Wikipedia:Requests for review of administrative actions: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 05:10, 21 May 2004

Wikipedia wants to remain as open as possible, consistent with its primary focus on accuracy and neutrality. But admins are human beings, and as such are fallible. If you think an admin has made a mistake involving their use of admin-specific features, please see information on possible misuses of sysop rights and then mention the matter here if you feel it deserves review. Matters are removed when resolved or when there is no continuing discussion.

Before listing a matter here, please try to resolve it on the article talk page or the user talk page of the admin involved. If you do list someone here, put a note on their user talk page setting forth the nature of the dispute.

This page is for review of actions that are limited to use by administrators only, specifically these actions and their converses:

protection
deletion
blocking users

For all other matters (such as edit wars and page moves) please see Wikipedia:Dispute resolution.

Archive:

This page is not archived. Please see the page history for older reviews.

User:Texture

He has abused his 'Protected Page' privilege by blocking off the editing and addition of significant and new content to wikipedia. He has also engaged in several copyright violations (of the Baseline_Consciousness and Consciousness_Singularity pages) which he has publicly admitted to, and has repeatedly given irresponsible and/or illogical responses to my repeated attempts to remedy the situation with him. 193.255.207.252 21:50, 20 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Texture handled this situation appropriately and well. Snowspinner 21:56, 20 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, there is no fault to be found with Texture here. He has conducted himself justly and with considerably more restraint then his accuser. --Starx 22:53, 20 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

User:RickK

Talk about absurd hypocrisy. I'm surprised that RickK doesn't think twice about requesting reviews on my adminship over trivialities, given that I can remind everyone about his own gross, blatant abuse of admin powers. This is coming from a user who **once blocked another admin to protect his preferred version of the George W. Bush page in an edit war** (see block log and talk page). I did not complain about it at the time because I had an ample array of better things to do. But since he hasn't put his vendetta behind him and learned from his mistake, I'll bring it up now. 172 02:43, 18 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Of course this is utter fiction, but then, 172's entire world seems to be fictional. RickK 03:02, 18 May 2004 (UTC) [reply]

Yes, I suppose I wrote that block log myself on MS Word. 172 03:03, 18 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I just looked at that talk page... I have to say, I'm impressed by the ability of people to point to evidence that discredits them as much as it does the person they're attacking. At the risk of violating the no personal attacks rule (Though nothing I'm about to say is more offensive than what you two have already thrown at each other), you are both acting like complete babies, and I'm appalled that either one of you has administrator status. Please stop this absurd fight while it's still at least dimly amusing. Snowspinner 15:29, 18 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I'm not sure that's a fair description of what went on, but I do think that RickK seems to feel that being an admin gives him the right to be self-appointed guardian of Wikipedia, along with the associated right to be as rude as possible to anybody he disagrees with. I mean, many sysops are rude on occasion, or even frequently, but with RickK there is an extent to which the rudeness seems to be associated with an attitude that his judgment is law, and that anyone who disagrees with him is operating from an illegitimate position. john 03:39, 18 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

RickK made unprovoked and repeated disparaging remarks to me while I was engaged in a discussion with other admins over resolving an issue. I have much experience with administrating over moderators in forums and the like, and in my opinion, RickK has not shown that he is responsible enough to be an admin here. He has offended many people and scared many others away. I do not think he is good for wikipedia. 193.255.207.252 21:54, 20 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

I think your behavior merited disparagement in this situation. Snowspinner 22:09, 20 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

what sort of behavior merits disparagement and verbal abuse by an admin? Admins have a responsibility to avoid conflict when possible and not provoke it and throw mud and filth into an otherwise decent discussion. RickK is not mature enough, nor responsible enough, to be an admin. It's not just me who thinks this, but many people. 193.255.207.252 22:13, 20 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Please show me the wikipedia standards page which you think imposes this responsibility of which you speak. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 22:16, 20 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

"what sort of behavior merits disparagement and verbal abuse" ... well ... disparagement and verbal abuse does. --Starx 22:58, 20 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

User:Morwen

Moved to m:talk:Bans and blocks

Stevertigo

User:Stevertigo blocked me accusing me falsely of violating the 3-revert rule. --(Wik) 08:40, 5 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Good. - Hephaestos|§ 13:57, 5 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Doubleplusgood. RickK 04:50, 6 May 2004 (UTC) [reply]

Wik's complaint is without merit. UninvitedCompany 16:04, 7 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Wik's complaint is spurious. He often makes a revert that is a word or so different simply to avoid the 3-revert rule by what he believes to be a technicality. Stevertigo's action is within the spirit of Wik's probation as I understand it. - Tεx τ urε 16:46, 11 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

As there is no evidence presented by Wik such as the article or day involved there is lack of evidence regarding the actions of Stevertigo and the complaint was properly dismissed. Fred Bauder 10:38, May 15, 2004 (UTC)

Wik points out below that Stevertigo cites no article either during the 24 hour period before the block on May 5, claiming that none exists. If true, Stevertigo would seem to be in the wrong. Perhaps Stevertigo could point out exactly what Wik did. Fred Bauder 14:17, May 15, 2004 (UTC)

Here is the exchange from the block log:

09:26, May 5, 2004 Silsor unblocked "Wik" (not a proper block)
06:05, 5 May 2004 Stevertigo blocked "Wik" with an expiry time of 24 hours (Violating the 3 revert rule - Generally uncivil behaviour toward fellow Wikipedians - Maintains a 'should be banned list' of trusted and respected Wikipedians - General nuisance)

As the matters other then 3 reverts are before the arbitration committee they should not be a basis for a block. Fred Bauder 14:29, May 15, 2004 (UTC)

In looking at the page history of Stevertigo's talk page [1] I note no attempt by Wik to discuss this matter before listing it here. See above, "Before listing a matter here, please try to resolve it on the article talk page or the user talk page of the admin involved." Fred Bauder 14:39, May 15, 2004 (UTC)

Yes, looking at user contributions for Wik for the period preceeding the ban shows 3 reverts on only 2 articles, more than 3 on none. It seems Stevertigo was going more on the general disgust with Wik than on anything specific. This is inapproriate and should be a lesson to all who would take the law into their own hands. Fred Bauder 18:56, May 15, 2004 (UTC)

What law is that? I haven't noticed much around here lately. - Hephaestos|§ 19:00, 15 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

The arbitration committee is actively hearing complaints regarding Wik and stands ready to hear more. While it is slow going, as the months and years go by eventually the slow wheels of justice will grind Wik into a well-polished diamond we can all hold up as an example. Fred Bauder 19:09, May 15, 2004 (UTC)

Indeed. An example of how any user may with impunity disrupt and distract from the work of building an encyclopedia, week after week, month after month, and continue to do so long after specific complaints have been voiced, all the while publicly declaring that he/she will not change behavior. - Hephaestos|§ 19:21, 15 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

The above few entries seems to be a conversation of one. ;) Which articles? pick one, please. General disgust - Perhaps. While I personally had no involvement with him, I was made aware of his temperment a while back, and then came the more recent reports of good people leaving wikipedia, claiming a frustration with him and others like him who show uncivility to the community. I may have to dig in the record to find my motivation. I cant recall exactly (this was a while ago) and I dont think I crossed the line, but I will put my fair standing with the community up against someones vitriol anyday. On occasion, I am fine with taking the risk of being an 'attack dog,' if only to get the point accross, in defending our more timid wikicitizens. That said, I understand your interest in the process and protocol, and in reading the record straight. -Stevertigo 19:13, 15 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

I understand your frustration. Please be patient. Fred Bauder 20:44, May 15, 2004 (UTC)

User:Hephaestos

Blocked User:Leo Trollstoy for "vandalism". User was not even warned that their edits were considered vandalism or that they could be blocked. Leo Trollstoy also made several clearly productive contributions. This block clearly violates current blocking policy. JRR Trollkien (see warning) 23:34, 20 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Gee, what took you so long? - Hephaestos|§ 23:36, 20 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Heph - I have to agree - 1. What vandalism? 2. When did you warn the user? 3. Why did you revert an attempt to discuss the matter? 4. Where does the policy allow admins to ban people under these circumstances. I will unblock this user unless you can provide some explanation for this. Mark Richards 23:54, 20 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

(This is not meant facetiously, it is a serious question) Do you actually review the edit history of the users in question before making these remarks? For starters, the user re-instated an article that had been through VfD.
This is a returning vandal, and has undoubtedly been warned many times before.
I reverted JRR Trollkien's edit to my talk page because the only reason that account still exists is the slow action of the arbitration committee. (Although I see they're working on other cases and have faith for the future.) The only reason I or someone else haven't blocked him as well is that it might undermine their procedures.
I think the guidelines on vandalism handle this case quite nicely. Please review the user's edits. - Hephaestos|§ 00:14, 21 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

This is not meant facetiously, since we clearly view this differently, but have you read the guidelines for blocks and bans? Did you tell the user that they had re-instated an article that had been through VfD? I for one would not think to look over the logs to make sure a new articel had never been VfD'd. How do you know this is a 'returning vandal'? I have reviewed the edit log, and do not see any vandalism. If anything, there are some questionable POV statements, but nothing out of the ordinary for WP. There is no ruling on JRRT. On the guidelines, I disagree - can you point out to me where the guidelines deal with this case? I am going to unblock this user since I see no justification for the ban. Yours, Mark Richards 00:19, 21 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Was the text of the restored article the same as the text that got deleted? Snowspinner 00:24, 21 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know - I don't know which article he is talking about. Mark Richards 00:26, 21 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

I fully support Hephaestos in his never-ending and unrewarded efforts to make Wikipedia a useful encyclopedia instead of a dumping ground for vandals trolls and psychopaths. RickK 00:24, 21 May 2004 (UTC) [reply]

That's fine, but we are talking about whether his action was in line with the guidelines. If you disagree with them, get them changed, but flouting the guidelines undermines the whole community. Mark Richards 00:26, 21 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

On Internet troll, I would say that Trollstoy's changes, while somewhat POV, on the whole made for a less POV article. Even the most POV part, Trolls are often caricatured, but this predjudice is a fruitless and misguided activity, replaces an even more POV discussion of different caricatures of trolls. Haven't looked too closely at his other edits. john 00:32, 21 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 91: / Line 91: @@
 ----
-==Chris 73==
-Using rollback on a number or articles to roll them back to his preferred version (see [[Wikipedia:Requests for page protection|Requests for page protection]]), before the dispute about that was resolved. Deleted [[Demographic history of Kosovo]] so that he could move [[Demographic history of Kosovo and Metohija]] to it, before the dispute was resolved. [[User:Nikola Smolenski|Nikola]] 08:19, 20 May 2004 (UTC)
-:Any user can revert to an earlier version. The first half of your complaint it irrelavant to this page. [[User:Raul654|&rarr;Raul654]] 08:23, May 20, 2004 (UTC)
-::Any user can revert, but only admins can use rollback to revert. He used rollback. [[User:Nikola Smolenski|Nikola]] 08:30, 20 May 2004 (UTC)
-:::Related to the [[Kosovo]] dispute: Except for rollbacks I used administrative powers only twice to deleted a redirect page in order to move another page, once to move [[Kosovo and Metohija]] to [[Kosovo]], and once to move [[Demographic history of Kosovo and Metohija]] to  [[Demographic history of Kosovo]]. I never protected anything or blocked anybody. I did this to support the majority vote on [[Talk:Kosovo]], which is disputed by Nikola. Details can be found on [[Talk:Kosovo]]. -- [[User:Chris 73|Chris 73]] | [[User talk:Chris 73|Talk]] 09:09, 20 May 2004 (UTC)
-::::Nikola and I have agreed on a ceasefire till Wednesday to see the community response. Please comment on [[Talk:Kosovo]], or any of our talk pages -- [[User:Chris 73|Chris 73]] | [[User talk:Chris 73|Talk]] 11:44, 20 May 2004 (UTC)
-Just as an aside, I personally consider it rude to use rollback in an edit war.  Since rollback is a feature designed only to combat vandalism and intended only to be used as such, rolling back a user tells them you consider their contribution on a level with "u r gay" article spammers. [[User:Silsor|silsor]] 15:44, May 20, 2004 (UTC)
-:I completely agree yet we are only human and I can't put my hand on my heart and declare that i have ''never'' done it myself. If Chris were to learn by this, and swear never to use rollbacks in an edit war ever again, I for one would want this matter dropped. Not being one to ask others to do what i won't do myself - I swear never to use rollback during an edit war [[User:Theresa knott|theresa knott]] 16:07, 20 May 2004 (UTC)
-::My apologies, I was not aware of this etiquette rule. I will try my best not to use rollback in an edit war again, and only use it to fight vandalism. -- [[User:Chris 73|Chris 73]] | [[User talk:Chris 73|Talk]] 00:10, 21 May 2004 (UTC)
-:::OK I am happy. I intend to delete Chris 73 from this page tomorrow unless someone objects in the meantime.[[User:Theresa knott|theresa knott]] 02:09, 21 May 2004 (UTC)
-::::You shall not delete him. [[User:Nikola Smolenski|Nikola]] 05:10, 21 May 2004 (UTC)
 == [[User:Hephaestos]] ==