tolerant views among other admins around him. Even before Mav made his first public calls for scrutiny of 168...'s conduct, 168... feels mav should have consulted with Cyan, an admin that mediated the disputed page and who is much more familiar with the context of the objected-to behavior than himself. 168... sees this failure to consult Cyan a failure of due dilligence and evidence of a disregard for principles of fairness and neutrality. 168... also sees this as an exploitation by Mav of Mav's notoriety and 168...'s lack of notoriety as a do-gooder. Other accusers could not have rallied so much support so quickly, 168... contends, and the presence of any bias or unjustified zeal in Mav's accusation can be expected to have had a very large impact on the public perception of 168..., which 168... could not effectly balance through self-advocacy. 168... would like to note that this whole conflict, involving many admins and many pages and many kilobytes of text, has only occurred because of the failure, despite the calls of many, to permanently ban User:Lir. 168... would also like to point to a bias or discrimination implied by Mav's having discouraged others from participating in a poll of opinion that 168... attempted to conduct about Lir and Mav's failure to speak against a poll that others conducted about 168... here, and which resulted in 168...'s public condemnation and stripping of sysop powers. Mav claims to have brought accusations against 168... justly and without prejudice.

On top of many other accusations (see Requests_for_comment/168) Mav accuses 168... of raising accusations against Mav only in order to distract from the accusations against 168.... 168... says this is untrue and typical of how Mav has been prosecuting his case against 168, which 168... sees as involving at every turn either an assumption of bad faith and/or an action tending to bias public opinion against 168... and favor a resolution that Mav prefers: That the current version of community rules and guidelines should be obeyed "to the letter" and that 168... be harshly reprimanded for having interpreted them liberally.

An example of Mav's use of what 168... calls "guideline exaggeration" is this:

''(cur) (last). . 00:42, 3 Feb 2004. . Maveric149 (putting Ed's note back again; Note that 168 used the auto revert feature to erase it last time; another abuse of sysop user rights)''

Was RfC/168... page created according to the rules Mav himself wrote?
From Requests for comment/Ed Poor:
 * Why does this page exist? I see no evidence that at least two people tried and failed to resolve this "conflict" with Ed and failed. This looks to me like an attempt by 168... to silence those who try to speak against him. --mav

This makes me want to ask:

Why does this page exist? I see no evidence that at least two people tried and failed to resolve this "conflict" with 168... and failed. This looks to me like an attempt by mav to silence those who try to speak against him. 168... 01:20, 5 Feb 2004 (UTC)


 * On your talk page, Cyan's talk page and the admin abuse page (started by Lir). We could not resolve the conflict that way. You protected a page in an edit war. We don't want you to do that again. You refuse to admit what you did was wrong and therefore indicate that you will continue this behavior. --mav

Must I ask again? Please state the conflict with me that both you and cyan tried to resolve. "The conflict between 168... and [your answer here] about [your answer here] remains unresolved despite mav's attempt to do so [where and how] and cyan's attempt to do so [where and how]." If you can complete that sentence satisfactorily, mav, I won't have to call you a liar.168... 02:48, 5 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Hint: I don't believe cyan tried to resolve a conflict to do with me that is also a conflict you have tried to resolve that is to do with me and which is also the issue you are pursuing here, whatever that may be.168... 02:54, 5 Feb 2004 (UTC)


 * I already answered your question above. But just for fun "The conflict between 168... and [mav] about [168...'s use of sysop user rights in an edit war and mav's request for 168 to admit wrongdoing and promise not to do it again] remains unresolved despite mav's attempt to do so [by discussing the issue with 168... on his talk page, mav's talk page and the admin abuse page] and cyan's attempt to do so [on 168...'s talk page, Cyan's talk page and the admin abuse page]." Your response to me has been: "Sorry, I do not think what I specifically did, in context, was wrong, and I will not say that I think it was." Your response to Cyan basically was, "I think I stumbled into a gray area, accurately assessed it as such, and behaved both reasonably and--though this is unknowable at the present--for the best of the community." Both Cyan and I continued to disagree with you in later posts. Oh and both Cyan and I were taking issue with the same thing - your revert and protection of DNA while engaged in an edit conflict over that page. Let the readers decide just who is lying. --mav

"Edit war" means revert war. "War" suggests a prolonged engagement. Therefore, what you have written seems quite false to me. Also, Cyan did not ask me to admit wrongdoing and then proceed to try to get me to do so on my talk page. Ditto for you. So that part is also false. So you went against the rules when you posted this request for comment. What you personally did is to issue me an ultimatum on the "Admin abuse" page, condemning me if I did not admit what I did was wrong and pledge never to do the same thing again. That seems to be your issue. Cyan has not asked me never to do the same thing again; or if he meant to do so when at one point he wrote that he supported your position, then he did this after his discussion with me. 168... 15:43, 5 Feb 2004 (UTC)