Misplaced Pages

I'm not sure I'd support permanently desysopping anyone over this affair. I'm sure it's been quite the learning experience for everyone. (You can be sure I'll be paying closer attention to admin logs etc. when I see something so stupidly odious my first reaction is "wtf. DIE!") - David Gerard 11:29, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

I feel that if admins have to re-apply, even if it's just an automatic rule, rather than a result of disciplinary action, they'll probably always meet stronger opposition than they did when they were ordinary users seeking promotion. The reason is that admins, by virtue of their adminship, make enemies. They block people; they warn people; they point out rules. Even the less controversial administrators will have a fair number of people who hold grudges against them. AnnH 11:37, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

It's the old issue of those with a problem shout loud while the content are apathetic. I think I'm searching for a solution that's more than a 'slap on the wrist' and not a permanent desysopping. —Matthew Brown (T:C) 11:39, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

You guys might try 1, 2 or 3 month desysoping. Being without admin powers would be a frustrating penalty which would make one careful not to be abusive in the future. NoSeptember 12:15, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Frustrating? Adminship can be a positive chore, and on a good day thankless, on a bad day leads to getting abused. Those who do it well now face the problem of reversing bad admin decisions and getting slapped across the knuckles by ArbCom (if they go ahead with 1RR), and getting abused by upset editors who were unfairly dealt with. Did I mention we don't get paid to do this? - Ta bu shi da yu 14:48, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

At least you have a choice of whether you are going to wield the mop or do normal content editing on a moment to moment basis. Once desysoped you do not have that choice. I see very few people voluntarily desysoping, so there must be something positive about it ;-). NoSeptember 15:01, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

In that case, you are talking to one of the few. I voluntarily had myself desysopped before, now of course I'm crazy enough to be back at admin'ing, though not as involved as before. To be honest, there really shouldn't be any positives to admin'ing, other than perhaps a reputation for being such a good editor you were entrusted with some extra admin powers. - Ta bu shi da yu 15:10, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

About where I'm at. I hope that the lessons have spread wider than the participants, that's all. —Matthew Brown (T:C) 11:39, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps this discussion needs to go elsewhere, since it is more general that this case. In any case any change will not be agreed before this case is disposed. --Doc 11:43, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't support routine reapplication for RfA, precisely because sysops do pick up enemies doing their job. We elected the Arbcom to make decisions, when an admin truly deserves to be desysoped, Arbcom should just do it, no need for the pretense that the community should do it (which is an open invitation for the sockpuppets and enemies to raise some hell at RfA). And yes, all of my comments above are really about policy in general, not this specific case. NoSeptember 12:01, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Absolutely. Full agreement with NoSeptember. AnnH 12:05, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Excuse me if I'm reading something wrong

Excuse me if I'm reading something wrong here, but I think I feel from the above discussion that people somehow are considering being an admin some sort of badge of honour. It should not be — it's just some extra tools (really useful, true, but you can live without them), and with them some extra responsability. Just as gaining the sysop flag should be no big deal, losing it should also be no big deal. --cesarb 12:29, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

It becomes a part of your persona and can mean a great deal to you. And if the duties are performed vigorously and responsibly mean a great deal to Misplaced Pages. Any time we desysop someone we remove someone who in addition to some mistaken nonsense was probably doing a great deal to advance the project. So, you're excused. Fred Bauder 12:37, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Agreed it CAN mean a great deal to a person. but SHOULD it? Rhetorical question but if it does mean a lot, isn't that potentially a bad thing? ++Lar: t/c 17:58, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Sure, it probably should. Desysoping someone implies that you no longer trust them with the powers given them. I'd be upset, though I wouldn't leave the project (we are, after all, making an encyclopedia here, albeit in an unusual way). - Ta bu shi da yu 14:43, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Vicious circle

Many people apply extremely high standards in RFA precisely because it is so difficult for admins to lose their privileges. A common attitude is to avoid promoting borderline candidates, because if they turn out to be bad we're stuck with them.

A recent straw poll gives strong support for the suggestions that admins should be held more accountable for their (admin) actions than they are now, and that the ArbCom should be less hesitant about de-adminning admins who violate Misplaced Pages rules.

Thus, I predict that once the ArbCom uses deadminning as a sanction more often, the community will be less hesitant to promote candidates with past issues, because reoccurence of those issues can then be dealt with. >Radiant< 12:36, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

On a more specific note, in my opinion Carnildo should be sent to RFA but Ashibaka should not, since Carnildo's actions were worse, and since Ashi has already promised improvement. >Radiant< 12:36, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes, genuine remorse on Ashibaka's part. Fred Bauder 12:39, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

El_C's actions

I think the Arbcom is missing the point in regard's to El_C's actions. Shortly after being unblocked, he immediately blocked the person who had just blocked him with the reason "WP:POINT". The number one rule of being an admin is "don't use your sysop privileges in something with which you are personally involved". I am not saying he should not have his adminship reinstated, but I think the Arbitration Committee should at the very least caution him about using sysop privileges in a dispute he is involved with. Talrias (t | e | c) 14:41, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Strongly agree. His threat/intimidation should not go overlooked either. Johnleemk | Talk 14:48, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

John, can you say whether you're involved in this case as a party, an observer, or a clerk, please? If as a clerk, I'm wondering whether it's appropriate for you to be passing judgment. SlimVirgin 20:44, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

As a clerk, although I'll recuse if you (or anyone else) thinks this has clouded my actions on the case. I don't see how having a personal POV would affect this -- we all have our biases, and I prefer being honest about them instead of pretending I don't have any. It's more fair to all involved that my personal biases be known so that if they appear to be seriously affecting my behaviour, I can be notified. Johnleemk | Talk 03:45, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

It's not that holding an opinion is a problem, John, it's that you appear to be actively trying to incur a remedy against one of the parties, and I'd say that's something the clerks shouldn't be doing. SlimVirgin 03:54, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

If I were actively trying to do this, I'd be doing a lot more than posting a couple of times to the talk page. Johnleemk | Talk 10:47, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

But how is it consistent with your role as a clerk? You are supposed to address the matters of the case fairly - especially in a case like this, where El_C is absent it's the role of the clerk to see to it that his opinion is fairly presented. I cannot see how that is compatible with you calling for harsher penalties against him. Guettarda 12:32, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

He did something that needed doing - Carnildo's actions blatently violated policy. It would have been better to let someone else handle it, but it was more important to send Carnildo a wake-up call. In addition, the number one rule of being an admin is not don't use your sysop privileges in something with which you are personally involved - the number one rule of being an admin is "act in the best interest of the project". While Jimbo's actions are understandable, the fact that El_C got caught up in it is both unfortunate and more than punishment enough. As valuable a contributor as he is, the project should be begging him to come back, not adding insult to injury. Guettarda 14:54, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Blocking is for prevention, not punishment. Admins can do everything but edit while blocked. So what did this accomplish? And since Carnildo was so blatantly abusing the power, what was keeping him from just unblocking? --Phroziac _. o º 15:17, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Having gotten caught by the autoblocker a few days ago, let me tell it, it's a huge shock. Unless you are angry beyond reason, it will give you pause. As for the punishment issue - what I am talking about is calls for the arbcomm to censure El_C more severely - that is punishment. As for blocks - they may be designed to prevent, not punish, but they end up as punishment anyway. Guettarda 15:35, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

I would beg to differ. Reminding El C that intimidation (look at what he said on Carnildo's talk) and punitive blocks are a bad thing is a preventive measure -- not just for him, but for others. People will know the arbcom takes this seriously. Johnleemk | Talk 15:57, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

That is now fortunately incorrect, Phroziac! While blocked, all admin privileges are restricted (they would be as if a non-admin tried to access them), apart from blocking/unblocking. See bug 3801. And to Guettarda, cautioning El_C that he should not use his sysop privileges in a dispute is not a punishment, it is a warning. It's a very important one to send out. Talrias (t | e | c) 18:06, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Wonderful. Now when responsible people get stuck behind the autoblocker, there's no remedy? And here I was thinking that all the truly stupid ideas related to this mess had been worked out. Guettarda 18:42, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

I said, apart from blocking/unblocking. Talrias (t | e | c) 18:50, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Suggested remedy re Dschor and Paroxysm

I was simply wondering whether since Dschor and Paroxysm's offences relate to userboxes, and Dshor certainly has a history of disruption through useboxes ], that Arbcom might consider placing a restriction on them creating or editing further userboxes (perhaps during probation, or even longer). This will not prevent them playing a full role in the encyclopedia, since userboxes are at best peripheral to the project. I hope the suggestion is not intruding. --Doc 18:37, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

I will second any motion or petition which will see Dschor banned from userboxes, placed on probation, or banned outright for repeated and premeditated trolling and disruption. I'm not sure Paroxysm is guilty of anything other than poor judgement when he created that first box, and a comparatively minor WP:POINT violation (relative to where Dschor put the bar) when he created the second one. --MarkSweep (call me collect) 19:59, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Not that the ArbComm require further evidence concerning Dschor, but this is of interest: Misplaced Pages:Deletion review#Template:User pedo. He has requested that the template be restored. ENCEPHALON 23:03, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Admins can now say that they will block on sight editors whose sexuality they disapprove of, regardless of their edits, and this is endorsed by the arbcom? The message is absolutely clear. -- Grace Note.

Oh Grace Note... and just when I thought there was some hope for you yet. . In point of fact, no, admins are explicitely forbidden from doing what you suggest. Had you actually read the proposed decision, you would have seen this: "The Wikimedia Foundation prohibits discrimination against current or prospective users and employees on the basis of race, color, gender, religion, national origin, age, disability, sexual orientation, or any other legally protected characteristics." - http://wikimediafoundation.org/Non_discrimination_policy . Although I am not a lawyer, I do not believe pedophilia is a legally protected characteristic in any jurisdiction in the world. Raul654 04:42, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

I must say, this is rather disturbing. I crafted a template of an inoffensive nature, for my own use, and have been placed under an injunction on the assumption that I was trying to make a point. It seems more likely that the ArbComm is trying to make a point at my expense. I have requested undeletion of the template, as it was speedied out of process, and meets no criteria for deletion. As of now, I am self-imposing a two week hiatus from userbox creation in an effort to demonstrate my good faith. I do not feel that any further action is needed at this time, and will object strenuously to any other injunction or probation. I maintain that I have acted in good faith, and hope that the Arbitration Committee will be generous enough to do the same. --Dschor 00:20, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Dog glasgow's evidence concerning Dschor is interesting when matched against the above comment - David Gerard 00:42, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Those interested in Dschor's good faith may be interested to know that five minutes after leaving the above comment, he restored hiss user page to include {{user pedo}} as well as text versions of it, of his WikiProject Pedophilia userbox, and a box opposing Kelly Martin for the Arbitration Committee (!) — Knowledge Seeker দ 01:01, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

And don't forget about {{User pedophile project}}. --MarkSweep (call me collect) 01:54, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

You are free to draw your own conclusions regarding the actions of Knowledge Seeker in editing my user page - I have made it clear that I do not wish to have my user page altered, and that I request that editors who wish to alter the page discuss changes with me on my talk page. Thanks. --Dschor 01:36, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

taken from your page: This user understands that no user on Misplaced Pages 'owns' any of its pages and welcomes the assistance of others in making this page perfect. -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 02:37, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Oh, the irony is thick... Raul654 03:56, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

A note re: Jimbo

I've stayed out of this issue, and intend to continue to do so, but I'd like to propose a finding of fact/principle that could be useful as a precedent outside this specific issue. I believe the AC should, even though it is obvoius and potentially redundant to say so, include a statement to the effect of:

===Jimbo as the ultimate authority===
12. Jimbo Wales has ultimate authority on any matter. This is a foundation issue of all Wikimedia projects, and is beyond debate. Jimbo is in many contexts an ordinary editor and administrator who performs edits and administrator actions that are subject to being changed due to community consensus, and indeed encourages others to challenge his editor/admin actions when necessary. However, there are also instances where Jimbo acts in accordance with his ultimate authority, and it is expected and obligatory that every member of the Misplaced Pages community abide by his orders irrespective of the individual's personal view on the action. (Definition of "abide": Subject to criticism, outrage, comment, appeal to the Board, but not to be reversed, not to be warred over, not to be defied, in essence: not tampered with and accepted as final.) The Board of Trustees is empowered to review such decisions by Jimbo, but in the absence of a decision by the Board to overrule, Jimbo's orders are final, and must be treated as such. The community is free and welcome to comment on and criticize such actions, but they are not free, welcome, or permitted to reverse or otherwise act in defiance of such actions. Editors and/or administrators who act in deliberate defiance of an authoritative action by Jimbo are subject to sanctions, including blocking and desysopping, particularly temporary/emergency desysopping.

My intent in proposing this is to remind the community that when Jimbo acts as "the Founder," it is unacceptible to defy his orders. Certainly, it is acceptable to disagree, comment on, and criticize actions that one opposes, and doing so should be encouraged. However, the recent trend (I'm thinking back to the Category:Living People deal) to defy Jimbo's orders is disturbing and unacceptable. A common response to "Jimbo has the final say" is "No, the Board can overrule him" and this is often seized upon by those who do defy his orders. In the absence of an actual Board vote to overrule his decision, there is no justification for reversing or otherwise defying his orders. None, period. I'm speaking of active defiance, such as undoing a block or deleting a category, rather than something passive like refusing to block a user (as another admin can and will do it) or refusing to add articles to the disputed category. We are not automatons; we can refrain in protest from taking actions, but taking opposing actions (or reversing actions) crosses the line into the inappropriate. The community needs to be reminded that while the Board is an avenue of appeal from Jimbo's orders, it is not within the authority of the community to act in definace of his orders unless the Board has actually overruled him.

I realize that this is something that should be common sense to most users, but quite unfortunately, there has been enough support expressed for active defiance of Jimbo's orders for this to require restating. The community needs to be reminded that while we are free to disagree with Jimbo, we are compelled to respect that his authority exceeds our own. Essjay 01:04, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Oops, forgot one note: While m:Foundation issues mentions that the ArbCom as a potential exception to Jimbo's final authority, the Arbitration policy specifically states emedies and enforcement actions may be appealed to, and are subject to veto by, Jimbo Wales as well as Jimbo's own disclaimer when he created the AC that he reserve the right of executive clemency and indeed even to dissolve the whole thing if it turns out to be a disaster. Just a clarification before someone says "But m:Foundation issues says..." Essjay 01:09, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

If it is at all appropriate, I second this motion and urge the ArbCom to adopt it in part or in full. It can't hurt, it can only help. Hamster Sandwich 01:52, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Has the Board ever overruled Jimbo? And if so, how long did it take to do so? --Aaron 16:48, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

No. I doubt they ever will. Sam Korn 16:56, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Jimbo is in many contexts an ordinary editor and administrator who performs edits and administrator actions that are subject to being changed due to community consensus...

This is hard to take seriously. It is usually completely unclear when Jimbo is making an action as an ultimate authority and when he's making an "ordinary" action as an editor or administrator. As long as he makes little or no effort to draw this distinction anyone reverting any action of his does so at her peril. - Haukur 16:59, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't know about an "ordinary administrator", but it's pretty easy to see his actions as an "ordinary editor": anything he does that an ordinary editor can do can be construed as being the actions of an "ordinary editor", unless he explicitly says so in an edit summary or commentary. I saw an example mentioned earlier where a stub he created was speedied by another admin who did not receive any disciplinary action. Creating a stub is something that an ordinary editor can do. I think trying to define Jimbo as an "ordinary administrator" would be a difficult exercise, but defining him as an "ordinary editor" is certainly quite easy to do. --Deathphoenix 18:03, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

I won't dispute that it is often hard to tell which is which; I was just trying to make the point that there is a distinction, even if it is difficult to determine when it has been invoked. I'm sure if we asked him nicely and explained that we're frequently confused, he'd be willing to make himself more clear in the future. Essjay 17:58, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Clarification re my 2-day sysop revocation

Just so I'm crystal clear on this, what action(s) merited the 2-day sysop revocation dealie (which appears to have passed)? Is it my altercation with David Gerard, my single restore, or a mixture of the two? I'd just like to be clear on what merited the revocation—not protesting it in the slightest. God knows I deserve it. Should have just kept my nose out of the whole business. —BorgHunter (talk) 03:51, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

A combination of the two. Raul654 03:53, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Wow, that was a fast response. Thanks, Mark. —BorgHunter (talk) 03:54, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

And to be clear on the "altercation," for me the desysop-worthy part was the vandalism warnings/block threat. Dmcdevit·t 03:56, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Reprimand

"Carbonite, El C, BorgHunter, MarkSweep, and Violetriga are reprimanded for inappropriate use of their administrator tools, and are instructed to exercise more caution in using them in the future."

Just thought I'd question this as I'm not really sure how my actions were that different from those of Jimbo. Yes, he has higher authority, but deleting something that is offensive, as this was, is hardly worthy of a reprimand especially when the majority are already showing that it should be removed. Further, the TfD was updated to show the content of the template and the only real use of the template was within one persons user page (and that was as a joke). It's a userbox, not a massively important part of the encyclopedia. violet/riga (t) 10:28, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

I am arguably at least as much at fault as violet/riga. If you're going to make this decision, I should be joindered to the case. In any case, I don't think it is particularly just to throw everyone in together when each acted differently and at different times: at the very least it should be

"The following users are reprimanded for inappropriate use of their administrator tools:

Carbonite: block contrary to WP:BP (User:Joeyramoney)

etc.

I would be particularly interested to know what is held against MarkSweep, who seems to me to have acted with admirable restraint. Physchim62 (talk) 15:59, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

"cautioned to exercise more care" (or restraint) might be a better wording than "instructed to execise more caution", depending on exactly the arbitrators wish to express. Physchim62 (talk) 15:59, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

So...

... I undeleted one of Doc glasgow's deletes. Does this mean I have engaged in Wheel Warring? I was going to unblock Netoholic because of Radiant's block: I didn't get there because another admin beat me to it, but I would have done it. Does this mean that I have engaged in Wheel warring? Does this mean that I should be desysopped. If so, get it over and done with. I won't leave, but I also won't be a useful to the project. A bit rough on poor old Netoholic also, might I add. - Ta bu shi da yu 14:30, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Contradictions in the proposed decision

Hi, I think there are a few contradictions between the proposed principles, the findings of fact and the proposed remedies. Firstly, the proposed principle 10.2 about Misplaced Pages being open to all is at odds with finding of fact 6, where Carnildo is declared to have "misused" admin powers for blocking three people who declared their intention to breach the Foundation's non-discrimination policy. While only one of the people Carnildo blocked had actually blocked someone for including the template, blocking is preventative and El_C's statement "Block on sight. No quarter. El_C 14:46, 5 February 2006 (UTC)" is very clear on the actions El_C would take faced with a similar situation. Carnildo's indefinite block (a distinction between infinite needs to be drawn here) against Carbonite and El_C is clearly a preventative block intended to stop them from breaching the Foundation's policy. The Foundation's policies trump all community-created policies, such as our blocking policy.

There is also the case that the proposed principle mentioned above, 10.2, is at odds with various proposed remedies, where the people who threatened to block self-identified paedophiles (in breach of the Foundation's policy) are getting off in some cases without even a warning, while the person who took measures to prevent them from doing so will be desyopped. Talrias (t | e | c) 18:26, 8 February 2006 (UTC)