Wikipedia:Requests for comment/168

(User:168... | talk)

Requests for comment/168 and Mav

Versions of events by various editors
->Requests for comment/168 and Mav

Applicable policies
Protection policy
 * Rule number 1: Do not edit a protected page. If you edit one anyway, please stop when asked to!
 * Rule number 2: Do not protect a page you have edited recently, have been in a dispute with in the past, or where you are in some other way involved
 * Rule number 3: Add to the top of temporarily protected pages
 * Rule number 4: List pages you protect or unprotect on Protected page

Possible outcomes

 * De-adminship - posts both in favor and against.
 * Temporary de-adminship - posts both in favor and against.
 * Censure - not discussed.
 * Probation - not discussed.
 * Only talk - so far, and perhaps that's all that's appropriate

---

Statement by Peak
1) 168... removed the following from the "Version of what happened..." above:
 * ''The simple fact remains that he [168...] chose to freeze the page [i.e. the DNA page] at his preferred version rather than the version which had been supported by ALL participants besides himself and Lir.

2) 168... has the respect of many Wikipedians as an author and opponent of subvandalism. Some of 168...'s transgressions were "technical" in nature (e.g. on at least one occasion he protected a page which would have been protected by a neutral sysop in any case at the same version). However, the above-mentioned freezing of the DNA article in disrespect of the vote was different in a number of respects, and this was clear to many of 168...'s supporters, one of whom, for example, warned him (accurately) that this course of action was would most likely result in his being de-sysoped before the banning of Lir. Peak 18:49, 18 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Reply by 168... 1)First of all, I removed that sentence from a paragraph whose thesis is that what happened and whether it was right depends on the details rather than just the allegedly simple facts. The allegedly simple facts appear both previously and later in the text, and so strictly speaking they are redundant where you proposed to put them. In addition, placing a sentence like that at the conclusion of the paragraph in question was to negate and interfere with a fair and objective portrayal of significant nuances. Finally, I strongly disagree with the implication that what that sentence describes can fairly be labelled "simple facts." I see the sentence as tendentious and a distortion. If I thought that content belonged where it was, I might have edited the sentence to say It remains true, however, that the long-standing old version of the paragraph that 168... chose to freeze was one that 168 preferred over the version approved by five out of six other active participants in the discussion.

I would advise you, Peak, not to get into an argument with me about whose edits have introduced more bias into this article, because you are certain to be embarrassed by a thorough point-by-point comparison.

2)"Transgression" reflects a judgment and is prejudicial. If you want to get technical, I did not act in "disrespect of the vote," I acted to prevent it's immediate implimentation without an additional step of discussion. You have admitted yourself that the vote started out as an opinion poll. Opinion polls do not mandate any immediate course of action. I respected the opinion poll, but like 40% of active participants at the time (i.e. 2 out of 5; the additional people came by only later, after others proceeded with polling over my objections), I said I would not regard the results as binding. I would have thanked Peak for his accurate warning that I would be desysoped if he had said it for any reason other than to bully me into going along with his plan, if it wasn't what I expected already. Anyway, Peak is entitled to his opinion. I just don't think it belongs in what purports to be a neutral presentation of what happened.168...|...Talk 21:48, 18 Feb 2004 (UTC)


 * [Peak:] Since 168... has adopted a belligerent tone, it seems pointless to respond to the above, but I would like to point out two facts that may not be immediately obvious to others:


 * 1) ) It was not I who warned 168... that he was likely to be desysoped before Lir was banned if he continued along the path he was on;
 * 2) ) The vote was concluded on 9 Feb, approximately three days before the first attempt to implement it (Jwrosenzweig kindly implemented the outcome of the vote at 17:24, 12 Feb 2004).

As is becoming increasingly a pattern, and is not surprising considering his conflict of interest, what Peak has written above distorts the circumstances it attempts to portray. Peak called for implementation at 21:50, 11 Feb 2004, according to the Talk:DNA page history. No more than 10 minutes later I made this post:
 * As I stated I would be earlier, I am now happy to debate the merits of the voted-for paragraph with respect to the paragraph that's up there now with anyone but Lir.

For 11 hours my post was ignored. Then a sysop came in and implemented voter approved paragraph. I would like to point out to Peak that he would be belligerent too if he were in my position: responding to distortions by a former ally which have the effect of defaming me and making himself look wholely righteous. 168...|...Talk 16:14, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC)


 * [Peak:] Two more (hopefully pertinent) facts:

3) The online AHD gives one definition of "transgression" as: "The exceeding of due bounds or limits." (Whether such an act is justified or forgiveable is a separate matter.) 4) At Possible_misuses_of_admin_privileges there is currently unanimous agreement that "User:168... has contravened article protection policy". (This includes Lir's and my agreement, but subtracting those two still makes it unanimous.)


 * Re:3) and 4), I suppose somewhere along the line I did commit a transgression, according to that definition, but we would have to take the issues point by point. Things I have done have been called wrong which I do not thing were wrong or unanimously perceived as wrong. I was objecting to the seemingly easy categorization of everything I did as formally against an absolute rule (rather than falling in a gray area or upholding a more important shared value while contravening the exact letter of some rule, the wording of which is subject to change). I dispute that a straw poll held at the time of a perceived crisis says a great deal about the big picture.168...|...Talk 19:36, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)

(Incidentally, my point was that most of 168...'s (alleged) transgressions were technical in nature and thus should not be subject to censure.)Peak 07:10, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)


 * Yes, I got that. I give you due credit for not seeing me as evil. I just object to your seeming blanket judgment that I was wrong.168...|...Talk

I apologize to Peak for attributing to him the warning to which he referred. I did not remember who warned me and assumed Peak was speaking of himself. Still it is true that Peak has attempted to cajole me into going along with his plan for dealing with Lir by suggesting that what I was doing was somehow wrong and that it would cause a lot of trouble. Given that and the ambiguity of the sentence, I think Peak should forgive for my mistake. I am surprised that the belligerence in my tone would make my arguments seem to him "pointless to respond" to. I would like Peak to know that I would welcome a response, and that I would respond to it either by conceding to his points or, as I did above, by offering rational counter-arguments in a civil manner.168...|...Talk 16:36, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC)

[Peak to 168...:] The apology is gladly accepted, gladly because I hope that the accompanying message above either signals a rapid weakening of Lir's poison, or a recognition that many of us who have, let us say, been miffed by some of your actions nevertheless look forward to working with you amicably again. In particular, please note that it is not, nor has it ever been, my intent to "defame" you. On the contrary. Everyone makes mistakes.

I think that if you reflect a little on what has been said and done, you will pretty much understand what I would say, so I'll avoid being repetitious. If after a day or so you still feel there are points of disagreement, then please let me know and I will try to find time to address them.

In the meantime, I'm curious about what "conflict of interest" you are alluding to. Just curious. If you would like to let the matter drop, that would be fine too.Peak 07:10, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)


 * Thanks for accepting my apology. Here's my perspective about your potential conflicts of interest. The vote was your proposal and you ran it. You want the vote to be perceived to have been the right and just and democratic way to deal with Lir. You also don't want to feel guilty for advocating a course of action that led to trouble with more valued and likable users than Lir (e.g. me), inspite of all the warnings you received ahead of time. Hence you will be predisposed to see my plan as a bad one and my behavior as beyond the pale. You will be inclined to perceive and to portray what I did as undemocratic and sneaky, rather than every bit as legitamate as what you did. If I behaved legitimately, then you are partly guilty for the anger and defamation I have had directed at me. Another thing is that you prefer certain phrases in the voter-supported paragraph over ones in the long-standing old paragraph (perhaps some of these new phrases are yours?). You did not have answers to all the objections I raised to them, and I suspect you wished to be relieved of the obligation to discuss them further. I suspect you also want to be relieved of the obligation to discuss various other pet issues you have with me, like whether the double helix is one molecule or two, and so you wished to establish the vote procedure as a way to move through the entire document. To generalize, I think you like voting because it makes your opinion count as much as people who have formal training in the topic of the article, regardless of whether you can provide a good argument or evidence in support of that opinion. You might bear a grudge for certain discussions, and you might resent me because you'd expressed admiration for me and support for me and so you might now perceive me as having "stabbed you in the back" by not supporting your plan and joining with everybody else in your approach to Lir. It's especially easy for you to feel in the right because the superficial circumstances led most people to the snap judgment that I was very wrong, and although you were one of the few people present throughout the discussions, it's not in your interest to reveal the nuances that would cause people to see my supposed crime against democracy as having been more complicated and perhaps not a crime at all. 168...|...Talk 19:36, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)

[Peak's response:] Well, I'm glad that my "conflict of interest" has dissolved into a set of "potential conflicts of interest". Also, it is fortunate for both of us that all the suppositions ("you might...") and suspicions ("I suspect") above are in fact incorrect. As for the other details you offer of your perspective, please be assured that all the unkind inferences you made about my internal state (wants, predispostion, etc) are also inaccurate.

It is true that I supported the "near-consensus version" in part because I was happy with it, and in part because it was the "near-consensus version" -- but there is no actual conflict here (and certainly no conflict of interest), just synergy.

One of the reasons I was curious about your comments about my having a "conflict of interest" is that, from a philosophical and linguistic point of view, the phrase raises a variety of interesting questions in the Wikpedia context. For one thing, the word "interest" in the phrase usually means a "right, claim, or legal share" (AHD). Except perhaps for their reputation, non-sysops seem to have no interests in this sense (partly because of the GPL and Wikipedia culture, and partly because they do not have sysop rights). And if one has only one interest, it is impossible to have a conflict of interests, though of course one can be conflicted about many other things (e.g. which strategy to pursue in defense of one's reputation).

(Another point of interest (hmmmmm) is whether the reputation of virtual users such as ourselves is real or merely virtual. Is the good reputation of a virtual user in the interests of the person (or persons) behind that virtual user?)

Returning to the larger issues, your reply above and your recent remarks at "Re: 3) and 4)" seem to me to indicate that you still may not have grasped the critical significance that many people attach to one key event:

your preferred version, overriding the "near-consensus" version that had already been installed.
 * at about 01:14, 14 Feb 2004 UTC, you froze the DNA article at

For many, the actual history, complexities, and nuances vanish into insignificance when contrasted with this one act.

Of course, you could argue (as perhaps you are arguing) that this particular 'alleged transgression' was technically no different from any of the other 'alleged transgressions' (the transgressions being relative to Policy #2 at Protected_page), and if it is granted that all the others were tolerable, then this one should have been viewed in the same way as well. There are two major problems with this point of view: first, a community's willingness to tolerate N transgressions need not imply its tolerance of the next one; and second, even if each transgression is judged independently, there are other circumstances which a community may wish to take into account in deciding whether a transgression is tolerable or not.

Please note that the above is offered in the hopes that it will help you see things as many others do. Putting it somewhat crudely, if your goal was to conduct a campaign of "civil disobedience", then your "mistake" was to cross the boundary to "incivil disobedience". My apologies if any of this sounds self-righteous. I don't know how else to respond. Peak 05:35, 21 Feb 2004 (UTC)

The key event you are referring to I would describe this way:


 * at about 01:14, 14 Feb 2004 UTC, 168... froze the DNA article with a long-standing old version of a paragraph that 168... preferred over a paragraph that was arrived at in part through compromise with the Lir, who was working in bad faith, in order to forestall against immediate implementation without discussion, as 168... had insisted on for weeks preceding a vote that was disgnated non-binding by almost half of the initial participants and the results of which were declared binding by fiat anyway in a move that I believe is unprecedented in the history of editing on Wikipedia and does not evoke the spirit of concensus to me. Please note that the above is offered in the hopes that it will help you see things as I do. My apologies if any of this sounds self-righteous. I don't know how else to respond. 168...|...Talk 06:54, 21 Feb 2004 (UTC)

--

An Interloper Responds
[P0M:] I cannot see into the hearts of other people. Nevertheless, I will venture a guess based on the way that I myself frequently behave: Each of us perceives events from a unique perspective to begin with, and then highlights events in memory depending on many contingent factors. What is clear motivation to A can be a mystery to B, and vice-versa. If A does something unfathomable that angers B, B reacts in a way that is unfathomable to C, and that touches off a further action by C that is also unfathomable, then where does this chain reaction stop? What needs to happen at this point is for everyone involved to cool it. At least that is what works for me. (Physically cooling my body with a cold shower has been necessary for me on occasion, but there are other ways.) Putting anger aside, all parties to this dispute should be able to understand why each of the other parties acted as s/he did. All parties should be able to see that the result of all of this conflict has been catastrophic. Only people who delight in anarchy and chaos could take satisfaction in the present state of affairs. Shall they gain a victory here?

[P0M:] Please, if you do not like what I have said, do not bother to argue with me. Just look at it. If it does not apply to you, then do not use it. My being right or wrong is not the issue, no? P0M 15:34, 22 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Pledge Poll
Although the principle this poll invites people to affirm may not actually contradict current policy (it depends how strictly you interpret current policy), a broad affirmation of this rule may make sysops feel more free to police against antisocial behavior as we all wait for the arbitration system to roll into action.


 * If a determined troublemaker makes enough people lose patience, they will be shown the door. That has always been true, and I expect it always will. Whether that takes the form of Jimbo stepping in, or vigilantes taking action, or a committee rendering a decision -- whatever form it takes, this project will continue to fulfill its goal of making the world's best free encyclopedia. -- Uncle Ed
 * [Peak:] What is a "determined troublemaker"? How many people must lose patience? Or is it really a question of how many sysops lose patience?
 * [Peak:] I ask because your comments seem to imply that the system is generally working, but in my experience, existing procedures are actually inciting some "determined troublemakers" because trolling subvandals are being told, in effect, that they can wreak as much havoc as they like so long as it does not amount to vandalism in a very narrow sense. If the current system is as broken as it seems to be, then, as a stopgap measure, it seems reasonable for sysops to be given more latitude than they seem to have under existing rules. However I would like to see objective definitions of terms like "determined troublemaker". This could be done on the basis of number of reverts, number of pages reverted, whether any non-anon user has supported the alleged subvandal on the talk page of the article in question, etc. Peak 06:48, 6 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Should a sysop refrain from using protection or blocking against even notoriously, obstinately antisocial and uncompromising users on any page that the sysop has ever edited or on any page, the wording of which that sysop is fond?

Note: Yes or No votes by sysops should not be interpreted as expressing an unwillingness to comply with either of the two possible outcomes of the poll.


 * Yes
 * 1) mav
 * 2) RickK (note that I do not consider pages that the sysop has reverted because of previous vandalism as having been "edited" by the sysop)
 * 3) Angela (but there ought to be a way of marking a particular editor as someone who the rule can be ignored for -ie any page can be protected against Lir whether you've edited that page or not)
 * That's unfair. ugen64 02:44, Apr 24, 2004 (UTC)
 * 1) Tuf-Kat (agree with both Rick and Angela's caveats)
 * 2) Sam Spade (Disagree with both above caveats)
 * 3) Toby Bartels -- The phrasing is rather strong (ever edited???), but I think that I know what you mean.
 * 4) Denni While a categorical 'yes' may be a bit strong, Wiki has zero credibility if it allows clowns at the controls. I'd rather be firm and give the odd break than be easy and then have to show my teeth.
 * 5) Miguel I would prefer a policy under which any SysOp can protect any page if they see reason for it, but by doing so they pledge not to make anything other than minor edits in the future.
 * 6) Secretlondon and disagree with caveats and any exceptions. If it's obvious then someone else can protect it.
 * 7) BCorr ¤ &#1041;&#1088;&#1072;&#1081;&#1077;&#1085;  I agree, but will note that at times I've tried to tweak the wording of an article to find a compromise as a third party before things escalated, but then have temp blocked a user after escalation. If we adopt and enforce this, I wouldn't do that anymore; it's sometimes helpful, but often not.


 * No
 * 1) 168...
 * 2) Jamesday ("has ever edited or on any page, the wording of which that sysop is fond" is overbroad.)
 * 3) Dante Alighieri | Talk 19:21, 13 Feb 2004 (UTC) - I'll block vandals/trolls wherever and whenever they show up, whether or not said page has been edited by me. I won't be enforcing my own viewpoint or anything, I just hate vandals.
 * 4) Ruhrjung 13:46, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)
 * 5) Ryan_Cable
 * So, are you penalizing us for copyediting pages en masse now? If I had corrected a typo on Jesus Christ, then I would have been violtaing policy (if this were in effect) by blocking someone who inserted TUBGIRL into Christianity and Jesus Christ. I would probably be desysopped and arbitrated... ugen64 23:18, Mar 14, 2004 (UTC)
 * 1) Trolls and vandals need to be dealt with swiftly. cbraga 18:15, Jun 9, 2004 (UTC)


 * Depends
 * 1) &mdash;Eloquence - depends on the actions of the individual. Vandalism by such users should be immediately punishable with a block or protection if necessary, regardless of sysop involvement on that page, and sysops should be allowed to make a call as to which edits are vandalism and which are not.
 * 2) Jiang - agree with Eloquence.
 * 3) Tannin 07:11, 12 Feb 2004 (UTC) - agree with Jiang and Eloquence. Sysops should be very reluctant to do this, but sometimes it is unavoidable.
 * Aren't these no votes? This is current policy, and the point at question here is whether the policy should be changed. ugen64 02:44, Apr 24, 2004 (UTC)
 * 1) llywrch 17:09, 12 Feb 2004 (UTC) - if a sysop has made trivial or irrelevant changes to a page, there should be no problem; & vandalism should be judged by the action, not by the individual. However, if there is any possibility of conflict of interest, the sysop should recuse her/himself.
 * 2) Jmabel 08:29, 13 Feb 2004 (UTC) - I concur with a lot of what the "dependers" and abstainers are saying. There's a gray zone, but it looks to me like 168 got past the gray zone here, and somewhere along the way should have called on a different administrator, just like a non-admin would have had to do.
 * 3) Jake 08:13, 2004 Feb 14 (UTC) - Someone shouldn't be barred from taking protective action on a page they fixed a typo on last year. They shouldn't protect a page on a version where they changed half the text. Exactly where between these two points to drawn the line, I can't say.
 * 4) ShaneKing - Agree with the concept that vandalism is different from geniune attempts to edit. I also agree with the idea that fixing a typo is different from a major edit. As to where to draw the line, I suggest that if you had nothing to do with the text being changed (ie only edited another section of the page), then that shouldn't count. I also think if all you did was what could be called a minor edit (fix typo, link, etc), treat as if you didn't change the page. That I think strikes a balance between the need to neutral adminship, and the need to protect pages.
 * 5) UtherSRG 13:09, 18 Feb 2004 (UTC) - The matter is too grey to settle with this pledge. ...has ever editted... can be interpretted too strictly to include all minor edits which doesn't make the sysop have a conflict of interest. However, if the sysop does have a COI, then they should recuse themselves.
 * 6) it depends on the sysop. Optim 18:53, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)


 * Abstain If you like, add your thoughts on where to draw the line
 * 1) This is hopefully soon to be a non-issue. "Notoriously, obstinately antisocial and uncompromising users" should not be here. This problem is currently before the arbitration committee. - Hephaestos 01:38, 6 Feb 2004 (UTC)
 * 2) * The artitration committee can not be the first resort. It will only function well in the context of good faith efforts to reason with users. Fred Bauder 11:15, Feb 12, 2004 (UTC)
 * 3) Vaguely agree with the "yes", but think current condition of "ever edited" is too strong. I do not think banning should be used either, and just protection.  Jimbo has agreed to use banning himself for the next 3-5 days (or less!) left before the arbitration committee swings into action. --Delirium 04:07, Feb 6, 2004 (UTC)
 * 4) The "ever" wording is too strong, though I agree with the spirit of the "yes" vote. I haven't made up my mind whether I prefer a phrasing of "edited in the past couple of months", or "has had a dispute over". - snoyes 04:24, 6 Feb 2004 (UTC)
 * 5) As a practical matter, a sysop whose neutrality might be challenged might do better to solicit the intervention of a clearly neutral sysop. I have no idea of the number of cases per day that would need to be handled, but if 3-member panels of sysops could be agreed upon, the decision of such a panel would likely be more objective and less subject to recriminations than the decision of a single individual. As for not banning any users, as seems to be advocated by Delerium, what would be the appropriate response to someone who simply moves his/her arbitrary and capricious editing from a newly protected article to some article not yet protected? P0M
 * 6) The question at hand is steeped in POV rhetoric. I can barely decipher what it is intending to say. Kingturtle 01:06, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Note: Popular support for "No" implies an affirmation of the following rule It's O.K. to use protection or blocking against notoriously, obstinately antisocial and uncompromising users even on pages that you have edited or may care about the wording of.
 * No it doesn't. It implies that this is OK under certain extreme circumstances. It is fails to address the crucial question: what is a "notoriously, obstinately antisocial and uncompromising user"? Who defines this? Tannin
 * That is what my no implies. Note that my no does not imply doing it in proximity to or with respect to any edit by the admin which has been controversial. It simply means that a typo correction or edit war a year ago doesn't prevent blocking vandalism today. Note also that it is not against the user, it's against whatever behavior is contrary to policy. Jamesday 16:52, 12 Feb 2004 (UTC)

The Larger Issue
[Peak:] By focusing on the details of how to ban a specific user, we may be missing the more important issue, which is that Wikipedia's current policies actually encourage a certain type of subvandalism, and are thus extremely detrimental both to Wikipedia and many Wikipedians.

Specifically, I believe:
 * 1) there should be explicit criteria for how disputes can be resolved in a timely manner by some kind of voting procedure that does NOT require unanimity; and
 * 2) sysops should be expected to enforce such decisions, if necessary by banning a user if that user disrespects the decision.

If such procedures were clear, there would be a double benefit: firstly, many (and perhaps most) would-be subvandals would be deterred; and secondly, those who aren't deterred could be dealt with expeditiously.

There are many possible decision procedures that could be adopted (in particular, approval voting may be worth a close look), but I would like here to focus on the requirement that the overall decision procedure allow a previous decision to be revisited.

I would propose that if N people have participated in a decision (where N>2), then it would require N/2 (rounded up) different non-anonymous individuals to call for the previous decision to be revisited.

So, for example, if there is a decision made as the result of the participation of three individuals, then two others would have to request the decision to be revisited. Peak 07:45, 6 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Ahem. I question the wisdom of voting on the merits of my own "words of wisdom" (as 168 put it). But clearly the debate focuses on what troublesome actions are and also on what our community should do to curb them. Although I think I am better informed about theory I bow to Jimbo's superior experience. --Uncle Ed 15:05, 6 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Arbitrary protection of pages
168... is creating a series of odd pages without discussion and with odd titles, and protecting them without comment. Arbitrary protection of pages that were created and edited by a single user is an abuse of admin privileges. RickK 03:26, 8 Feb 2004 (UTC)


 * This is a really sad result. I am not accusing you of your intention. You have a point. Meta-pages are rather in chaos. Something needs to be done. But I don't think the way you are doing is right. First, discuss then implement the resulting schemes agreed. Otherwise, they look vanalizing wikipedia to some people like me. -- Taku 03:31, Feb 8, 2004 (UTC)


 * Taku, are you referring to what 168 has written or what Rick has written? P0M

Sysop Violation
168 has just reverted nucleic acid, a protected page. Lirath Q. Pynnor

Oh, and he just protected DNA on "his version." Pakaran. 01:19, 14 Feb 2004 (UTC)
 * You mean 168 protected DNA?

I almost can sympathize with 168 since Lir has removed my comments from the DNA Talk page and has reverted any attempts by anyone to go back to the consensus version that Peak tried so hard to establish. P0M


 * That's no excuse, as far as I'm concerned. "Lir is behaving badly, so it's okay for his opponents to behave badly too?" IMO 168's sysop status needs to be revoked immediately, if not sooner, if only for practical reasons - the lengthy debate over whether he should get it back can be done later, once the damage has been stopped. Bryan 01:46, 14 Feb 2004 (UTC)


 * And now he's doing it again, protecting DNA after reverting to "his" version, without Lir being involved at all. Bryan 04:33, 7 Mar 2004 (UTC)


 * Yeah, but Mav's involved again and you yourself helped to create the conditions Mr Innocent Bystander.168...|...Talk 04:39, 7 Mar 2004 (UTC)


 * The context is Patrick's comment above about how you were doing this in response to Lir's activities. I think it's significant that it isn't just Lir that gets under your skin enough to cause you to abuse your sysop abilities. Bryan 04:51, 7 Mar 2004 (UTC)


 * I think it is significant that 168 has requested arbitration a hile ago, with regards to his disagreement with Mav. And significant to note that their points of discord have not been settled yet. So, no, the issue is not *only* Lir. I think reading thoroughly all this page should make that point clear. May I suggest that you both stop answering to each other ? It is currently not very constructive :-) I would like to confirm that I requested protection of that page today to the one who unprotected it. SweetLittleFluffyThing

I can't keep up with the rapidity of the changes. They're both behaving badly, for sure. Is there any point of anyone trying to do anything constructive? P0M

I was just going to ask, where in hell is the rest of this article. Now it's back for the moment.P0M


 * 168 deleted it while I was editing this section, so saving simply created a page with this section only instead of resulting in an edit conflict. IMO 168 needs to be stopped from messing around first and foremost, everything else can wait. Desysop, ban, whatever can be done immediately. Sort out a permanent solution afterward. Bryan 01:52, 14 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Agreed.P0M


 * Fortuantely, he seems to have stopped on his own for now. I've never blocked anyone before, let alone a sysop, so I'm relieved by this interregnum. Hopefully things will stay a little more stable now. :) Bryan 02:12, 14 Feb 2004 (UTC)


 * You can't effectively block admins, since they can just unblock themselves. That's why you need a developer to desysop him first. -- Toby Bartels 02:36, 15 Feb 2004 (UTC)

168 has been temporarily desysopped
After 168's deletion/undeletion war on this page, the vote for temporary desysopship reached 11-2 in favour, and accordingly I desysopped him immediately. This action has been announced on wikien-l, and I have requested a review of this case by the arbitration committee or Jimbo. -- Tim Starling 02:17, Feb 14, 2004 (UTC)

168 is repeatedly deleting other people's comments from this page. RickK 23:23, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC)

That's a complete distortion of what I'm doing, which is editing to present the facts more neutrally, while others who are not the authors of the edited presentation are reverting my edits without discussion simply on the principle that the edits are mine!168...|...Talk 23:31, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Here is a record of people reverting me on principle:


 * (cur) (last) . . 15:30, 16 Feb 2004 . . 168...
 * (cur) (last) . . M 15:29, 16 Feb 2004 . . RickK (Reverted edits by 168... to last version by RickK)
 * (cur) (last) . . 15:26, 16 Feb 2004 . . 168... (edits nearly always made without discussion! ("Be bold"). This supposed to be about "what happened"; i.e. a disinterested representation of facts. why mention "rollback"? "deleting" misrepresents me!)
 * (cur) (last) . . 15:23, 16 Feb 2004 . . RickK (168 is repeatedly deleting other people's comments from this page. )
 * (cur) (last) . . M 15:20, 16 Feb 2004 . . Silsor (your own changes to the complaints about you were made without discussion! BTW, rollback is for vandals only.)
 * (cur) (last) . . 15:19, 16 Feb 2004 . . 168... (ibid)
 * (cur) (last) . . M 15:18, 16 Feb 2004 . . Snoyes (Reverted edits by 168... to last version by RickK)
 * (cur) (last) . . M 15:07, 16 Feb 2004 . . 168... (rv reversion that was made without discussion)
 * (cur) (last) . . M 14:58, 16 Feb 2004 . . RickK (Reverted edits by 168... to last version by Silsor)
 * (cur) (last) . . 14:52, 16 Feb 2004 . . 168... (It's inappropriate for someone to revert edits on principle. If the authors of the accusations disagree with my edits, let them say so and say how)
 * (cur) (last) . . 14:48, 16 Feb 2004 . . Silsor (removing your "npov" edits: it is completely inappropriate for you to edit the complaints against yourself. They are supposed to be POV, that's the point. Reply&clarify instead of changing them.)
 * (cur) (last) . . 14:46, 16 Feb 2004 . . 168... (remove bias relating to this page)

168...|...Talk 22:39, 17 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I for one don't think that 168's changes were so bad as to merit revertion - they should in fact be improved upon. He added something I missed - the influence of Lir - to the summary. I had planned to improve on 168's changes and to re-introduce some stuff he deleted. In short, he should be able to edit the summary just like anybody else (within reason - just like everybody else). Please add and edit, don't revert. --mav 23:28, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Was this page created fairly?
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)

''Part of an ongoing series of disputes brought to you by User:Lir

See also:Requests for comment/Mav, Requests for comment/Lir, Wikipedia talk:Possible misuses of admin privileges

[P0M:] I'm not sure who created the two paragraphs immediately above, but they would seem to give people who play "Let's you and him fight" much encouragement.

[P0M:] When I first noticed the fight over DNA, I was surprised to find that Peak had initiated an attempt to get people to decide on changes to an article concerning a contentious issue without going through an edit war or reversion war. Absent Peak's kind of process it can be very difficult to make progress because one person can attempt to get an opponent to face up to an issue that is damaging to that opponent's point of view, and the opponent will avoid the issue raised and attack on some tangent. It appears to me that Peak's attempt has failed for the moment because after those interested enough to vote had each made his/her preference(s) known, a couple of people who had not joined that process then said, essentially, "You've had your fun, now you must deal with me on my terms." So here we are today fighting while the people who delight in setting off imbroglios stand on the sidelines and laugh. P0M 15:56, 18 Feb 2004 (UTC)

POM's belief that there had not been an edit war or reversion war over DNA prior to the vote Peak called shows that he did not look into the history of the article or the discussion.168...|...Talk 16:03, 18 Feb 2004 (UTC)

[P0M:] I didn't mean there hadn't been an edit war, I meant Peak was trying to find some way around the problem created when dissention leads to edit wars. (I did mention "the fight over DNA".) Meanwhile, who has reasons to laugh? P0M 22:53, 18 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Well, I'm sure you understand why it might seem to others that you meant something else. Anyway, you're very welcome: I don't mind helping to clarify issues. I'm especially glad I did this time, because now that I see exactly what you appreciate about what Peak did, I realize you must appreciate what I did just as much or more, which is nice to learn and so rare to read around here. I have to thank you also for making me laugh. 168...|...Talk 23:19, 18 Feb 2004 (UTC)

[P0M:] That was you laughing? I thought for sure it was Lir's laugh I heard. :-) It seems to me that he is the only one to get any satisfaction out of all of this. Meanwhile I chant "Ego, ego, ego..." to myself (quietly). P0M

That's funny. I can usually type without chanting the words to myself. Or maybe I just chant them more quietly than you, than you, than you.168...|...Talk 00:47, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC)

March 2004
[Peak:] It's hard to believe but as of right now (06:13, 7 Mar 2004 UTC):


 * 168 made the last three edits to the DNA page (the last at 04:22, 7 Mar 2004)
 * the DNA page is once again frozen at 168's preferred version!

Since I am not a sysop I cannot determine exactly when the page was protected, but it seems clear that 168 has once again violated at least one sysop rule (one or both of: inappropriately editing a protected page, or protecting a page to which one has contributed). The real offence here is the misuse of sysop powers to install one's preferred version in opposition to a consensus process. It's hard to tell whether these recent edits by 168... are merely peevish or arrogant, but it hardly matters: 168... should be desysopped AGAIN until he agrees not to engage in this kind of subvandalism. Peak 06:28, 7 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I have to agree. To begin with, he was re-sysopped without consensus, but we'll skip past that. He has obviously not learned from the past and is repeating it. RickK 06:30, 7 Mar 2004 (UTC)

168... sysop (vote results: 9/7/5); voting ended 01:22, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Note: The latest... The following is taken from Requests for adminship:

(This is a request to give admin powers back to 168...) 168 was awaiting Jimbo to refer his case to the arbitration committee. We are in the midst of changing the process, so such cases would not take so long to be heard by the committee. Eloquence decided it was taking too long, and de-sysopped 168. I feel that 168 should be re-sysopped, and the matter should be handed over to arbitration. Kingturtle 01:22, 9 Mar 2004 (UTC)


 * This is inaccurate. I did not decide "it was taking too long". I acted regarding a specific action, namely a protection in an edit war on the page DNA.&mdash;Eloquence


 * At the moment, it seems that only 33% of the voters (with 21 votes) agree with your action continuing. Time for a developer to undo it. Jamesday 15:59, 15 Mar 2004 (UTC)


 * Let me ask the indelicate question. If the vote supports reinstatement of 168... 1) would the case go to arbitration and, 2) if it is decided that it was an unacceptable abuse of administrative powers would 168... be de-sysop'd as a result? - Texture 15:39, 9 Mar 2004 (UTC)
 * Good question. Could someone chime in from Arbitration? Will you take this case? Kingturtle 22:53, 9 Mar 2004 (UTC)


 * When Jimbo refers it, or arbitration policy goes live, yes. Martin 18:24, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Support:
 * 1) Kingturtle 01:22, 9 Mar 2004 (UTC)
 * 2) I was one of the ones who called for his desysopping, but I have since reconsidered. He's a really good contributor, and I think he should be given another chance. &rarr;Raul654 01:34, Mar 9, 2004 (UTC)
 * 3) As long as Eloquence is not desysopped for his own violations (he did the same thing 168 is accused of, by protecting McFly when he was in an edit war over it). Equal justice for all. --Wik 02:21, Mar 9, 2004 (UTC)
 * 4) Support. From what I know of the history, a sympathy vote is called for. Charles Matthews 03:28, 9 Mar 2004 (UTC)
 * 5) Suport. Quinwound 18:11, Mar 9, 2004 (UTC)
 * 6) support Oppose.I wasn't aware of the seriousness of his actions. Kingturtles comments about the lack of due process has made me change my mind.  Eloquence shouldn't have the power authority to strip users of adminship.  Think of all the potential abuses of this. Perl 03:01, 9 Mar 2004 (UTC)
 * 7) Hephaestos|&#167; 23:46, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC)
 * 8) On the condition arbitration is planned. Maximus Rex, 00:58, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)
 * 9) Support, though I do hope that another temporary desysopping won't be required. Jamesday 16:01, 15 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Oppose:
 * 1) Yay... no. ugen64 01:23, Mar 9, 2004 (UTC)
 * 2) Was rude to me; also repeatedly and intentionally abused his sysop powers to attack me, even after having been warned of the consequences. Lirath Q. Pynnor
 * 3) 168... violated the protection policy repeatedly, and he was well aware of it. Sysops are not editors.&mdash;Eloquence 11:42, Mar 9, 2004 (UTC)
 * 4) Oppose. (But I may revisit) - Texture 20:02, 9 Mar 2004 (UTC)
 * 5) Oppose strongly. 168... repeatedly abuses his syop powers by reverting, protecting and unprotecting, and editing protected pages at will.  RickK 03:39, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC)
 * I am not making an argument that 168... is innocent. My objection is to the process taken to de-admin him. The proposal here is to revert Eloquence's action, and let the Arbitration Committee act. Kingturtle 04:09, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose solely on the grounds that he blanked his user page and is listed on Missing Wikipedians -- Davodd 00:33, Mar 11, 2004 (UTC)

Neutral:
 * 1) Let the arbitration committee decide, if arbitration is pending. Metasquares 17:08, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC)
 * 2) This should not be voted on! It's a matter for the Arbitration Committe. This is not a direct democracy, and the general public should not be acting as a jury. Besides, we have plenty of admins; what's the rush? --Uncle Ed 20:08, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC)
 * To clarify: yes, the general public should not act as jury, but nor should one user act as a jury. This case needs to be heard by arbitration. Eloquence's de-admining of 168 superceded the due process we are trying to establish with the arbitration committee. Therefore, Eloquence's action should be reversed; 168 should be re-made an admin...and the jury should be arbitration. Kingturtle 22:57, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC)
 * This is to indicate to &mdash;Eloquence that support for the temporary desysopping of 168 has expired. It's more than adequately done that. Time for you to act on the just 31% support (with 21 votes) for the continuance of the desysopping pending arbitration. I supported it initially but not the way it was done and not for this long. Jamesday 16:10, 15 Mar 2004 (UTC)
 * You have an interesting way of counting votes, Jamesday. Neutral votes should be counted as abstentions, not effectively as "support" votes. I refuse to reinstate 168 unless there is something approaching consensus for doing so, an arbitration vote to that effect, or a pledge by 168 to respect our protection policy. He seems to have quit anyway so this appears to be mostly a circle jerk..&mdash;Eloquence
 * I counted the neutral votes as not supporting your unilateral decision to desysop 168. That's what this is about - it's not a fresh nomination. It's unfortunate that your trick of suggesting a new nomination for adminship instead of asking for support for the indefinite deysysopping was accepted - it should have been about desysopping 168, for which there is clearly not consensus. Jamesday 00:52, 21 Mar 2004 (UTC)
 * There was no need for consensus for the operation itself, because there was established precedent for desysopping of a user by a developer (2 or 3 previous cases, all officially sanctioned by Jimbo). Now, I agree that it makes sense to find a more open process; ironically you have opposed such a process at Wikipedia talk:Quickpolls as currently one of about 4 individuals against 20 others, and have neither been active in the discussion there nor made any meaningful counter-proposals. It is again quite ironic that you would accuse me of violating rules, when I am the one who has written many of these rules (including the part of the protection policy which 168 violated), while you just complain about them. Outcomes of past operations do not become invalid simply because there is consensus that they have been imperfect; if that was the case we would have to undelete hundreds of pages whenever we change our deletion policy, and desysop dozens of users who were made admins before the WP:RfA procedure was created. Counting neutral votes in favor of resysopping is completely fallacious, as one can be accepting the result until the case is heard by arbitration, as many people have been suggesting, while being against resysopping 168 because of his policy violations and a risk of further abuse. Your allegation that this re-nomination was somehow a "trick" of mine is completely unfounded and a personal attack, User:Kingturtle renominated 168 without any input from myself.&mdash;Eloquence 01:23, Mar 21, 2004 (UTC)
 * 1) I neither support not oppose this, but I think it should go to arbitration. Angela. 03:01, Mar 10, 2004 (UTC)
 * 2) I'm also neutral, but think it should go to arbitration. BCorr ¤ &#1041;&#1088;&#1072;&#1081;&#1077;&#1085; 14:22, Mar 11, 2004 (UTC)
 * 3) A matter for the arbitration committee. moink 23:47, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)