Wikipedia:Requests for comment/168

(User:168... | talk)

NOTICE: This article continues to undergo changes. The reputations of many people are affected by this portrayal of events, including the reputations of 168..., Mav, Lir, Peak, Stewartadcock and others. In making edits to this article, these users should be regarded as facing potential conflicts of interest. You may wish to check the Edit History to see who edited it most recently and what changes they made.

Below are two versions of events. The first version has been written primarily by mav, who along with other community members regards 168... as having acted improperly (in whole or in part). The second version is based on the one by Mav, but has been extensively edited by 168... with an attempt to present all the facts necessary to assess the rightness or wrongness of 168...'s behavior during the long course of events described.

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. Other admins said protection was called for, but said the fact that 168... had done it made the act improper. 168... also protected Wikipedia: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... [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] (this last one was a self revert) (Nucleic acid history One of his edit comments was "so de-sysop me." [14] At the same time he also used the rollback feature to repeatedly remove warnings on his talk page about his behavior. [15] [16] [17] [18] (User talk:168... history Also at the same time he was in another revert war at Wikipedia: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... [19] [20] [21] [22] [23] [24] [25] [26] [27] [28] [29] [30] (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.

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." [31]

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#Voting_on_February_5_Version ; four people were reverting him). [32] [33] [34] [35] [36] [37] [38] [39] On the 14th he again reverted DNA to his favored version and then protected the page. 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 Wikipedia:Current polls.

At around the same time he was using the rollback feature and regular reverts to revert all the most recent updates to this page (five different people were reverting 168). [40] [41] [42] [43] [44] [45] [46] [47] [48] [49] [50] After one revert 168... protected his version of the page twice but that page protection was lifted by another admin. [51] Note that the above diffs may no longer work due to the fact that version numbers were reassigned after each deletion.

On the 14th he also deleted this page 11 times and blanked 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. [52]

Mav requested mediation on the above points at Wikipedia:Requests_for_mediation#168..._and_maveric149.

For discussion, see Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/168

Version of based on the above and 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[53]. 168... also protected Wikipedia: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.

[54] 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.

[55] [56] [57] [58] (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...[59]. 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 Wikipedia: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 Wikipedia: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#Voting_on_February_5_Version). The vote was not advertised widely (not e.g. on Wikipedia: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. [60]) 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[61]. 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 [62] [63], 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. [64]

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 [65]

Mav requested mediation at Wikipedia:Requests_for_mediation#168..._and_maveric149.

For discussion of the original issue for which this page was created, see Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/168

Version of based on the above and edited primarily by Lir...

um, ok... Lirath Q. Pynnor

You are a very talkative girl Lir :-) ~~

If all parties agree to say that the above text is an accurate, complete and fair report of the past events, I would like to suggest that it be extracted, put in a new page, and protected (at least officially not open to edition any more). This would then constitute an agreement between all parties involved. I think it is important that you all think this is fairly representing what happened then.

It is in particular important that Mav and 168 both agree on this text. 168 indicated he now was. I would like Mav opinion (but would prefer that he first indicate privately any major disagreement). Would this seem ok to you ? :-)

User:Anthere

[Peak:] I don't have time to keep up with 168...'s many edits, and I doubt that many others do. You might consider asking each party to write a separate statement, and then asking each party which statements they endorse. Peak 18:49, 18 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Here we are :-) It would be best if these two statements were stable now. Anthère0

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:

) 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;
) 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 Wikipedia:Possible_misuses_of_admin_privileges#User:168... 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:

at about 01:14, 14 Feb 2004 UTC, you froze the DNA article at

your preferred version, overriding the "near-consensus" version that had already been installed.

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 Wikipedia: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)

Applicable policies

Wikipedia: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 {{msg:protected}} to the top of temporarily protected pages
Rule number 4: List pages you protect or unprotect on Wikipedia: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

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

mav
RickK (note that I do not consider pages that the sysop has reverted because of previous vandalism as having been "edited" by the sysop)
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)
Tuf-Kat (agree with both Rick and Angela's caveats)
Sam Spade (Disagree with both above caveats)
Anthony DiPierro Sysops shouldn't be blocking users or protecting pages without consensus anyway.
Toby Bartels -- The phrasing is rather strong (ever edited???), but I think that I know what you mean.
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.
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.
Secretlondon and disagree with caveats and any exceptions. If it's obvious then someone else can protect it.

No

168...
Jamesday ("has ever edited or on any page, the wording of which that sysop is fond" is overbroad.)
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.
Ruhrjung 13:46, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Depends

—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.
Jia ng - agree with Eloquence.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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

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)
- 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)
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)
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)
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
Whether the sysop is fond of the page is irrelevant. Whether she has ever edited the page is also irrelevant. Anthony DiPierro 23:00, 11 Feb 2004 (UTC)
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:

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
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)

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 Wikipedia: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

[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)