Wikipedia:Possible misuses of sysop rights
This page is for listing issues when a Wikipedia:Administrator has misused their privileges. Sometimes, in the heat of the moment, you may be tempted to list someone here when you don't need to - please read the following before listing anyone.
Admin actions will fall into one of three categories:
- A genuine "good call" by the admin in question. He/she acted in a way that clearly was a combination of good common sense, meeting with Wikipedia policy and fitted with any consensus that existed on relevant talk pages. Please be very careful that your complaint doesn't come into this category. If it does, it will be removed from this page and you will irritate those whose time you have wasted.
- A border-line decision. This might be a simple mistake like confusing two people's names, or a decision in an area where policy wasn't very clear, or relating to page with few contributors and so no consensus could emerge. It is good to discuss these issues - usually the best place is on the talk page of the admin in question. Either the admin will remember not to repeat the mistake, or a more clearly defined policy might be introduced. If a resolution can not be reached on the talk page, then it may be appropriate to bring the matter here, to solicit the opinions of others.
- A bad decision. A decision that is grossly outside Wikipedia policy and good etiquette, or the latest in a series of dubious decisions. These things have historically been very rare within Wikipedia. Almost universally those who've hung around long enough to be trusted enough to become an admin care about Wikipedia a lot and strive hard not to damage it or its reputation. However if it does happen, a consensus on this page might arise to take the matter to Jimbo. If he also is concerned by the behaviour he may chat privately to the user, or ask for de-adminship. These are not common events. Please note also that no de-adminship (unless it is self-requested) will occur solely as a result of discussion here - Jimbo will always be involved.
Final note: Please try to keep your perspective. Collaborative projects will always generate some hard feelings. If your anger or annoyance with another user is significant, you may well do better to just walk away for a while. Let's not allow Wikipedia to become a site for petty squabbling.
See also : Wikipedia:De-adminship
Current Issues
Jimbo suggested on the mailing list [1] [2] that perhaps we should drop all these cases and chalk them up to the current transitional power vacuum as the arbitration committee is being set up. Since the arbitration committee will be up and running within a matter of days, we can then take misuse of admin privileges more seriously once there is a clear conflict-resolution process in place. ANy objections? --Delirium 23:05, Feb 5, 2004 (UTC)
- An excellent idea. Tannin 23:09, 5 Feb 2004 (UTC)
In parallel, perhaps people will be interested in the Sysop Protection Pledge Poll- "Should sysops henceforth refrain from using protection or blocking against even notoriously, obstinately antisocial and uncompromising users on any page that sysop has ever edited or on any page, the wording of which sysop is fond?" 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.168... 00:24, 6 Feb 2004 (UTC)
Hephaestos talk moved to Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Hephaestos
168 talk moved to Wikipedia:Requests for comment/168
168 has just reverted a protected page, nucleic acid. Lirath Q. Pynnor 02:09, 12 Feb 2004 (UTC)
Ok, this nonsense has gone on long enough. Let me propose a simple solution. Let Lir's complaints stand, and have people vote on them. Lir - cite specific instances where you feel mistreated. Enough of this "he keeps revereting me" garbage. I want him to see specific instances where you made (inarguably) good changes that were reverted. If you can rally up a consensus of people to agree with you, then we'll considered desysopping heph, 168, snoyes, myself, whoever.
And let this stand as a future model. The next person who posts to this section, I want to see page histories that document that person's case. →Raul654 03:33, Jan 31, 2004 (UTC)
But this isn't about reverting -- if you want to see an example of that, you can look at New Imperialism where Wik keeps reverting me. You can look at the page history here, where my attempt to complain about sysop abuse was reverted numerous times. This issue here on this this page is about clarifying that sysops are only to ban clear vandals, and they are not to protect pages in which they are involved with an edit war (unless said war involves clear vandalism). Hephaestos banned me twice, 168 protected a page at which he was in an edit war. Lirath Q. Pynnor
Just as an aside, could somebody please show me how you ban someone? I know how to protect, but not to ban, and I've been working at a disadvantage as a result.168... 00:08, 2 Feb 2004 (UTC)
- Could somebody please show me as well? Much appreciated. →Raul654 00:22, Feb 2, 2004 (UTC)
- Enter the username at Special:Blockip. Dori | Talk 03:10, Feb 2, 2004 (UTC)
- Eloquence talk moved to Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Eloquence