Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Hephaestos

(User:Hephaestos | talk | contributions)

See also Requests for de-adminship.

I first became dubious of this admin when I discussed with them the possibility that they might unilaterally ban user:wik. Later I had a profoundly unpleasant experience with them on IRC, involving one way flaming in front of a number of silent witnesses. Later I noticed a dispute involving his banning of user:lir under dubious circumstances. I decided to give him the benefit of the doubt. I decided that these could have been mistakes due to the newness of the powers available to admins, and an intense POV on the part of Hephaestos. Recently however I had a rather disturbing incident. This user decided to revert my archiving of Talk:Political correctness, twice. I refrained from an edit war, and rather attempted to provide him with the relevant policy, and explain that I had trouble loading a page so large. He was abrasive, and unwilling to listen or understand the particulars. Policy was ignored. Instead, rigid repetition of misinterpreted documentation and a demeaning attitude made communication untenable. I do not see this as being characteristic of a quality administrator. Jack 09:33, 2 Feb 2004 (UTC)


 * Commenting solely on Hephaestos' reverting of your archivings: there was a period where it seemed that you were archiving talk pages including current discussion and I believe this is why your archivings were reverted. Hopefully that's all cleared up now. &mdash;Morven 07:58, 5 Feb 2004 (UTC)

From "Potential abuses" page
He blocked me twice without justification. Sysops who abuse their powers should lose their powers. Nobody would tolerate me banning Hephaestos, I should be accorded the same respect. Lirath Q. Pynnor


 * Where is the pattern of Admin power abuse Lir? One case of incorrect blocking, especially when it when the person blocked is a known troublemaker, does not merit de-adminship. --mav 22:48, 30 Jan 2004 (UTC)


 * Twice is a different matter (Lir just changed his message). If Heph does not admit wrongdoing and promises not to do it again, then I'll have to support this request. --mav 02:40, 31 Jan 2004 (UTC)

It was not an accident, he intentionally banned me. I am not a known troublemaker. Have I done anything wrong, have I broken any rules? The pattern of admin abuse is clear from the 3 admins I have listed here, they are all acting inappropriately. Lirath Q. Pynnor


 * There is a very obvious pattern of you getting into edit wars and wrongly nominating people for de-adminship. That makes you a troublemaker. --mav


 * Who did I wrongly nominate for de-adminship? Hephaestos who banned me, despite my lack of vandalism; or 168, who protected in violation of the protection rules; or Snoyes, who unprotected every page for which I was attempting to find a mediator? Lirath Q. Pynnor


 * I'd oppose de-adminship, but I don't think Hephaestos blocking Lir (a block that was quickly undone by Tim Starling) was justified either. --Delirium


 * I oppose de-adminship. Heph shouldn't have banned Lir without approval, but I would certainly vote for banning Lir now. Secretlondon 14:22, Jan 31, 2004 (UTC)


 * I'm fully aware that blocking Lir was in violation of the guidelines. However I'm happy that it spurred discussion.  I did it for a reason: the banning process is broken.  Procedures for dealing with admin abuse are broken.  We can't sit around six months or a year before fixing them. - Hephaestos 15:55, 31 Jan 2004 (UTC)


 * As an outsider, I see the problem with Lir is serious but also that if rules are important then punishment is also important, so Hephaestos should be punished accordingly. Secretlondon's trying to move the discussion to banning Lir is outside the matter. I am sure Hephaestos will be a sysop again even though he be de-sysoped now. Either rules count or they are useless and policiy and organization are just empty words. Same for the User:168... case below. If we have rules they have to be applied. Otherwise non-sysops will always be an inferior class. Pfortuny 21:30, 31 Jan 2004 (UTC)


 * I strongly oppose de-adminship. Hephaestos' banning Lir could be seen as justified since Lir's unbanning was conditional on Lir not reverting to his previous behaviour (which Lir had). Everyone might not agree with interpretation, which is why there should probably be discussion before bannings. His statements about banning process being broken are very valid. Maximus Rex 21:45, 31 Jan 2004 (UTC)~


 * I find that it ought not to be in the power of an administrator to declare the policy of the wikipedia broken, and therefore replace it with whatever that administrator finds fit. However, I oppose a removal of the administerial power, as I do not necessarily deem the actions tantamount to grave and severe abuse of power. -- Emsworth 01:39, Feb 1, 2004 (UTC)


 * I strongly oppose de-sysoping Hephaestos. He is a very valuable member of Wikipedia, as both editor and sysop.  He's certainly more worthwhile here than Lir is.  RickK 03:26, 1 Feb 2004 (UTC)


 * I believe it is a bad idea to pre-empt the arbitration committee, which is in the process of getting its act together. I have expressed this idea to Hephaestos in an email some time ago, and he agreed. It seems he's changed his mind, or at least come to the end of his patience. It pains me to say it, but I do not oppose desysoping Hephaestos, because it seems to me that his frustration has clouded his judgment in the use of the blocking power. -- Cyan 04:19, 1 Feb 2004 (UTC)


 * I oppose de-sysoping Hephaestos. He was provoked into banning Lir because of Lir's ongoing bad-behavior and the system's failure in dealing with the issue. If a rule needs to be broken for a good reason (i.e., for the good of Wikipedia as a whole), then don't punish those who break it. --Jiang 04:21, 1 Feb 2004 (UTC)


 * Lir is a persistent and deliberate pest and if Hephaestos banned him, blocked him or [censored] he would have the thanks of a grateful nation. Adam 04:28, 1 Feb 2004 (UTC)


 * I oppose de-adminship. Had there been discussion on how to discourage Lir without going for a long ban, a short ban or series of short bans seems considerably more fair to Lir than encouraing bad conduct until we eventually use a long term ban. For now, this quick ban and unban seems like a tolerable stopgap measure until we have a better system in operation. Not ideal, but we don't have ideal yet and that leaves us with judgement calls which we'll sometimes disagree with. Hephaestos, please at least discuss and get the agreement, without dissent, of several other admins not involved in a dispute with Lir before doing this again and say it's only for a short time, like 24 hours. Sorry, Lirath Q. Pynnor, but I think you're heading for a long term ban again. I don't like bans but if a short ban may discourage you from continuing as you are instead of using peer review and out other processes for resolving diusputes, I'll support one or a series of them, and not only for you. Jamesday 09:06, 1 Feb 2004 (UTC)


 * Question to the community - As I gather from reading here, Lir was at one time (probably before my time here) banned for misbehaving. After communicating with Jimbo, he was unbanned, provided he not revert to his "old, bad behavior" (which I would means not getting into constant edit wars). Is this the case? &rarr;Raul654 07:22, Feb 1, 2004 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure that Jimbo did say that Lir was under any sort of probation. In fact, in this email, he said exactly the opposite. Lir's behaviour was beyond acceptable limits, and I don't think Hephaestos should be desysopped for trying to take action against that behaviour. I obviously think the block was wrong, as I don't feel Lir should be banned, and I was one of the people who unblocked him, but I can fully understand why Hephaestos felt the need to do this. Angela. 11:48, Feb 1, 2004 (UTC)


 * I oppose de-sysoping Hephaestus: He tried to do whatever he felt was good for the community. This incident is not enough for desysoping. Hepheastus should remain admin. Optim 14:51, 1 Feb 2004 (UTC)
 * (You mean the sysop Hephaestos, not the banned vandal Hephaestus/Michael, by the way. &#922;&#963;&#965;&#960; Cyp    15:14, 1 Feb 2004 (UTC))
 * Yes of course I mean Hephaestos :) Optim 16:15, 1 Feb 2004 (UTC)


 * I catagorically oppose desysoping him for the reasons mentioned by Angela and Optim. &rarr;Raul654 15:04, Feb 1, 2004 (UTC)


 * Surely this silly discussion can now be wound up? It was nothing but a typical Lir provocation in the first place. Further discussion just gratifies his ego and makes him think of new provocations. I would much rather have a discussion about Ways of getting Lir permanently banned. Adam 15:16, 1 Feb 2004 (UTC)


 * Agree with Optim, Angela, and Adam. How about Reverse Psychology BTW? Ilyanep 16:18, 1 Feb 2004 (UTC)


 * Keep Heph. No doubt in my mind about that.  As for Lir, it seems to me like he's beginning to break his probation (having problems with reverting people for no apparent reason, among other things).  He should be taken back to the list for possible action by Jimbo.  Pakaran. 22:13, 1 Feb 2004 (UTC)


 * Abstain. I have found him to be rude on more than one occasion. I have created Requests for comment/Hephaestos to discuss this. However, I have reviewed his edit history, and have found little of it contentious. Jack 09:00, 2 Feb 2004 (UTC)


 * Hephaestos deserves a barnstar for his timely actions (Martin, are you listening?). But indeed we also (urgently) need to implement processes for getting rid of sub-vandals in a timely way. -- Viajero 10:39, 2 Feb 2004 (UTC)


 * Congratulations to Hephaestos for his courage to do this. I strongly oppose de-adminship. If the system protects destructive sub-vandals and punishes those admins caring for Wikipedia, then there is something wrong with the system. I agree with Viajero above: A way must be found to deal with Lir and the likes of him. -- Baldhur 16:34, 2 Feb 2004 (UTC)


 * Hephaestos is one of those people who will not put up with the crap that the malcontents (you know who you are!) pull with impunity while there is no proper policy enforcing body around. He's got my full support. - snoyes 17:37, 2 Feb 2004 (UTC)
 * FYI, that's in contrast to me, who snoyes says he wants de-sysopped for protecting a page against (instead of twice banning) the very same "malcontent" (you know who he is) 168... 19:04, 2 Feb 2004 (UTC)
 * Hephaestos wasn't involved in a dispute over an article with Lir. Whereas you were, and you used your admin privileges to gain the upper hand in that dispute. A rather different situation, FWIW. - snoyes 19:18, 2 Feb 2004 (UTC)
 * That may be your take, but I doubt you understand the situation as well as you seem to think. Here's what I posted on Mav's talk page: ...It seems to me that there's just as much evidence to argue Heph banned Lir in order to get his way with an article, specifically the Rec for Adminship page and delisting Snoyes. We both knew from past experience that Lir was sure to come back and revert the page in way that we wouldn't like. But Heph banned rather than protecting, and it was in regard to an administrative/policy article rather than in regard to an ordinary one. Still, you call on me to defend my actions and not Heph. I don't really mind defending my actions, but I don't like to sense that the deck is stacked against me for reasons that aren't expressed and which therefore I don't know how to address. 168... 01:49, 31 Jan 2004 (UTC) Besides "gaining the upper hand," it is just as true that I reverted one paragraph to the exact version it had been some weeks before and which had been stable for months and was the intro to an article designated "brilliant prose." Your support for Heph and condemnation of me suggests cronyism and a payback to Heph for the helping you with your de-admin listing problem. 168... 19:32, 2 Feb 2004 (UTC)
 * I didn't follow the whole dispute over lir listing people that he thought should be censured, because I found it somewhat laughable. I don't have a problem with being listed on such pages, and would actually _prefer_ if my listing had stayed there a while longer so that people can see what ridiculous behaviour lir engages in. So your charge of Hephaestos and me being cronies isn't sound. I still draw a fundamental distinction between protecting a page over which one has been in an edit war and banning someone who is engaging in destructive behaviour. I would not have recommended that you be de-admin'd if you had recognised that protecting a page over which you have had a dispute was an inappropriate action. I am always open to changing my recommendation on your admin status if the circumstances merit it. - snoyes 20:06, 2 Feb 2004 (UTC)
 * Actually, I hadn't been discussing that page for a couple weeks, even as other people continued to "war" with Lir. 168... 20:25, 2 Feb 2004 (UTC)


 * 168, have a look at the logs and you will notice that the second time I blocked Lir was when he was in the middle of (yet another) edit war in his insistence on listing you. - Hephaestos 19:53, 2 Feb 2004 (UTC)
 * I don't know where to find a log of transient blocks, but if you tell me I'll go look. Anyway, you could just tell us whether at the time you went to block Lir snoyes de-adminship nomination was currently up or down, and if indeed it wasn't posted when you went to block him, whether the thought that Lir might try to repost it by reversion crossed your mind. Incidentally, I think you were right to block him and I especially appreciate that you did to the extent that your reason had anything to do with making my life easier.168... 20:11, 2 Feb 2004 (UTC)
 * Block log shows the blocks. I think the first time I blocked him was during one of his edit wars at DNA, but the server's dragging too much for me to check right now so I can't swear to it. I'm pretty sure snoyes' listing was up the first time but was gone by the second. - Hephaestos 20:17, 2 Feb 2004 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the link. You didn't answer my question about whether any thought crossed your mind about Lir's future action vis-a-vis snoyes' de-admin listing.168... 20:25, 2 Feb 2004 (UTC)
 * Well if it did, snoyes wouldn't have known it. I don't know snoyes any better than I know you, really.  Actually I think in terms of Lir reverting anything and everything, instead of particulars. - Hephaestos 20:36, 2 Feb 2004 (UTC)
 * By bringing up cronyism, I didn't mean to suggest you arranged anything quid pro quo with snoyes, or even that snoyes was consciously paying you back. It's just that if he perceived what you did as good for him, he might be inclined to do something good for you that he wouldn't do for just anybody (say, me). Your posts beneath Snoyes' de-admin nomination suggested to me that you were strongly opposed to him having ever been nominated in the first place. So if his listing was gone while you went to block Lir, and if as you say you think of Lir reverting "anything and everything," then you would have every reason to expect that one outcome of blocking Lir would be that a page was preserved in the state you preferred. That would make our situtations very similar, which is why it seems strange to me that mav and snoyes object to my action more than to yours.168... 20:46, 2 Feb 2004 (UTC)
 * Their objections seem somewhat odd to me too, which is why attempted to clarify. By the letter of the law we were both wrong, and as I see it you less wrong than me.  However the circumstances (and the records of the accused and especially the "accusers") tend to mitigate that a lot in my view. - Hephaestos 21:01, 2 Feb 2004 (UTC)
 * I finally looked at the block log. While snoyes may have been grateful to you for your support, there's no reason to think he'd be grateful to you for guarding his nomination's removal from the Rec for Admin page. The second time you blocked Lir, he wasn't reverting snoyes' nomination, he was reverting mine. Snoyes' nomination never made a reappearance after I deleted it...probably because Lir realized he should really be nominating me, and went to work on that. This really suggests that there was no quid pro quo to do with snoyes' de-admin listing, because if there was, he would be supporting me, who removed it (not to suggest that the poll result wasn't the actual deciding factor in its removal). Still, that doesn't mean that mav and snoyes don't judge you preferentially over me. The different reactions to the two of us may have to do with how long you've been here compared to me. 168... 21:18, 2 Feb 2004 (UTC)