I placing a notice of this here, rather than on the sub page, or further down this page, because it is related to the above incident. I can only assume that Zscout370 expected it. What he may not have expected is that I intend the desysopping to be short term, 1 week only, assuming we can talk productively about this.
For those who have not followed along. I banned a longtime abusive problem user who had slipped through the cracks by being just annoying enough to get indef blocked and reinstated multiple times, and I asked for calm over the weekend. Zscout370 instead wheel warred with me by unblocking and making snide remarks. Well, no. Admins don't do that. Not to any admin.--Jimbo Wales19:04, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, what a terrible idea Jimmy. Desysopping is for emergencies, not vindictive retaliation. Where is the preventive aspect of this matter? Obviously a large aspect of the community disagrees with you on the block. This is honestly a terrible terrible move. PS, Zscout didn't wheel war. By definition of wheel war, you're the only one who has wheelwarred here. ⇒SWATJesterSon of the Defender19:10, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There is nothing vindictive about it. It's only a week. And it is preventative in the sense that it sends a strong signal: we do not unblock users like this without a very good reason, we do not unblock after any admin signals for a period of calm.--Jimbo Wales21:01, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sometimes admins make bad blocks of good contributors. We have to be able to review them quickly and undo them if appropriate, even if the blocking admin "signals for a period of calm", because it is humiliating and depressing to be blocked. You keep confusing the things you can and cannot do with those a normal admin can and cannot do. A normal admin cannot say: "Now, we're going to do as I say for now and then we can have a nice discussion for a few days and maybe change things later if we agree on that." A normal admin can't say that because there's nothing preventing another normal admin from coming along and saying: "No, we're going to do as I say for now and then have a discussion." This is one of the fundamental dynamics of Wikipedia: Everyone is only too willing to have a calm discussion - as long as their preferred situation prevails in the meantime. But obviously not everyone can always negotiate from a position of strength. You can, though, and that's the difference between you and everyone else which you continually fail to comprehend. Haukur18:54, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is completely unwarranted and a horrible decision. Zscout's unblocking was unwise, yes. However, he felt the block was inappropriate, and undid it once. A "wheel war" is generally considered to constitute repeated undoing of administrative actions. (Are WP:BOLD and WP:IAR no longer considered relevant?) On the other hand, Mr. Wales, it seems completely improper for you to be directly using your powers as a steward to basically punish someone who disagrees with you. --krimpet⟲19:17, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
He should not have undone it at all. This is a well-established principle, and not one to be violated lightly. He wanted to make a point. Well, he made it.--Jimbo Wales21:01, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I blocked MONGO last week for 72 hours under what I felt were very similar circumstances: a long-time abusive editor who has consistently flouted our civility and no-personal-attcks policies over the long term. There was a similar reaction on AN/I. Another admin unblocked him without my consent within half an hour; an action which I personally disagreed with. If I had steward permissions like yours, do you feel I should have desysopped this admin then? If not, how is this situation different? krimpet⟲21:07, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think if you comp[are the mainspace edits of MONGO and Miltopia you will see the essential difference. You might also care to compare their prior block logs, looking especially for long or indefinite blocks. Perhaps you might also consider what prior interactions Jimmy had had with Miltopia (i.e. none, as far as I can tell). Finally, you might care to read what Jimmy posted here about the block. There is, I would say, no comparison at all. Guy (Help!) 21:48, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am already aware of your and others' opinion on the merits/demerits of each block, JzG. My point is that I, like Jimbo, strongly felt that a block was necessary in that case - and I still strongly believe this - but another admin, like Zscout370 in this case, disagreed and reversed that block. Jimbo is saying that reversing an admin decision such as this equates to wheel warring. How, then, was it not also considered wheel warring for another user to undo a block that I personally strongly felt was necessary? My point is, neither was a wheel war, and a desysopping is completely out-of-line in both cases. krimpet⟲22:10, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think Jimbo wants people with the sysop bit who are likely to undo blocks he and other arbitrators place as part of an ongoing review of the current state of play with respect to harassment and stalking, on and off Wikipedia. I think I agree with him. I suspect Zscout would too. I believe it's a bad call, and he'll learn from it; I don't heink Zscout is a dab guy at all. Guy (Help!) 22:23, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Jimbo did not, however, claim the block of Miltopia was being performed under an official capacity, such as an ArbCom or OFFICE action. Had it been clearly announced as such, a desysopping may have been more understandable as the penalties for reversing such actions are hefty and well-known. However, it seems to me, and to most of the others in this debate - and this lies at the root of much of the drama going on - that Jimbo intended this block as "just another admin," so to speak. krimpet⟲22:40, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Zscout said that Miltopia had done nothing blockable recently. I disagree. [1], for example. Miltopia was trolling in favoutr of links to ED, and doing nothign for the project to offset that drama. Jimbo doesn't need to claim an "official" capacity, we need to look at blocks and unblocks in terms of service to the encyclopaedia. A long-time troll with a block log like Miltopias, blocked by a very long-standing admin and arbotrator, seems to me to require a really good reaosn for unblocking. I would not unblock anyone blocked by Jimbo or any other arbitrator unless there was a really solid consensus for it. Guy (Help!) 22:45, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, but doing it a lot and combining that with a negligible contribution to the encyclopaedia is. We seem to have rather lost sight of the fact that this is not a social networking site where anarchy rules and you can't be blocked unless the blocking admin brings the right kind of shrubbery. Wikipedia is first, last, and everything in between, an encyclopaedia. People whose principal contribution to the project is to create drama or shout from the sidelines as others try to wrestle content from the hands of POV-pushers, are counterproductive. We have a real and pressing problem with rebuffed POV-pushers harassing those who resist theier attempts to hijack this project, and people who support these harassers, or even just enable them by impeding attempts to rid the project of them, have been tolerated for far too long. We do not need people whose sole function is to be gadflies. Guy (Help!) 09:38, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with jester and krimpet, far be it from me to argue with the boss, especially as i support milotopia's block, but i didn't notice any snide remarks from zscout, in fact they did seem to agree that milotopia was a problem. I can't really see any justification for a desysop, even a temporary one--Jac1688819:20, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
How is it wheel warring? I see him unblocking exactly once, with the comment "I checked the recent contribs and I see nothing that is blockworthy, blocking for something in April, then bolting is not a good idea" which doesn't seem "snide" to me. On ANI, he added "Pretty much, I didn't see anything recently that is blockworthy. Whatever he did in the past, he was blocked for. I even interacted with the user before, I found him civil in all regards. Anyways, if you want to block someone, just wait and get a full consensus, then just block then bolt for a trip". Where's the snide remark? <eleland/talkedits>19:18, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"Bolt for a trip". Check the definition. A panicked deer "bolts" for cover, implicit in the use of the word is that JWales jumped into hiding or somesuch nonsense. Sounds pretty snide. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 19:25, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I must say I was shocked by this desysopping. Zscout seemed to have no intention of undoing Jimbo's block again. I do think Zscout was at fault to undo the block of Miltopia, but I do not think this desysopping was the best way to handle the situation. --Deskana(talk)19:20, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
He is lucky it was for as short as it was. We must stop the troll coddling that has caused so much drama and pain to good users. Unblocking in this particular case was unwise, but the worst part of it is lack of respect for another admin's request.--Jimbo Wales21:01, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The reversal of Jimbo's decision was probabyl done in haste, true. However, a desysop is taking it too far. It's not a wheel war, since WP:WHEEL explicitly states that one reversal is not a wheel war. I don't see snide remarks either. Looks like both parties acted in haste here, methinks. Wizardman19:24, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You quote the exact wording to a technical end... and did not counter the argument made in the spirit of the rule. That my good comrades, is what I believe to be rules lawyering. I believe this desysop was made in the spirit of WHEEL, if you read the blockers original first statement vis a vis the block. Mercury19:36, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The spirit of the rule? Far from it. WP:WHEEL explicitly states multiple times that a single reversion of an admin's actions is NOT a wheel war. I don't know where you're getting "spirit of the rule" from, but you need to review WP:WHEEL. ⇒SWATJesterSon of the Defender19:37, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If I do an action and ask you not to undo without discussion, what is it then when you do undo my action without talking with me? Mercury19:44, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds like a pretty technical distinction to me. The spirit of "don't wheel-war" is to use discussion, rather than contrary use of the buttons, to make points. It's like how the spirit of 3RR is 0RR, i.e., don't push back; talk. -GTBacchus(talk)20:05, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No. A wheel-war is a full-blown...well...war, not a skirmish of a single overturn. I don't see how that concept is technical. While the spirit of 3RR is 0RR, it does not mean "desysop on first overturn" by any stretch of imagination. — Kurykh20:08, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not claiming it does mean that. I just think that, if you take "don't wheel war" to the logical extreme, you'll arrive at "don't reverse someone's admin action without talking with them first". Splitting the hairs between "skirmish," "war," "battle," "tea party,"... that's what feels lawyerish to me. -GTBacchus(talk)20:12, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
and if they just stonewall and then overturn is that wheelwaring? It's a wiki if you can't stand haveing your actions reversed don't make them.Geni20:14, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, if they won't discuss, then you discuss with others, establish that there is consensus support for reversing their actions, and then do so (or let someone else do so). It might be better, with admin actions, to go straight from B to D, skipping R until discussion of some kind has occurred. -GTBacchus(talk)23:58, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is beginning to worry me more and more actually. Basically what just occurred here is that Zscout370 was not desysopped for wheel warring, but just for disagreeing with Jimbo. If another person involved in the wheel war is not desysopped, why should one side be? Metros19:45, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with the above. Zscout370 was acting in good faith when he made this unblock. He explicitly stated that if the block was remade, he would not undo it a second time. I thought desysopping was preventative, not punitive, but this certainly seems to be preventing no damage to Wikipedia while punishing Zscout370 for reversing a block of yours. Please consider undoing this action, and forwarding the matter to arbcom if you still think he should be desysopped for the rest of the week. Picaroon(t)19:30, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(ec x 10) While I disagreed with Zscout370's unblocking of Miltopia, I feel he did it in good faith and can't really see much justification in a temporary de-sysopping at this point. It's not like it's being preventative at this stage - Alison❤19:34, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ouch. When this happens to one of our most prolific Featured article writers because of this accumulation of unclear blocking and unblocking and banning policies, it's ... a concern. I'm having a hard time understanding all of it lately. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:35, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Jimbo has indicated he will restore Zscout's sysop flag:
18:59, 28 October 2007 Jimbo Wales (Talk | contribs) changed rights for User:Zscout370 from sysop to (none) (wheel warring - I will restore your adminship myself in a week's time assuming we talk and all goes well)
He indicated he might arbitrarily restore the sysop flag, which by clear opinion above should never have been removed. Either way, the project is hurt for at least a week, if not longer with the residual effects. ⇒SWATJesterSon of the Defender19:39, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A terrible decision. It wasn't even a wheelwar. I can imagine that if this was an "office" type action it would be more appropriate, but this is pure retaliation. Jimmy banned Miltopia out of the blue... normally, we have a discussion or *something* before doing that, luckily most agreed with the decision. But any admin can undo a community ban, if they disagree. If this was not Jimmy Wales doing this, just a steward, no doubt they'd have their privs removed immediately. Majorly (talk) 19:40, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There may well have been a discussion, but not one that was public. I would refer to the initial notice of Jimbo's block of Miltopia; there was a very quick response of "support" comments, and only later did any opposes start being made. It seems that there were a few that were aware that Jimbo was about to take that action. It also appears that Jimbo is not completely out of communication reach as regards the current matter of debate proves; therefore there are possibly some who in contact regarding the entire matter. LessHeard vanU19:57, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The temporary desysop is fine, it's well within the defacto role JWales occupies as defined by the community and what they will and won't accept. If that role needs to be changed, then it should be done formally. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 19:44, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That's a dreadful de-sysop, IMHO. WP:WHEEL is quite clear about what is and isn't a wheel-war, and this wasn't one. Yes, Zscout could've phrased his message a little better, but apart from that... ELIMINATORJR19:49, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The desysop is a poor idea for lots of reasons. I didn't agree with Zscout's unblock either, but this seems way too harsh. I always thought of Wikipedia as being like a sort of constitutional monarchy; if it is to become an absolute monarchy I think I would have to reconsider my participation. Please think again about the wisdom of micromanaging the community like this. --John19:52, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"Well, no. Admins don't do that. Not to any admin." This seems to me to be a move towards 0RR for admin actions. In some ways I support that - in non-emergencies admin actions should be overturned by concensus not by another admin simply disagreeing (with obvious exceptions for vandalism - compromised/rogue accounts etc). However, I have long been of the opinion that Community consensus is that a wheel war takes more than that and that 0RR on admin actions is contrary to the spirit of WP:BOLD. if simply reverting another admin is desysop worthy, we are looking at a lot more desysoppings in future... WjBscribe20:01, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If you want to interpret the event in terms of rules, it seems possibly to indicate the BRD does not apply to admin actions. Do people generally agree with that statement, I wonder? -GTBacchus(talk)20:09, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ridiculous. You make a block you know will be controversial and then leave for a weekend, basically daring someone to undo your block in your parting message, and then act surprised when you come back? And then de-sysop someone over it? Way to create some Wikidrama there. --Gwern (contribs) 20:21 28 October2007 (GMT)
I fail to see how asking people to stay calm until Monday amounts to "daring someone to undo". Quite the opposite. It was asking, very politely, that we NOT have this drama.--Jimbo Wales21:01, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That's one way to characterize it, certainly... The more accurate way to describe it would be more 'I fail to see how asking people to stomach what they see as a needless and provocative action for days solely on my say so was not daring someone to undo it. Quite the opposite. It quite effectively asked that we have this drama.'
I'd note that I am not the only one who saw it as a quite provocative set of actions - I noticed other people in #wikipedia at the time took it in quite the same spirit. --Gwern (contribs) 02:48 30 October2007 (GMT)
I support 0RR for admin actions. This will avoid much trouble and drama. If there's a problem, talk about it and get consensus before using tools. Bold-revert-discuss is for article editing, not blocking and unblocking. - JehochmanTalk20:51, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
the problem with that is that it gives a massive first mover advantage. So someone delets something they should not have. Action takes a week to undo rather than seconds. This is not acceptable.Geni20:54, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Users applying 0RR to themselves is something with which I am okay, but, as Geni said, having it set hard in a policy has "bad idea" written all over it. If it were to be implemented into policy, it would open the door to more wikidrama, wikilawyering, and instruction creep. Bad idea. —Animum (etc.) 21:45, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"Not acceptable"? What's our deadline? If you're talking about a "massive first mover advantage," then you're already thinking of Wikipedia way too much in terms of a "game" with "rules". That's a lawyerly perspective that it would be advantageous to drop. -GTBacchus(talk)00:02, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Poor idea. (The desysop that is). While I'm fine with Jimbo invoking demiGod status to ban someone, the way the original notice was phrased seem to suggest that he wasn't invoking divine status. ZScout made a good faith revert, and then discussed. While the unblock may have been a bad idea, desysopping seems a bit much for failing to interpret whether or not Jimbo had invoked Monarch rights on the issue. --Bfigura(talk)20:58, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What the hell?! This is the stupidest thing I've heard here in a long time. This is just completely arbitrary. Now we're just desysopping for purely punitive reasons based on rules Jimbo just makes up on the fly? This is ridiculous. Mr.Z-man21:02, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see any justification in desysopping an established administrator who performed an action in good faith. Have WP:IAR and WP:BOLD lost all weight? east.718at 21:10, 10/28/2007
Jimbo seems not to be invoking any special "god-king" powers, but is stating that he acted, and expected to be treated, exactly as any other admin. However, it's long been a principle that a community ban is "a block that no other admin is willing to undo". This concept is meaningless if undoing a block is considered disrepectful and a desysopping offense. *Dan T.*21:13, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I interpreted his original post as stating that he was open to discussion (or at least explaining his actions) when he returned, which could imply some openness to change. (I still think the unblock was a bad idea though). Best, --Bfigura(talk)21:25, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If admins cannot act according to the rules, policies and guidelines without the threat of sanction outside of those same rules, etc (even if it is only the one person able to do that) then what is the point of rules, policies and guidelines? Bad decision, bad precedent and (in view of the donation drive) extremely bad timing. LessHeard vanU21:20, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Poor idea. (The desysop that is). This is just one more action that makes me feel JWales should not be micromanaging Wikipedia... does not the blocking policy make clear blocks are not 'punishments'? Than the same thing goes for something as drastic as a desysop. Saying "boo hoo, it's just a week" does not make it better, Jimmy. David Fuchs (talk)21:24, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The community has described wheel warring in some detail. Both 1/ undoing another's actions, and 2/ undoing anothers actions when they have posted a request to the contrary, are both explicitly in that list as non-wheeling. WP:BLOCK states that there should be consultation, but by both practice and communal norms, discretion is allowed within wide limits of reason. So the starting point is really WP:AGF -- it is clear that Zscout was acting in what the community has described as a possible approach, and it is clear from his unblock rationale that he had considered this carefully. It is hard to say that any of this was a risk of future abuse of tools, insofar as 1/ it is all well within widely respected communal limits and 2/ he had posted to allow review, and 3/ he had made clear he would respect different further opinions.
The fact the block will or won't revert shortly or has or hasn't been promised to be undone, is not at issue. The question is whether an administrator should be effectively punished (whether by desysopping or by having his removal of access maintained despite communal consensus) for following a communal norm with someone who can desysop if they feel the act incorrect, when this would not be permitted to be the case by the community, with any other dissenting party. The best action might be to shake hands, undo all actions. A mistake was made: mistakes happen. Everyone here is capable of judging that and not dramatizing when it happens. FT2(Talk | email)21:28, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed with everyone else here. This is an ill-advised decision and not a good thing. Hopefully when Jimbo sees that he is on the wrong side of this discussion, he will restore ZScout's flag without delay, or requiring any terms or compromise. SirFozzie21:32, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I personally believe this was an ill thought out desysop. Whilst I agree that Zscout's unblock was poor form, I have seen nothing to suggest it was made in anything but good faith. In your original block notice here, you made no suggestion that you were invoking any kind of special powers when making what was clearly a controversial block (although one I happen to agree with myself). You also made it very clear you were going away for a couple of days, making any immediate discourse over the block with you impossible. As such, I find it very hard to see why you would "assume that Zscout370 expected [to be desysopped]". Furthermore, I completely disagree with the kind of sentiment "It is only for a week. It'll be fine". That's not how I'd describe taking the tools away from a valuable admin and, completely unsurprisingly, causing a huge amount of unnecessary drama in the process. And since Zscout seemed to make it very clear he had no intention of repeating his action, how was this desysop anything but punitive? Will (aka Wimt) 21:34, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
We should frame this in gold. I don't think I've ever seen so many people agree on anything on ANI. That should tell you something... EconomicsGuy21:36, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What exactly did Zscout370 expect? Jimbo made a decision and said he would be back in a few days to discuss it. Its not as if there was consensus it was a bad decision, yet Zscout370 had to take it upon himself to over-rule in the meantime. And now he is desysopped for a week, big surprise! We can all pretend that Jimbo's actions are no different than the rest of us, just like we pretend that admin actions are no different from some random IP's. Yeah, right, thats that the policies say, but it doesn't work that way in practice and we all know it. Zscout370 also presumably appreciates that now, so perhaps he can be resysopped and we all get back to writing an article or something. Rockpocket21:36, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rockpocket, your comment is somewhat ambiguous. On the one hand you seem to be saying that 'the policies say Jimmy is no different but we all know thats not so', and complaining that Jimmy isn't treated the same as others. At the same time you seem to be according a special place by saying that Zscout was hopelessly out of line for making an admin decision to undo a block that he felt was ill-founded in a way that happens routinely and is never desysopped for. The one thing that's sure is, Jimmy had made clear in his note, that the basis of the block was 'no genuine intent to contribute to an encyclopedia, more seriously, net effect is overall negative'. It's very likely Zscout would have examined that record and rationale very carefully, before dissenting as he did. If he did so, then this may reflect on Zscout's integrity as an admin, that he would treat it exactly as any other block would be treated, rather than accord it a special untouchable place due to the identity of the blocker. Can you clarify your comment a bit, for others here? Thanks. FT2(Talk | email)21:56, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It was purposefully ambiguous because, for me, the rights or wrongs of either Jimmy's or Zscout's administrative actions are somewhat secondary. What is obvious, is Zscout must have known his action would create a whole lot more problems than it would solve. As an admin myself, I would never undo any other admin's actions without discussing it with them first. Firstly, its just common courtesy, but secondly, I'm experienced enough to know that not doing so inevitably creates more drama. When the admin in question is Jimbo, one would have to be incredibly naive to think it would be a good move. Likewise, Jimmy must know that desysopping Zscout would simply makes things worse. So, my point is simply this: drama begets drama. Irrespective of the rights or wrongs of any action, stirring the pot simply escalates things. This is something both Jimmy, Zscout and the peanut gallery should know by now. Rockpocket22:39, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Good move by Jimbo. Zscout370 wasted no time undoing the block despite everyone being asked to wait till Monday. Has it never occurred to the ego's with admin buttons that there just could be more to this than meets the eye and that they should respect the wishes of Jimbo and wait a while? A week to understand what a responsibility having the admin tools is will do him good, and hopefully remind others that the tools are to be used for the benefit of the whole community and not just there for them to express their freedom of opinion. Sophia21:38, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Don't mistake loud wails from those with lots of time on their hands for consensus. We don't need a hivemind set up but we also don't need a lack of respect or consideration for the bigger picture. Zscouts block was not BOLD it was rash - also smacks of WP:POINT. A week to think seems well earned. He can still put his point forward but he'll need wider support to get any action - just like the rest of us editors. Admins need to understand this. Sophia21:51, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This was no ordinary revert. Zscout knew what he was doing and that it would stir up a hornet's nest. No doubt the drama here was worth a week without the tools. Sophia23:21, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
ZBecause ZScout has such a big rep for seeking out wikidrama and NOT for being an admin with a solid head on his shoulders? ZScout was BOLD in the face of an absent admin, who wasn't available for defending his action. That's the only way to take this, unless we're to take all this as Jimbo moving Wikipedia towards autocracy. ThuranX23:53, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent move. This is the only way to clearly show the community that harassment, and wheel-warring to re-instate harassers, are absolutely unacceptable. And yes, reversing a block without consulting the blocking admin, and without a clear consensus for reversal (preferably both) is wheel-warring. Anybody who wants to harass editors and/or protect harassers, should, in Jimbo's words, find another hobby. Crum37521:39, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:WHEEL "A wheel war starts when a privileged action is repeated without an attempt to form consensus after it was reverted. Thus a single reversion of a privileged action (for example, one admin deletes a page and a second admin undeletes it) is not considered a wheel war; a wheel war would start if the page was deleted a second time without an effort to find consensus. Although admin actions may be reverted once, it it often worth discussing the original admin action before undoing it, especially when it is not clear whether the original action was appropriate." ⇒SWATJesterSon of the Defender21:42, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is not a deletion issue. It has to do with a respected admin blocking a disruptive user, after much consideration. Without consulting with the blocking admin, there is no way to know the extent of the evidence, or the complete reasoning. Therefore, especially without a consensus, such action is purely disruptive. Crum37521:51, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Crum, this situation has come up before, and that's just not how we communally handle well-reputed admins who block or unblock within policy and practice, with good faith and clear comment, but whose judgement of an admin action is questionable on one occasion. Your judgement is poor on this one. The usual action in response to a questionable unblock decision of a problem editor, performed by an experienced admin without consulting the blocking admin, is still as always (present emergency aside), good faith, calm presentation of both sides, and discussion. This exact scenario coincidentally happened very recently in the case of Proabivouac (link), and despite strong criticism and demand for explanation, even so, I see no sign that sanction was on anyone's radar. (I'm assuming there isn't a history of poor judgement; if so it's not implied by the proposal to resysop in a week). FT2(Talk | email)22:06, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There are cases that are so egregious that require no deep thinking. In this case, you have an admin who decides that he knows better than another respected admin who blocked, and reverses, without ever consulting with the blocking admin or even waiting for consensus. This is a clear case of misusing the tools, and warrants instant de-sysopping. Crum37522:34, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You have a mighty peculiar definition of a "clear case" that requires no "deep thinking"... in this case, you can see from the other responses on this page that your view is far from unanimous... in fact it's a minority view. That doesn't make it wrong, but it certainly casts doubt as to the "clear" obviousness of it. *Dan T.*23:07, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What consideration? Is there anyone party to any prior discussion? We have been given no rationale other than an example of an edit from April 2007 and an undefined mention of disruptive editing. Many admins have been unable to find any recent disruption. More, including those who approved the initial block, have been made uneasy regarding both the action and reasons given for the desysopping. Whatever consideration Jimbo took, alone or in consultation with whoever, was insufficient to forsee the consequences of either action. It is therefore an unreliable reason for not questioning it. LessHeard vanU22:24, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly how is "harrassment" involved in this, anyway? That word seems to be dragged in all too often to describe anything the speaker personally dislikes. *Dan T.*22:22, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I strongly disagree with this move by Jimbo. There was no wheel warring; the block was undone once. We should be having discussion, not a firefight with the tools. -- Anonymous DissidentTalk21:47, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. This would suggest that the desysop was performed for opposing Jimbo. (And while Jimbo certainly has the right to ban/desysop unilaterally, this isn't really in line with the justification he provided at the top of this thread). --Bfigura(talk)22:16, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This was a bad decision, even with the false sense of generosity created by the fact that you only desysopped him for a week. Zscout did not "wheel war" and this sets the poor precedent that disagreeing with you could result in a harsh punitive action. Zscout should not have "expected" this, and it's quite disappointing and disconcerting that you thought (s)he should have. -- tariqabjotu21:53, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't have a serious problem with temporary removal of adminship for any wheel war, although I suspect some people might. But nobody else has ever been desysopped for reversing a block unilaterally. If you're going to make punishment more severe when you disagree with it, Jimbo, at least be nice enough to SAY so. -Amarkovmoo!21:56, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Good temporary desysop if you ask me. As Jimbo said, Zscout must have expected it - we should have respect for Jimbo and you should know that if you unblock someone who Jimbo has banned, you have to expect the consequences. Ryan Postlethwaite22:00, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As I undertand it (and this may have changed with the change of ArbCom election and independance), but Jimbo blocks have the force of ArbCom blocks. It was a very poor decision to unblock when a) Jimbo said he would discuss it in 48 hours and b) he made it clear that he wanted the block to remain in force for that period. The community was very clear that they thought the unblock was extremely poor judgement. If Zscout had just unblocked someone ArbCom had permabanned and then refuse to reinstate it after community consensus asked him to, desysopping is the only option. I personally think Jimbo is going a little light and Zscout should have to stand for another RfA because, quite frankly, those types of actions cause him to lose the trust of the community. --DHeyward22:03, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I also oppose this action for many of the reasons stated above. I did not support Zscout's unblock under the circumstances but I believe this is a serious overreaction. Moreover, while Jimbo assuredly has the right to take unilateral actions based on his unique, if somewhat ill-defined, governance role, his use of that authority should generally be reserved for emergency situations and those which, for privacy, legal, or other reasons, are not suited for on-wiki discussion. (And there can be no doubt today, as there was on Friday, that Jimbo has acted "qua Jimbo" rather than as "just another admin"; otherwise, he would be using steward tools in a dispute to which he is a party, which would plainly be impermissible.) Finally, I also submit that the desysopping was especially ill-thought if the goal was to avoid drama. The controversy from Friday was fading (note that Miltopia has not even posted an unblock request; see my comments on the sub-page), and now here we are again. If Miltopia hypothetically were as much a single-purpose bad-faith troll as the block notice suggests, then he would be laughing his head off right now. Newyorkbrad22:04, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Poorly played, Jimbo. I don't think your authority should have been used in this situation. Perhaps it would have been best to discuss the next course of action for Zscout370. As NYB pointed out, this just amplifies the level of wikidrama. Nishkid64 (talk)22:10, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I also don't see how this is preventative. Your explanation makes the desysopping seem like it is punitive. Zscout370 has probably learned his lesson from the drama that has ensued over the whole situation, and going as far as desysopping to make a clear point to other administrators is frankly...wrong. Nishkid64 (talk)22:14, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Nishkid, Miltopia is a troll, but why did Jimbo suddenly blocked him, there should have been some discussion first. Jimbo should not get special status from any other user and the desyropping is completely wrong and indicates that Jimbo himself wheel-warned, and did the desyrop in a personal matter. This indicates that this project is failing, and I can't trust Jimbo to run this site. Jbeachsup22:24, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's like this: how often does Jimbo indefinitely block someone? here's the log. Not often. And as far as I can tell, only after a lot of consideration, and he's also open to persuasion (hence Ombudsman's unblock). When you have an admin who makes many blocks, and the editor blocked has a long history of good contributions, then a debate will often give them the benefit of the doubt and unblock again. But that's not what happened here. What happened here was a block, with rather a lot of support, with a very clearly stated reason, of a user with little of value in their mainspace contributions ut a long and inglorious history of outright trolling. In fact, a user who takes great delight in drama and did, I believe, at one stage have a "User Worthless troll" userbox or category on their user page. Miltopia has also been prodding MONGO with a sharp stick for as long as I can recall. Enough is enough, and enough was a long time ago. Wikipedia needs to lose some people who are only here for the LULZ or to press some kind of agenda, and restore the balance in favour of building a neutral encyclopaedia. Guy (Help!) 22:13, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The issue isn't whether or not the unblock was wrong, which is agreed upon even more widely than the block itself. The issue is that Zscout was desysopped for this, while he would not have been if you were the one who blocked instead. Nobody would have even considered desysopping him. -Amarkovmoo!22:29, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Seems like a good call to me...regardless of how he might have felt about the block, we were asked to chill through the weekend. There was no hurry and the unblock ensured that the heat would be raised dramatically. That's a bad thing in general and really poor judgment...he thought 2 days of editing rights was worth a firefight. No admin should ever make that choice. A week on the bench is fine...but I don’t think an RFA needs to be run, I hope his rights are reinstated after a week. And all this wiki-lawyering about WHEEL is misplaced, anyone who knows the effect such an action would have and still does it needs a reminder about what being an admin here means. (if, somehow he didn't know it cause such a stink it reflects even worse on his admin skills). RxS22:20, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Using such poor judgment as an admin has consequences, I can't imagine why people thinkthere shouldn't be any. And that an action as mild as a week without the admin tools causes so much foot stomping is pretty unbelievable. I bet he expected at least this result if not worse. We need fewer cowboy admins, and fewer people defending them. RxS23:30, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Bad desysop. [/Bishzilla remove little godking from comfy pocket, deposit him on big hard WP:ANI floor, pick some lint off him. ] There. Little user fend for self now. bishzillaROARR!!22:24, 28 October 2007 (UTC).[reply]
What can I say that hasn't been said by people more eloquent than I? ZScout's unblock was terribly unwise, but not warranting a desysop. Indeed, he is one of our most valued administrators, and one minor action, quickly reversed, does not constitute something worth going as far as Jimbo did. If Jimbo wants to send a signal, I can think of far better ways, and far more deserving targets. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*>00:29, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, resysop him, already. As much as I like to disagree with Zscout, I agree with the general consensus here. Ya, admins ought to respect one another. Zscout's one-time action of unblocking Miltopia was not an outrageous violation of this respect. Reversing Zscout's reversion, then sanding out an embarassing desysop in order to "send a strong signal" concerning the contentious issue of trolling standards, is a rather blatant violation. — xDanielxT/C01:36, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Completely ridiculous, there was no need to de-sysop such a highly respected administrator as Zscout370. A very poor move indeed. RFerreira03:12, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
People are de-sysopped for displaying bad judgement with the tools. Unblocking a user indefinitely blocked by Jimbo Wales as a detriment to the project, without discussing the matter with Jimbo, in defiance of a direct request from Jimbo not to undo the block until Monday, and without even waiting for the user to request an unblock, displays remarkably poor judgement. It's an isolated incident, so I personally think Zscout should be re-sysopped, but I don't see this de-sysopping as surprising or abusive in any way. I think everyone knows, on some level, that this is not a democracy, and that undoing one of Jimbo's administrative actions is much bigger deal than undoing, say, one of mine. MastCellTalk03:25, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And Jimmy responds with desysopping, which in effect equates to preemptive reversion of all the sysop actions Zscout would have taken during that time. Way to reaffirm the mutual respect between administrators! — xDanielxT/C04:02, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Jimbo Wales did the right thing. He asked for a weekend of reflection and minimal drama, and what he got instead was one admin, who without making hardly a comment about the block on Miltopia, unblocked him anyway...creating drama. Does anyone really think that Jimbo's indefinite block of Miltopia was done without a lot of thought about the matter? Seriously...Jimbo asked for little drama, and many show up and create a fuss about Miltopia...and "editor" who has done, from what I see, low level (and overt) trolling, wikistalking, harassment, and has a history of trolling as many arbcom cases and other dramatic areas as possible for the sake of stirring up more commotion. Sorry, but we are here to write and expand an encyclopedia. Those who seem more fascinated by the drama or need a social networking site might want to check out a blog. Zscout has done some really fine work as an admin, but frankly, his unblocking Miltopia was simply ridiculous. We need to stop coddling timewasters, stop defending marginal and or disruptive editors and get back to the basics of why we are here. It is becoming increasingly difficult to retain and improve this encyclopedia when we are constantly dealing with miscreants that have nothing better to do but stir up trouble all the time.--MONGO06:50, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"Miscreants", eh? Why must it be ad hominem? That's an absolutely serious question, MONGO. Do you not trust good judgment to be on your side if you don't sling some mud? Also a serious question. Don't "call a spade a spade", and there will be less drama. A cop mentality is inappropriate at an encyclopedia.
I support the block of Miltopia, but I don't support human beings insulting other human beings, ever. We can block him while standing entirely out of the mud - so why not do that? Our policies neither require nor condone disparaging any editor for any reason, nor addressing their motivations in any argument. -GTBacchus(talk)07:01, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It is now time to start supporting those that have been trolled almost to death and cease supporting those that are doing the trolling. Won't you join me? Furthermore, without the facts of actions, which can be easily demonstrated with diffs, then there is no reason to sugar coat the evidence.--MONGO07:13, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I support the block, and I advocate behavior that will minimize harassment in the future. It's time to recognize my support as support, MONGO, and stop claiming that I'm "supporting those that are doing the trolling." What part of "I support the block" don't you understand? What part of "don't feed trolls" don't you understand? -GTBacchus(talk)08:10, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If you or anyone defends their actions and tries to convert them into reform repeatedly and fail, per se, at the expense of our better contributors, then you are feeding them. If editors have the support of admins and they are spending their wiki-time trolling and wikistalking, then they will continue to behave in such a manner. The best way to not feed them, of course, is to ignore them...but to not state the facts in a case is to be dishonest. If an editor is acting poorly and is disruptive, then admins need to either work with them on this issue or help them find a new website to play on.--MONGO08:25, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, so we have a difference of opinion as to what constitutes "feeding" a troll. Your assertion that "to not state the facts in a case is to be dishonest" seems to be directed against my idea that ad hominem comments are always unnecessary. I would urge you to read my essay linked above, and carefully consider what I've said there. Just because something may be true, we are not required to say it out loud, especially in a case where it will distract from the more important, encyclopedic arguments. -GTBacchus(talk)08:58, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
MONGO, are you aware of how the "drama" commenced? Jimbo blocked a user, specifying the grounds, and then absented himself for a while - requesting that the drama was kept to the minimum until his return. Within minutes of that posting there were many cases of editors piling on with messages of support, commenting further about the "uselessness" of Miltopia and advancing the suggestion that all such "trolls" (a noun that Jimbo had avoided) should be dealt with in a similar manner. The heat, and very little light, there provided created the drama - not the responses of others who reviewed that editors contributions and opposed both or either the block or the reasons provided. The drama was not created by a sysop acting (incautiously, in my view) within the wording of policy, but by the initial actions and reactions of the blocking of Miltopia. The subsequent drama was increased by the desysopping of Zscout370, again with reasons that appear contrary to the wording of the relevant policies.
If Jimbo had blocked Miltopia on the basis of"'cos I can!" and desysopped Zscout370 "'cos I'm riled (and I can)!" there would not have been nearly so much drama, because Jimbo has those rights. It was the fallacious appeals to policy (or essay regards trolling) and the support for such actions without consideration that created the drama. Do not mistake protest for drama when it is the initial actions that provoke it. LessHeard vanU14:09, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm disappointed by Jimbo's action. This sent a chilling message to everyone on Wikipedia, whether intended or not: disagree with him, & he'll slap you down hard. Having one's Admin bit yanked -- even for a week -- is a very drastic act. A far more appropriate approach would have been to talk to ZScout & explained the issue; he made the effort to appear to be reasonable, so the response should have been reasonable. I don't agree with what ZScout did, but like him I knew little or nothing of the story behind the block, so I understand where he was coming from. We will not always agree with each other, but this is a good thing: it constantly forces us to remember why we are here, & explain ourselves. That is a constructive form of competition. And if we do not act in this way, then we will start to lose the ability to improve Wikipedia. -- llywrch22:39, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I somehow managed to miss all of my drama on this up until now, but now that I see it, I have to cast my lot with the (rather large) group of people who disapprove of Jimbo's actions here. It was a bad idea to issue a potentially controversial block of Miltopia for trolling at a time when Jimbo knew that he would be unavailable to discuss it, particularly since there doesn't seem to have been any pressing reason that it had to happen at that exact moment. It was a terrible idea to desysop ZScout370 in the way that he did, insofar as ZScout was acting in good faith, ZScout had expressly indicated that he would not wheel war over the issue, Jimbo was using his powers against a user with whom he was involved in a dispute, ZScout and Tom Harrison did not receive the same treatment for engaging in the same action, Jimbo's reason for desysopping ZScout (as stated in this thread) changed retrospectively from what was listed in the log, etc. There are enough problems with this that I honestly have trouble keeping them all straight in my head; it's really appalling. If Jimbo wants to be just another user, he should be constrained by the same rules as other users. In contrast, if Jimbo wants to be able to rule by fiat, he should at least have the courtesy to let the rest of us know. -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!)18:01, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The issue is not about desysoping or not. The issue is about an extremely poor choice made by Zscout370. Let's keep the focus where it should be. If there is an RfC to be file is one for Zscout 370 ≈ jossi ≈(talk)22:34, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I see that someone has already deleted the RfC, which I strongly disagree with. Let's get it undeleted and continue discussion there. An RfC is a far better place for this type of large community discussion than ANI, though if we can't agree on which one is better, let's just keep both open. But if I had to choose just one, I'd say let's keep the RfC, and direct the ANI discussion there.--Elonka23:15, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
An RfC effectively is a subpage, in a structured format, that will allow for a much more coherent discussion. We'll be able to genuinely see where the community consensus is in a much more clear manner than here, where it's simply a long list of unsorted comments. --Elonka23:45, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's far better to thrash things out first and have a stab at "dispute resolution" before heading to an RfC. We don't need a wave of people adding their views and then having supporting/opposing statements - at this stage it is far too rigid. We may decide that an RfC will help but it's better not to rush into it. violet/riga(t)23:49, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I couldn't disagree more. An RfC organizes the discussion in a way that the overwhelming consensus forming here would force the powers-that-be to deal with whether or not WP:JIMBO (per the below suggestion) needs to be policy, so that people will know that they should not cross the boss, so-to-speak. An AN/I just gets convoluted and confusing. The deletion of the RfC was completely improper and inappropriate. K. Scott Bailey00:00, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The only question is, what would be the desired outcome? By the time the RfC is over, Zscout will be a sysop again. Though certainly, if someone can conceive of a good reason for doing so, I'd go ahead with it. — xDanielxT/C04:07, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I daresay it will "metastasize" into the popular press if we take it to RfC. Headlines that read "Wikipedia pillories founder" aren't going to help the project. Let's keep this informal, please. Hesperian12:34, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think that the issue of speciality (special authority) is what got us here in the first place and to deal with the current dispute in an abnormal way because of the identity of the party involved only serves to intensify the problem of speciality (special treatment). Besides, it is very likely this story is already out there on the blogs for anyone who is interested in such things. Mr.grantevans213:07, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The RFC should not have been deleted in my opinion. There was useful discussion there. However, we have this page, which is also a perfectly acceptable place for people to give their opinions on this issue. I see no reason to seek undeletion at this point. 17:50, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
I agree that the RfC should not have been deleted. So, let's undelete it and move forward. An RfC will help focus the discussion, in a way that this subpage cannot. --Elonka17:55, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
For me it is quite simple: If an administrator sets up a very clear warning, as was the case herein, it is not right for a second or third administrator to come along and block, even if that administrator happens to be Jimmy Wales. This is why WP gets this type of article: http://www.scrippsnews.com/node/28003Once and Forever21:19, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A wheel war? How? Pointless may it be, that does not give someone the right to speedily delete it, especially as no 'snowball' decision was made to delete. David Fuchs (talk)00:47, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The RfC was never certified, and the deadline passed, so I've deleted it again. That's the same treatment we'd give to any RfC. No one should recreate it unless they are prepared to certify it based on recognizable attempts to resolve the dispte with the editor. ·:· Will Beback·:·05:48, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Isn't this a bit bureaucratic? And if you really want to follow rules, shouldn't the RfC at least be left up for a full 48 hours, so people have a chance to certify it? To my knowledge it hasn't even been active for a full 24 hours, it just gets deleted so fast. Please undelete and give things a chance. --Elonka05:58, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The RfC cannot be properly certified, despite your own desperate attempt to improperly certify it, unless, of course, you can prove that you have actual standing in this dispute, and have attempted to resolve the dispute with Jimbo and failed. RfC's are not for class action suits, and there is a reason for it. It protects the subject of RfCs from abuses such as are taking place right now, which you have now stepped into as a main abuser. - Crockspot12:56, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Jimmy's a big boy, he can take care of himself. And perhaps the RfC can't be certified: Does that mean that it should be speedily deleted? If it's determined as foolish with no significant opposition, the RfC will be closed. Deletion is not the way to go, though. David Fuchs (talk)16:39, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, then you can go and do that. But a speedy deletion, saying there was a 'snow consensus' to do so when there was no evidence, is foolish. David Fuchs (talk)16:46, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There is tremendous support for deletion, as there was when I deleted it. It never should have been initiated and shouldn't have been undeleted. violet/riga(t)20:03, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
<-- "Tremendous"? I only saw sentiment the RfC was "pointless", and numerous others saying that they thought it should still go on. Consensus is hardly with you, otherwise you seriously misinterpreted. Either way, deleting the RfC was hardly helpful. David Fuchs (talk)20:18, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like everyone to go and read what you get when you follow the link to WP:BOLD. The first sentence reads
"The Wikipedia community encourages users to be bold when updating articles."
Conveniently, the important part of the instructions are in bold text. Until recently, the page title was even Wikipedia:Be bold in updating pages, but someone was bold and moved it to the shorter and punchier title Wikipedia:Be bold. I'm tempted to move it back now, as some editors here (including some with and some without admin bits) seem to have forgotten that WP:BOLD and WP:BRD are for editing articles, not for administrative actions.
I pointed this out above but it looks like it was glanced over. If Zscout370 was blocked for wheel warring, then why hasn't the second user involved in the wheel warring desysopped. I, in no way, think that both parties should be desysopped, but if one gets desysopped, why not the other? Basically what has occurred here is that a user disagreed with Jimbo and was punished for it but the one who agreed did not face any consequences. This is a large concern that needs to be addressed. Metros22:35, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Tom was not desysopped for a simple reason: he did the right thing. One of our oldest traditions, absolutely unquestioned across the entire history of Wikipedia, is that I have the right to ban users who violate our social norms. I am happy to review my own actions, and indeed happy to have them reviewed by the ArbCom, and of course as a matter of tradition equally as strong, I would defer to the ArbCom in any review of my own actions. Tom was merely acting in light of those traditions, and he was right to do so.
Zscout370 was desysopped (but only for a week, there is no need to get melodramatic about it, I hope that he won't get melodramatic about it, and indeed that he will see that going to troll message boards (WR) and posting falsely that I banned Milpitas and jumped on a plane to a fundraiser (?? not true), is not behavior becoming what it means to be a Wikipedia admin). Why? Because no admin should have ever reverted any admin, even once, under such circumstances:
- a clearly problematic user (multiple indef bans in the past, recent and ongoing bad behavior as has been documented)
- a request from an admin to stay calm over the weekend, clearly indicating that a possibility of reconsidering could happen in due course
This sort of calls into question your original reason for the desysopping. You stated it was for wheel warring. now you're saying it's because Zscout was wrong. Wrong is a relative word here as you're the only person around here who can enforce such judgments of right and wrong in such a significant way. Metros00:11, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"I don't think that means what you think it means." Reverting to the status quo should mean reverting to the status before any action was taken. Before all this started no one was blocked, so Zscout370 is the one who was reverting to the status quo. --MediaMangler22:52, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So what you're suggesting Corvus cornix is that one side to the fight will always be right because they're the status quo so they have a right to wheel war but the other side of the fight doesn't have that right? Metros23:15, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There is only one side. The side is Wikipedia. Do you believe that Jimbo made a bad faith block and was not acting in the interest of the project when he blocked Miltopia and asked that no one undo it for a measley two days? That is a different quesiton than if you simply disagreed with the block. It was extremely poor judgement to think that unblocking Miltopia over Jimbo's instructions would be beneficial to the project. Jimbo's actions are equivalent to ArbCom so unblocking would be the same as a single admin overturning arbcom decisions. I hope every admin here recognizes that unilaterally overturning ArbCom would be instantly reverted and instantly desysopped. In fact, I think those desysoppings are permanent. When Jimbo blocks someone there are two choices: 1) Get ArbCom to decide against the block and restore the editor or 2) get Jimbo to rescind the block. --72.223.25.2604:18, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
My point was that WP is Calvinball and Jimbo is Calvin inasmuch as the following quote from Calvin applies: "It's never the same! It's always bizarre! You don't need a team or a referee! You know that it's great, 'cause it's named after me!" So, I guess you could say that Jimbo is Calvin AND Hobbes as well. Because he most certainly ALWAYS wins... K. Scott Bailey23:35, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Okay it is simple, reverting an admin action when you know they object and there is no consensus is wheel warring, reverting an admin action once there has been a consensus formed to do so is not wheel warring. Some of the people posting here really should already know that. 1 != 204:01, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A degree of historical and changing ambiguity exists around Jimmy's role on Wikipedia. There is a traditional and asserted (chosen) role somewhat like a constitutional monarch, who has ultimate say but rarely uses it, and Jimmy also is an active contributor and administrator. His insight and approach founded, informed and guide this project, and if it does ever goes off the rails, a single person able to make the decisions to bring it back on the rails may be needed again to put it right (a limit of consensus decision-making).
That said, people need to know more clearly where they stand, and how to respond to Jimmy's actions and words. Are they "from on high", will contesting (in accordance with whatever norms may exist) be a suicidal act, does an administrator or editor of integrity treat Jimmy as those in the community would treat other established admins in a similar situation?
Likewise Jimmy needs to bear in mind that when you form a community and it grows, the communal norms and everyday practices will have developed. His privileged place is seen with great affection and enduring respect, but also as an active participant, many will treat him in accordance with current norms and practices, which may have developed over time. This can be ambiguous since he is the one person who may choose (or decide) at times, to act outside those norms.
So people need to know that if he is acting as leader on some matter (as opposed to editor), and making a decision or statement as leader that is to be respected ex officio, he will say so clearly so that others may know and not misjudge in that situation by treating him as a usual editor on that occasion. (Two accounts as one possible option??)
So perhaps clarity is needed of the role, and relationship, between Jimmy and the community. Without any great drama, I think that might be one useful lesson of this incident. FT2(Talk | email)23:14, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. It is time for Jimmy to state his position and clarify it in relation to the growth of the project. Wikipedia is not longer what it was a year or two years ago. ≈ jossi ≈(talk)23:37, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There is clearly lack of clarity in Jimbo's relationships with various aspects of the free culture movement including his relationship specifically with the English language wikipedia community. This lack of clarity has contributed to different expectations of how people should and will respond to actions by Jimbo. This has contributed to wiki-drama. Jimbo's relationship with this community has changed over the years and the relationship can not be defined or asserted or insisted upon by either the community or Jimbo. On the one hand clarity would help decrease the drama, and on the other hand any such clarity may simply be illusionary as the community and Jimbo have the ability to change that relationship at any time. WAS 4.25023:36, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This was essentially the point of the RFC. Jimbo's power is a needed thing on enwiki, but it lately it has been applied erratically and it is unclear what Jimbo's position is. Some actions have seemed "out of touch" with much of the community and his response to criticism here was quite unnerving. Mr.Z-man23:46, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think my role is all that unclear, nor has it changed much over time. I am exactly as active as I have ever been, and I still do the same things that I have always done. We have had drama about this in the past, and it has ended in the same way.
I am not above the law. I am not the law. I am part of a complex system of checks and balances that have emerged over a long period of time. I think my role is viable, and I also think that I am capable of error. In this particular case, I am doing two things: first, I am giving strong support to the idea that we need to absolutely kick out several completely useless users and not bother looking back. These trolls drive away good users, interact with stalking websites which cause real damage in the real world, and it is time that we renew with strength our usual insistence that editing Wikipedia is not a right, that we are a community of encyclopedists, and that "community" is not synonymous with "random mob". Second, I am insisting that admins absolutely must respect each other and respect our traditions and values of kind and thoughtful discussion. You don't unblock a problem user without discussion with the blocking user. And you don't unblock someone clearly banned by the ArbCom and/or me, especially when there is strong community support and no indication that an accident has happened. Period.
The right thing to do in this case, for Zscout370, would have been to first, wait until Monday. Then engage in a discussion with me.--Jimbo Wales00:08, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
But how can you continue to say that in the face of the massive amount of criticism here? If there was this much opposition to Miltopia's block, would you have unblocked? Mr.Z-man00:13, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I would be happy, even now, to reconsider my block of Miltopia. But note well: what I would be reconsidering would be whether I looked at the right contribution list or not, whether I made some factual error. (But I didn't.) What I would not reconsider, because I consider it bedrock to the project, is the notion that editing Wikipedia is a privilege, not a right, and it is a privilege to be earned through sincere loving good behavior in and out. Miltopia has no right to edit Wikipedia, even if he makes a handful of good contributions now and then, because he's much more prone to absurd trolling behavior that makes a mockery of what we stand for. It is time to put our foots down and say: no. We do not accept that people who make crude jokes about vomit and AIDS, and who provoke other users endlessly, are Wikipedians. They are abusers of our generosity.--Jimbo Wales00:23, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
My question was really less about Miltopia than it was the criticism of the desysopping (Miltopia was just a comparison). In the above sections there is (you cannot deny this) a large (for ANI) number of people agreeing that your desysopping of Zscout was not a good idea. You say that you did not "act outside of community tradition and policy" - but WP:CONSENSUS is policy, no? Mr.Z-man00:28, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
For something so abundantly clear, there seems to be a lot of confusion. Jimmy, if you want to assert, by fiat, that you are right and everybody else is wrong, you can do that. But if you want to actually participate in the community, I would think that you have to wonder why so many earnest contributors disagree with your actions. -Chunky Rice00:14, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Of course I do not assert, by fiat, that I am right and everybody else is wrong. I give arguments and reasons, and anyway it is a total mistake to understand this as "everybody else" being wrong. A handful of people are wrong, no more. And I think they can be persuaded if they will read my reasons. I did not act in haste, nor did I act outside of community tradition and policy. What Zscout370 did was deeply wrong and unbecoming behavior for an admin, and we have never and will never tolerate it.--Jimbo Wales00:20, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Jimmy, with all due respect and in my humble opinion, you'd do well to have a word with your (slight emphasis, given you interact heavily with them and they serve under/around you) Arbitration Committee, who have frequently taken a much less aggressive view with reversals of administrator actions. A recent case moved the definition of wheel warring away from "your" definition, to one which Zscout370 acted under is currently being used in many situations. Daniel00:23, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Jimbo Wales what you did was deeply wrong and unbecoming behavior for a steward. It is extreamly widely accepted that stewards do not use their powers in cases where they are already involved.Geni00:38, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What you are saying does not conform to what I have observed in my relatively short time contributing to this project. Whether or not Zscout's unblock was appropriate or not, your response was grossly disproportionate to the way that things are usually handled. You seem to be asserting that this is par for the course, but I and apparently many others seem to disagree. Now, as I said, you can certainly declare that what has happened before has no bearing here, and that's fine, but your failure to even acknowledge that it is outside of the norm is mildly disquieting. -Chunky Rice00:39, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Anyone who has thought about this significantly realizes that Jimbo is becoming less and less an active member of the community. At some point, he will become effectively a random action generator - at which point it will be time for the community to eliminate his role. Are we there yet? I'm not sure. He took the right action in the Daniel Brandt wheel war. But this action seems unsupportable. One of the basics is that you don't use administrative tools when you are engaged in a dispute. The obvious implication is that when engaged in a dispute with an administrator, you don't use your steward tools. As such, Jimbo's continued posession of the steward tools is called into question in the exact same way that an administrators' continued posession of the admin tools is called into question when they block a user they are in a dispute with, or protect a page on their preferred version. There isn't even a shred of an excuse for Jimbo's actions. Jimbo, you need to self-revert immediately and admit that you are in the wrong to have used them. Alternatively, it will be time to eliminate your access to steward tools as having someone who uses them like that is not in the best interest of the project. GRBerry01:08, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have been a member of this community for well over a year. I have not made a tonne of contributions, but I have used Wikipedia for hundreds of hours, and I have reported problems offline to people whom I knew could gain resolution more efficiently than I. Mr. Wales is calling for "sincere loving good behavior", but from what I have seen, Wales is demonstrating very little of that. I've seen a fiasco with Essjay that was a lie, wrapped up in a deflection, capped off with a very insincere apology. I've seen people literally libeled on here, but when they complain, they are banned on some irrelevant wiki-rule, while their libeler continues unabated. This wouldn't be so bad if Wales didn't know about these situations, but he not only know about them, he endorses them. Most recently, I have seen a big flare-up over the importance of an article about a butcher shop in South Africa. I couldn't care less one way or another how that was resolved, but I know that with something other than an arrogant, clumsy approach by Wales, the problem could have been avoided altogether -- ironically, with "sincere loving good behavior" like not assuming one's article deserves inclusion, but rather asking if it does. Everyone here who is asking Jimmy Wales to revert himself is actually correct. But, we will never, ever see it happen. By desysopping for a week, and hinting that it will be restored if (and only if) discussions with him go well, Wales is treating another respected administrator of this project from a position of dominance, and therefore any such "discussion" would be biased from the start. This is really childish, passive-aggressive behavior, and it is time for the community to stand up and give itself permission to adopt more thoughtful and honest leaders. - BeigeBoy01:20, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Once all the fuss dies down about the rather brutal manner in which Jimbo has delivered us a culture change, I hope we'll embrace that change. Less tolerance of problem editors is something many of us have been begging for since the days of RickK. How many H's are we going to lose before that message gets through? That Jimbo is prepared to come out and say "We must stop the troll coddling that has caused so much drama and pain to good users" is a very, very good sign.
From what I can tell, the troll-coddling occurs not because the community as a whole is soft on trolls, but because there is always someone who is prepared to stick out their neck and overturn a block, no matter how much endorsement it has. Going forward from here, I strongly support this new idea that the overturning of any administrative action without community consensus is unacceptable behaviour.
Have we "lost" User:H? One and one are not necessarily two, or zero. I can think of plenty of productive editors - editors who have produced reams of encyclopedic content - who we have actually "lost".
The lesson seems to be that disagreeing with User:Jimbo Wales is automatically wrong - sufficiently wrong that he will wield whatever sticks come to hand to ge this own way. There is a word for that. The chaos at Che Guevara since he decided it was "POV" (that is, not sufficiently in accordance with his POV) is demonstrative. It is still, nearly 4 months later, tagged as {{npov}}, although he has not edited it since the beginning of July. -- !!??01:30, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am unsure that I would go as far as that, but I think some change is clearly needed. The idea that an admin in good standing (not just me, mind you, but any admin) could block someone who had a template on his userpage bragging about being indef blocked 3 times, with a clear and recent history of trolling, and ask that it not be overturned until after a discussion after a few days time, and to then be reverted... is just out of the question. It is the reason why we lose so many good editors who take a look at this kind of nonsense and decide that we must not be serious. There are more Milpitas-level users out there, and it is time for them all to be shown the door for incivility and general uselessness. (Please let's not set off a spree of banning, though, especially not now. We need to sort through this and talk about it openly and calmly and then invite some of these people (with blocks if necessary) to leave permanently and find a new community to harass.--Jimbo Wales00:14, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that change is needed. There are indeed many users who are not adding value to Wikipedia. In my own industry (game development) we call these folks "griefers", and what Wikipedia is going through now is a phase that every major game has had to go through, of at some point reaching the realization that not everyone in your community is there for good reasons. For example, Ultima Online reached a point where they said "Enough" and blocked about 2% of their userbase. Wikipedia's going to have to do this as well, in order to stay viable. But to have the head of the project decide independently that one user needs to go, is not the way to go about it.
Jimbo, I realize that you may have thought that you were setting a tone about "low tolerance for civility", but in fact the way that the action was perceived was, "Jimbo takes retaliatory action against those who disagree with him." It's the wrong message. If you truly want a specific editor blocked, I'm sure you know plenty of admins -- you could have contacted ArbCom and requested it, and I'm sure they would have found a way to issue a block and make it stick. If you don't like the way that the arbitrators are handling things, you can disband the committee and promote different people. THAT you have the power to do. But just doing an end-run around the process was obviously not effective. Instead, Jimbo, what you can do is this: Clearly state, "We are going to start enforcing WP:CIVIL." Post it clearly, make sure ArbCom understands, make sure there's a notice at the Admin boards. And then let the community enforce the rules. I mean, if we're going to pick problem people individually, sure, I can name a half-dozen users right off the top of my head that do nothing to help the encyclopedia -- all they do is flit from dispute to dispute. The majority of their edits are "arguing" edits or rudeness to other editors. I agree that these folks need to be asked to leave. But it wouldn't be appropriate for me to send a list off-wiki to you (Jimbo) and say, "Hey, here are few more, can you get rid of these too?" Your job as community leader is to influence the community, to set direction, to clarify policies -- not to personally enforce rules. It's the difference between leading and dictating. --Elonka00:29, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"Jimbo takes retaliatory action against those who disagree with him." LOL. Pot, the kettle is calling.
Hear, hear! Some of the responses here overlook an important aspect of the issue: WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA went out the door here a long time ago, and that deterioration is not necessarily led only by abusive editors, trolls or vandals. Sometimes it's admins themselves committing the offenses, sometimes it's them turning their backs when their friends commit them or even supporting their friends' incivility, sometimes it's railroading, and there is a clear double standard in the application of NPA, CIVIL and even NPOV for some groups. Your actions and statements here, Jimbo, appear to assume that the issue is always with abusive users, trolls and vandals and could be interpreted in a way that further licenses abusive pre-emptive and punitive actions and may empower those who may think that WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA don't apply equally to admins who pre-emptively block and ban, presume guilt before innocence, and rush to the indef block even when other admins express disagreement in advance. Jimbo said, "It is the reason why we lose so many good editors who take a look at this kind of nonsense and decide that we must not be serious. There are more Milpitas-level users out there, and it is time for them all to be shown the door for incivility and general uselessness." We also lose good editors who tire of seeing abusive admin actions, who tire of the double standard, and who *want* a clear blocking and banning policy and RfC's that aren't used by groups to railroad editors they don't like. As Elonka said, it is your job to lead and influence, and I hope you realize how dramatically far Wiki has moved from the culture espoused at WP:5P, and that your statements about Miltopia-level users will be applied equally to abusive and rude admins. The admins who feel they are empowered to attack other editors claim it's because they are so tired of dealing with trolls or that their articles are attacked more than others; well, we all deal with trolls and many of us edit articles that are continually under attack, and that doesn't give us license to intimidate and harass others or to fail to assume good faith. Jimbo, I just hope you aware of how far this culture has moved from WP:5P, and that you are you certain your actions will be received by the community in a way that will further the goals you espouse rather than cause further deterioration in the culture. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:06, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, less tolerance for problem editors is a great idea. But who is the problem editor here? I hope it's not Zscout370. In any case, the correct response to Zscout370 action would be to revert him, leave a note on his talkpage about why he should not revert back and assume good faith and that he, an established editor, is willing to discuss instead of revert. By accusing him of wheel warring and desysoping we are saying: if powers that be think that you made even a tiny mistake and crossed them, they will come upon you like hammer. So don't criticize and certainly don't undue edits of those powers, for you are much less worthy than them and will get punished very severely. Is this a message we want to send to our editors? I hope not. Wikipedia culture was one of tolerance, consensus, assuming good faith and discussing issues for as long as possible, not the one where we heavily punish editors in good standing for a tiny mistakes. PS. Yes, Zscout370 should have not unblocked the problem editor. But its a tiny mistake that should not lead to desysoping - even for a week.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk 00:46, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with User:Hesperian. This is a culture change that many have been begging for. For too long folks have been rushing to the defense of those whose overall impact is strongly negative simply because they occasionally do something constructive. Raymond Arritt00:48, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps this will get lost in the noise about the drama, but I agree with User:Hesperian as well. People not here to help create an encyclopedia should be shown the door. I have no further comment at this time on the exact actions that were taken this weekend to move us in that direction, except to say that this discussion about them is distracting from that much more important point. So I'll repeat it. People not here to help create an encyclopedia should be shown the door. That's where we need to be in our thinking. ++Lar: t/c02:45, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If those who don't write this encyclopedia would follow despite their claiming that they are here to "help encyclopedia", the entire Wikipedia would become a much better place in one day. --Irpen02:52, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not everyone that is a part of the great enterprise that is a successful symphony plays an instrument. Not everyone that is part o of the great enterprise that is a successful newspaper is a reporter. This project needs more kinds of help than just writing, and I suspect that if all "those who don't write (articles) would follow" the trolls out the door, this project would disintegrate in a matter of hours, not "become a much better place". I know it, everyone else knows it, and I suspect you know it too, don't you? So why do you persist with this anti everyone other than writers rhetoric? ++Lar: t/c10:10, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Right, Lar, the symphony to be meaningful needs not just musicians who play instruments. It also needs composers. Other than those, it has all sorts of accessory people, ushers, booking agents, janitors and plumbers. Note, however, that the ticket office oddly does not often proclaim itself the symphony. Nor have the ushers generally told the musicians to stop thinking well of themselves. No one applauds the booking agents. No one comes to see them. And people whose job is to sweep the floors and clean the toilets do not pretend to be in charge. Nor do they tell the musicians how to play. --Irpen20:32, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The janitors would however, be quite within their rights to ask the musicians to refrain from shitting on the floor and leaving it there. -GTBacchus(talk)20:45, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Irpen: Careful not to stretch analogies too far. Wikipedia is not like anything else, not exactly. My point is merely that this place is more than just the writers, nothing more. However, certain writers who seem to go around disparaging the janitors ought to stop doing that, because without the janitors it fails, just as surely it fails without the writers. If you had a different point to make than "make everyone else but the writers go away please, I don't like them" you might try making it again, (perhaps somewhere else, I think) because that's all I got from what you said. ++Lar: t/c22:13, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Lar, I am sorry you are not happy about the analogy you brought. There are no writers going around disparaging the janitors. That would be arrogant. Writers only disparage the janitors who behave as if they are "in charge" and in position to kick butts. --Irpen02:59, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
After a discussion with Jimbo via email, we worked out what the problems were and fixed them. I still disagree how the original block was done, I saw his reasons why (which I will not post on Wikipedia). As stated in his messages, I can be resysoped after a week. He will do it; the only thing that will prevent it is if I reject it. I request 2 weeks to think about this. User:Zscout370(Return Fire)02:00, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Here's the thing: very few people agreed with your unblock. That's not the issue. The issue is Jimbo's MASSIVE overreaction, and whether or not HE violated WP policy in HIS actions. It's great that you want "2 weeks to think about this" and all, but your thinking about it does not affect whether or not what Jimbo did was actually right. K. Scott Bailey02:11, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And it shouldn't. Don't let me not saying anything prevent yall from doing anything. Do not let my non-presence prevent any action at all. As I said before, yall can start an RFC on my actions. I welcome it, I am pretty much begging for it. Everything between me and Jimbo is settled. I just want to wait longer before I get the bit back. User:Zscout370(Return Fire)03:39, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The original problem being Jimbo's massive overreaction, and arrogant refusal to listen to the overwhelming consensus of the community that he done screwed up big time? I don't think that's been fixed. ⇒SWATJesterSon of the Defender02:04, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You know what we need, Jimbo: a system of de-sysopping. Thats what we need. Abuse starts at the top level and its effects reach everywhere. Many people have suggested such systems but none pass. But this is what needs to be done. No system will be perfect, however, if some abusive admins can be brought down, that will be for the good of the project. Inspite of 50% of the people opposing such a system, it has to be there. 50% of people would easily oppose anonymous editing as well so it doesnt mean the system shouldnt be there. This is whats needed and somoene, has to go ahead and do it. You have the power to make this happen. --Matt57(talk•contribs)02:14, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. Or at least a very strong consensus at AN/I as a poor substituted, and only because the blocking admin ignored your request to discuss (because he or she was away for a long time, but in that case why did they block?... or because that's what some admins do, unfortunately, ignore requests). I'm not sure I've EVER overturned another admins block or unblock without discussion first. And if I have, I apologise. ++Lar: t/c10:22, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You could take that position but again way to much power given to the first mover. Or if an admin blocked you would you really want to wait untill the disscussion was complete for you to be unblocked?Geni10:30, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, its very simple. No admin should reverse the block of another with atleast discussing with the other admin and ideally, getting consensus from everyone else too to lift the block. I think it was appropriate to suspend the adminship for a week. This rule should be implemented i.e. if you reverse the block of any admin like this, or wheel war without discussion and consensus, you will be suspended. --Matt57(talk•contribs)11:58, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, I'd wait. {{unblock}} will get attention soon enough, and there is no rush is there? The wiki isn't going to blow up because one editor is unable to edit for a few hours or days. (in cases where it is an obvious misstep, consensus forms quite rapidly) I do see your point about first mover advantage, and it's valid, but the flip side is that as of right now the power is with the second mover instead which if anything is possibly worse... to redo is more of a wheelwar than to undo, don't you agree? (I admit I am talking out my hat here, I've never actually been blocked and thus never had to wait to be unblocked so my view is theoretical) ++Lar: t/c11:57, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And no, that's not an invite for someone to block me so I don't have an unsullied record any more, thanks. :) ++Lar: t/c11:58, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
are you suggesting that before someone responds to a {{unblock}} request they have to talk with the blocking admin? what if the blocking admin has gone offline? You do not own the articles you edit articles you do not own the blocks you make.Geni12:22, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, I'm not. Most unblock requests are run of the mill vandalism or trolling that are dealt with routinely. Certainly it's helpful to talk to the admin in those cases, yes, as always, but not required. (after all, I have User talk:NoSeptember/admin policy embedded on my user page, where I sanction others to overturn my actions if they feel strongly about them and state I will AGF about the overturn... I wish everyone felt that way and kept it in mind) What I am talking about are the less routine cases... especially those where the admin that blocked brought it to AN/I first or concurrently. In those cases, unblocking without a clear consensus on AN/I first, and engagement with the blocking admin if at all possible (if he or she hasn't vanished temporarily) seems disruptive. Finally, I don't really think that blocking (non routine cases, and yes it may be hard to tell in advance what is non routine) and then going offline is such a good idea... there are other admins after all, take the non routine case to AN/I and ask someone else to do it... ++Lar: t/c12:46, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You do realise that you have just taken the position that anyone can be banned unless there is a consensus against doing so?Geni13:14, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(outdent) Gosh Geni, I hope not! It's not what I intended to say. It seems I've gotten myself all wrapped around the axle somehow. I apologise. And this is a bit far afield now but I think that some general principles apply... for run of the mill vandalism, you iterate through the warnings and then block, possibly indefinitely for very serious cases where the user has been warned and blocked repeatedly before. That's not really controversial is it? We don't discuss every vandal ban at length after all... Further, the {{unblock}} template gets used all the time to unblock people like that to give them a second chance and that's fine. Working as Designed. If, on review someone else says hey wait, that's not right, this isn't just a vandal that just needs a second chance or whatever and takes it to AN/I, if there isn't a consensus to keep blocked, (not the same as a consensus to unblock) the block gets overturned. That's the community banning process, and again I don't think that's all that controversial is it? Someone stays banned if everyone, or just about everyone, agrees. Community bans don't typically get lifted without any discussion though, do they? Or if they do, drama ensues and we resolve to discuss first next time. But in this particular case, we had a block given out and a request not to unblock without discussion, and not before a particular time (Monday) in any case. I don't think that was a very well thought out request by the blocking admin... if you block someone that isn't run of the mill vandalism (and I think we all agree that whatever Miltopia is, he's not run of the mill :) ), by gosh you ought to be willing to discuss it, don't stonewall discussion or ignore it or answer it with incivil edit summaries..., and by gosh, stick around to discuss it, don't go away right away. But even though it wasn't well thought out to ask for delay that way, it wasn't actually going to blow up the wiki to keep Miltopia blocked till Monday, was it? He wasn't a newbie that was in danger of getting a fatal BITE and taking scads of good contributions that we desperately need away... ZScout, in my view, acted out of order in overturning a block that had been documented and was being actively discussed and in which consensus was at the time to sustain it. He should have first made the case that the unblock was needed, not unblocked first. And there was no reason not to wait till Monday really, was there? The general principle here is we ought to all be excellent to each other and assume the best of our fellow admins, not the worst, and discuss things but not overturn admin actions hastily. That despite the fact that if someone does overturn an action of mine, even hastily, I'm going to AGF about it, or try to do so to the best of my ability. Is this helping at all? Or am I just muddying the waters more and ought to stop? ++Lar: t/c15:25, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Now, Lar, you have been something of a mentor and a role model to me, so it pains me to question a part of the above statement; what "consensus" for the block of Miltopia? There was a lot of initial agreement, but that isn't the same thing. Consensus is the agreed application of policy, arrived at by discussion. There was no discussion (not on public record) prior to the block, I have requested and am still waiting for diffs for the trolling (WP:TROLL being an essay, anyway, by the by), the matter of the "I have AIDS, lol" comment already having been dealt with - and, as I mentioned, the page being protected so Miltopia consequently was not able to remove it himself until the block expired and the protection lifted (which he then did) - at the time by means of one of the blocks Miltopia has on his record, and some evidence of his uselessness as a contributor - since the guy has barnstars and was very ably assisting the creation of policy, as promped by ArbCom per BADSITES, regarding the definition and countering of Harrasment. As you are aware I am a self confessed "policy wonk" (a term coined by you and adopted by me) and I did not see and continue not to see any action appropriate to the policies (essay, whatever) quoted; therefore there was no consensus and there remains no consensus.
As I have said elsewhere, if Jimbo holds up his hand and says, "I did what I did because I can, and I believed it right" then there is nothing to argue against - he has preserved that right and function and that is the conditions that prevail; but please do not mistake a faction agreeing that Jimbo did the right thing with consensus; it is not. Jimbo has subsequently made it very clear that he is acting outside of the remit of policy by both tainting by association (WR being a troll message board) and denigrating the contributions of some editors who maintain a presence, both of which violates NPA - but he can do that, because he is Jimbo. Frankly, consensus doesn't come into it - and that saddens me. LessHeard vanU22:26, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It may provide the "proof of troll-hood" and it may not; my question is this. Why is a "proof of troll-hood" something we desire at all? Do we need it to block him? No. Do we need it to build the encyclopedia? No. Is "proving troll-hood" ever worth our time? No. Does discussion about it create unnecessary heat? Yes. -GTBacchus(talk)22:45, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure I follow. There is (or was) a small debate as to whether the original block was justified. This would appear to suggest that it was. I certainly wasn't suggesting that we should use such criteria to judge whether a user should be blocked. Rather, I was attempting to suck some heat out of an ongoing debate, not inflame it. Best, --Bfigura(talk)22:51, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry; I may not have given ample context for my remarks. I would contend that the justification for Miltopia's block does not hinge on our knowing that he's a troll. I deny that he was trolling, and yet I support the block. I support it for encyclopedic reasons, not for speculative personal reasons, and I think that it's very important to make that distinction.
The reason to block Miltopia was that his presence here generates more heat than light; or, if you prefer, that he has exhausted the community's patience. Neither of those reasons involves any personal judgment, or any ad hominem allegation. Crossing the line from actions to motivations, and saying that he "wasn't here to build the encyclopedia" or that he "was trolling", is totally unnecessary, as well as distracting from the true reasons for the block.
Our community will learn to avoid drama when we learn some discipline about keeping our discussions always encyclopedic, and never personal. It's a matter of professionalism, and furthermore, it works. If we had dealt properly with Miltopia from the start, he would probably still be here, having learned long ago that trolling doesn't work on Wikipedians; they're too professional. Talking about the contributor rather than the content is a habit this community has got to break. -GTBacchus(talk)23:01, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I understand. And I agree that it would be better to not make ad hominem attacks (I've changed my wording accordingly). My intent was to help end that rather unproductive argument, although it appears I contributed to it in the process. Best, --Bfigura(talk)23:07, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
My read of how the conversation was going at the time that Z announced he had unblocked was that there was consensus about it being a good block. (some what rah rah ish, I'm afraid, but a legit consensus, not just a chorus) That's an "at the time" statement, because consensus can, and does, change. Z's unblock seemed to cause a temporary shift in consensus, yes. However, what I think Z should have done was said "hey, here's what I think" and see if consensus changed. BRD is a better policy for articles than admin actions. Remember, the blocking policy advises to seek consensus or the blocking admin's buyin before overturning a block. I agree there was no public discussion leading up to the original block. Sometimes there is reason for that, I'll give Jimbo the benefit of the doubt on it. He knows more than I do about a lot of the stuff that goes on round here. There was no public discussion of Amorrow, prior to my turning up on AN/I and announcing that he was back based on analysis and CU results, and that he was socking like crazy, either, after all...
As to Miltopia's value here and his tendency to engage in behaviour that some find trollish, we may have to agree to disagree on that one, old chap. Others have posted stuff, including diffs, far more recent than the AIDS thing, some of it in this very thread. To me it's open and shut, he acts like he's not here to build the encyclopedia, his good edits are apparently incidental. (that's a judgement of outcomes, not intent, we cannot judge intent). I think consensus now is that it's a fair block. Perhaps not an overwhelming one, I don't know, haven't judged opinion lately, and maybe not.
Finally, I'm flattered that you consider me a mentor (but... I don't recall telling you to get a WR account! grin...) and flattered that you credit me for coining Process Wonk in the WP context, but I think I will stick Tony Sidaway with that one, or possibly it predates him as well. Hope that helps. ++Lar: t/c22:42, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I know I'm pretty late into the debate, but I'm happy to second Hesperian's view above. I find we as a community waste most of our productive time fighting long-term cases who slip under the radar and know how to game policy. In the meantime they are free to drive away editors from the project, impose their point of view on multiple subjects or create a "dispute" where none exists, and get into fights no matter where they go. (Note I'm not speaking to the present dispute - I don't know any of the parties). In order to improve Wikipedia we need to take as strong a view on people who are not here to improve the encyclopaedia as we have on, to name one example where we have acted strongly as a community, image copyrights. The fact is that policies initially developed to improve the encyclopaedia and to implement consistent judgements across the encyclopaedia which are open to review, which work 95% of the time, stop us from dealing with these cases properly, and if this is the start of Wikipedia, from Jimbo downwards, taking these cases more seriously from a common sense point of view, I applaud it. Orderinchaos01:11, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm thinking about this in relation to the semi-current discussions about RfA.
As administrators, we're given the ability to block users. That means we're at least temporarily removing one or more of the "user rights".
For User:Jimbo Wales to desysop a user, isn't he doing the same thing? It's merely a different set of user rights that he's at least temporarily removing.
And since the concern was WP:WHEEL, it would seem appropriate.
The problem then for me is two-fold:
(And I want to note that I have not read any of the discussion regarding the blocking of User:Miltopia)
1.) Should JW be considered "in a dispute with" User:Zscout370 and hence shouldn't have blocked (desysopped) a user whom he was in a dispute with? (I can't tell for certain, but I don't think JW should be considered as such.)
2.) Should stewards (whom are instructed rather clearly that they not make decisions, but instead should act per already existing consensus at a Wiki) be able to take such an action? (Probably not, but then we seem to have a confusion over which "hats" JW was wearing at the time.)
Now if it's being suggested that "someone" should have the power to desysop as a form of temporarily blocking admins, I'd be for that, but due to the constraints of stewards, I would suggest that that ability be given to someone at each Wiki, not at the Wikimedia level (except in cases of emergency, as noted above).
So either as a part of the bureaucrat package, or as something "extra", (like checkuser is an "extra" userright).
Another way to handle this would be to say that it may be done as a result of arbitration (which is currently the case), in which case, as I read that page, JW may supercede that as well (just another "hat"), in which case, he acted within his abilities as well.
It sounds to me that this is just a confusing discussion resulting from a lack of information about something that JW just asked everyone to wait until monday about. A bit of WP:AGF would seem to go a fair amount of way here. I'm not passing any sort of "judgement" over zscout370, because I have no clue about the causes, I'm just looking at the events in general, as they've been presented on this page alone.
1. Yes, he was in dispute with Zscout370. 2. No, stewards should not desysop users they are in dispute with. Jimmy could have forwarded the matter to the Arbitration Committee, or to uninvolved stewards; either would have been better than desysopping Zscout370 himself. Just as arbitrators recuse themselves from cases directly involving them, and administrators do not block users they are edit-warring with, and all stewards except him do not desysop people they have just had their blocks undone by, Jimmy should not either. See also m:Steward policies#Don't change rights on your own project and m:Steward policies#Don't decide. Picaroon(t)00:59, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, those were the meta pages to which I was referring.
I don't believe that it has. (looks around) Looks like Monday to me, and it would seem that zscout has been resysopped. An admin, while intending a week long "block", shortened it after discussion. Sounds fairly normal SOP to me. - jc3718:52, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's a historical accident I think. He was the first, perhaps before there were other wikis. I don't know how that part of the SW works but as I understand it stewards are stewards everywhere on all WMF projects that are part of the common (700+) wiki set that share technical underpinnings, regardless of where it was first set. I wouldn't read anything into it I don't think. ++Lar: t/c23:21, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it's a historical accident. The first two entries in this meta rights log seem to indicate that Jimmy is kept the only steward here on purpose. I have no idea why he's the only steward with a steward flag here, but it seems pretty clear it isn't accidental. -- ManticoreTalk | Contributions15:15, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Steward flags anywhere other than meta are essentially irrelevant as the rights interface there is all that is needed to assign a user arbitrary rights at any project. Stifle (talk) 00:19, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Jimbo says that "We need to sort through this and talk about it openly and calmly." So in that spirit:
The issues appear to be
Is Miltopia what Jimbo claims : a "completely useless user" ?
By what criteria? Jimbo says he "had a template on his userpage bragging about being indef blocked 3 times, with a clear and recent history of trolling" while others claim they can find no recent history of trolling.
Standard practise is a list of diffs and a discussion for people not right-now in behavior that needs to blocked. Is Jimbo asking for this to be changed?
Is Jimbo asking for a "No reverting any admin" rule or just no reverting admin acts by arbcom and him without discussion?
If the latter, then should Zscout370 have known ahead of time that Jimbo was acting as leader of the community rather than as "just an admin" as he often goes to great pains to explain that not all of his on-wiki actions are as head of the community.
Jimbo says "I don't think my role is all that unclear, nor has it changed much over time. I am exactly as active as I have ever been, and I still do the same things that I have always done." Is Jimbo's role different now that the community has grown and changed? If so how?
Jimbo says "we need to absolutely kick out several completely useless users and not bother looking back". Who are these individuals, who will decide, what criteria, what processes? What kind of community culture do we want? What processes will get us there?
Jimbo says "admins absolutely must respect each other and respect our traditions and values of kind and thoughtful discussion". Did either Zscout370 or Jimbo err in respecting our traditions and values of kind and thoughtful discussion? Did either Zscout370 or Jimbo err in respecting each other?
Is there "strong community support" for blocking Miltopia? Does evidence of that now exist? Did it exist when Zscout370 unblocked?
Jimbo says he is capable of error. Zscout370 thought he was in error. When are admins and other editors allowed to disagree with Jimbo?
Jimbo seems to feel that a policy was not being properly enforced, which is why he stepped in. Which policy was the problem? Was the problem that the policy is not written correctly, or that it's not being properly enforced? In hindsight, what could have been done that would have allowed the community to address the problem, rather than causing Jimbo to feel that the only thing that could be done was for him to take direct action?
Also, along the lines of, "Does Jimbo have another list of editors that 'need to go'?", are existing policies sufficient to deal with these editors, or do we need something new, like a "Karma" system? In other words, "If you want to stay on Wikipedia, you need to do things that earn good karma and make you useful to the community. If everything that you do generates bad karma, you need to go." (Note: Other communities, such as SlashDot, have come up with creative ways of rating a user's karma).
Is it time to come up with a "trusted user" system on Wikipedia, whereby the voices of established and trusted users have more weight than those of the bad-karma and/or anonymous folks?
Mention of "completely useless editors" who need to be kicked out brings to mind a Twilight Zone episode, "The Obsolete Man". (Well, lots of things are bringing to mind TZ episodes lately, since I've been watching a whole bunch of DVDs of them recently.) In that episode, there is a future society in which people whose occupation is deemed "obsolete" are tagged for execution if they can't successfully defend themselves before a tribunal run by a chancellor. There, creator Serling was critiquing the concept that people can be declared "useless" by the authorities and liquidated. *Dan T.*02:05, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Good god I agree with Dan T. on something. I'll try to never let it happen again. I have to say, I'm deeply disturbed by the concept that Jimbo can arbitrarily and controversially say "You're a useless editor, banned." Especially when he says it in a blatantly incivil manner. You'd think our god-king (gotta love that omnipotence) would be above that. ⇒SWATJesterSon of the Defender02:09, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I also agree with Dan T.'s assessment. I further concur with Swat's characterization of Jimbo Wales' actions. Luckily, Jimbo's human, and has before admitted mistakes. This makes it far easier for us to expect and accept an apology to the community, and ZScout. As for Miltopia, I think this problem needs to be unfolded in reverse, ZScout's desys, then Miltopia's ban, so we can work back to the heart of things. That said, I look forward to a new dawn where trolls and bad editors can be thrown out faster. Unfortunately, this wasn't the best way to start it. ThuranX02:35, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
One important factor has been just about completely overlooked in this discussion: Zscout acted while Miltopia hadn't even requested a review of Jimbo's action, and while Jimbo had specifically asked for a couple of days' patience. There wasn't any urgency here, and Zscout's reason for reversing Jimbo's action was that he didn't understand it. The obvious solution in that situation is to wait and discuss it. Subtle disruption is just that: subtle. I think Jimbo means to send a message here that cursory reviews aren't necessarily adequate for the tougher cases, and we all need to be mindful of that. DurovaCharge!02:30, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Agree, despite all the smoke that this has generated, the only real fire is exactly what Durova is saying. There was no urgency to unblock this user, and Zscout should have known better than to do what he did. ≈ jossi ≈(talk)04:55, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You know, I tend to agree with you, but saying the same thing at the end of every section doesn't exactly move the conversation forward. Relata refero08:00, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There was no urgency to unblock Miltopia, true, but neither was there urgency to block Miltopia in the first place. Look at it this way, what if the block had been by any other admin? Administrator Doodad comes along, blocks a user who hasn't even done anything on Wikipedia in days, and then says they're going offline for the weekend. I'm sorry, but that's just plain a bad block. If Miltopia needed to be perm-blocked, it could have been handled through normal ArbCom procedures -- it didn't require a hit-and-run block by the head of the project. There was no urgency involved that required his immediate action. --Elonka14:54, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Elonka, I had given Miltopia a block warning just a few hours before Jimbo acted and I've supplied diffs of two different disruptive actions that Miltopia made that day. Read the context of the Arbcom situation more carefully. DurovaCharge!16:17, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Durova, I see your warning to Miltopia [2] here, but I also see no disruptive actions by Miltopia after receiving the warning [3]. You analyzed the situation and determined that a warning was the correct decision - not a block. You, an administrator, had clearly made those intentions known on Miltopia's talk page for all to see. But, another administrator without consulting you, overrode your stated decision not to block. Deciding when not to use the tools is certainly as important deciding when to use the tools, and your decision not to block perhaps deserved some discussion before it was overridden. I understand that you do not mind the overriding of your decision in this instance, but such allowance for the overriding of another's action (or clearly stated non-action in this case) without discussion goes against the process of working together through consensus. Uncle uncle uncle18:16, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Damn, I had just dragged my good friend Lar over the coals (he may not have felt it, he is good at understanding things like that) regarding the legitimacy of some of the claims and reasoning given by Jimbo for his actions - when all I had to have done was read WAS 4.250's excellent point by point raising of the pertinent issues and simply signalled my agreement... LessHeard vanU22:34, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ya NOW you tell me after I wrote a (well crafted, if I do say so myself! (and I do, you know I do!)) 3 para response, thanks a lot, you sod. More seriously I'm not sure I agree with WAS 4.250's issues I think there are some missing... ++Lar: t/c22:49, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(the first part of the above is me teasing my friend Less, (and myself), nothing more, in case anyone wasn't clear :) ) ++Lar: t/c23:17, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There's one thing that I believe we're forgetting here. People are jumping on Jimbo or his desysopping and he's countering about Miltopia being a troll. I haven't followed this user myself, so maybe his was, and maybe he did deserve the indefblock. However, miltopia is no longer part of this equation. He's indefblocked, he hasn't posted an unblock requet, and doesn't look like he will. If he doesn't then that piece of the puzzle is fine. We have to look at this though the fallout: What does it mean to wheel war, what constitutes an acceptable desysopping, etc. Of course, now that's it's Monday, I expect Jimbo, Zscout, and all involved to start coming to conclusions/solutions on this storm as opposed to borderline mudslinging. Perhaps we all need to just sit back and really look at this situation from each angle. Instead of asking whether or not the block was wrong, or whether the unblock, or the desysop was wrong, let's ask ourselves what we should do now. Perhaps a new policy regarding long-time trolls? Maybe that would be a solution to this. Wizardman00:26, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that this no longer concerns Miltopia; this wholly concerns the concerning action of an immediate and non-discussed desysopping. To that, I am utterly and strongly opposed. -- Anonymous DissidentTalk02:32, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, not this wholly concerns the concerning action of an immediate and non-discussed desysopping. This concerns the unilateral action of an admin to undo another admin without discussion, on the basis of the lame excuse that he did not understand the reason for the block. ≈ jossi ≈(talk)04:58, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Don't be dismissive. This concerns a lot of people, and the problem is the retaliatory and vindictive nature of the desysopping. There is a credible complaint that Jimbo's block of Miltopia was incorrect, and Zscout unblocked him pending clarification. That's not a wheel war, and because of Jimbo's "I'm going to act and then run away so I can't respond to criticism and therefore the block has to stick over the weekend" attitude, which is frankly disgusting, Zscout undid a poorly explained, highly controversial admin action. If Jimmy wants this action treated like any other admin's action, he should never have desysopped in the first place (abuse of tools in a controversy one is involved in), should not have retaliated against another user, and should not have wheel warred. Period. End of story. Jimmy screwed up real bad, and then tried to pass it off by saying "Oh Zscout wheel warred, that's grounds for an instant desysop." Zscout didn't wheel war, by definition, and it's not grounds for instant desysop, and the policy explicitly states that that's the area of Arbcom to decide. Zscout was merely being bold and assuming good faith, and he got punished for it. Well guess what, we don't punish people here. Every single one of Jimmy's statements has rung incredibly hollow, especially in the face of the massive criticism from the community. Jimmy, you want to say "no more Miltopia style trolls?" Fine. Make a policy about it. Instruct ArbCom to put out a decision. But don't just randomly make a controversial block, and then desysop our most productive admins. ⇒SWATJesterSon of the Defender05:41, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Policy is clear...admins should not rollback other admin decisions with nary a comment, nor (at the time he did the rollback of Miltopia's block) any consensus on a noticeboard anywhere to do the unblocking. As administrators, we should almost never rescind an admin action without discussing with the original admin first...or, at a bare minimum, gaining an obvious consensus via transparent discussion on a noticeboard. What we have here is a bit of a test case...we have an indefinite block of one contributor, who has been way below par as far as editing excellence goes, etc. The admin posted a notice about the block and asked for minimal drama for a couple of days...another admin unilaterally unblocked, commenting that his experiences with the blocked subject were essentially fine. The original blocker, who in this case is also a Steward, temporarily desysopped the unblocking admin...why...because the unblocking admin failed to follow policy. There isn't anything that Jimbo did that was a screw up...I think it is high time that admins learn to work together, assume good faith of one another and stop fighting.--MONGO08:20, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not even that. Every admin can make a bad call sometimes, and most of us will accept with a reasonable approximation of good grace when that happens, but in this particular instance a specific action was taken with an explanation by an admin who very rarely gets involved on that level but has a long history of very detailed external interactions about content and disputes. It's not that Jimbo is a God-King, he was acting here in his position as an arbitrator and as a thought leader. We are not required to be sheep, but we are required to think long and hard about what might be behind a block like that. If I indef-block someone then it could easily be a bad call, I have a short fuse and an itchy trigger finger. Jimbo doesn't. He is also open to discussion. Guy (Help!) 10:23, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree that this is no longer about the original block. I believe it is all about the original block. Durova warned and it was Jimbo that did not "respect" the warning of an another administrator; felt a compulsion to act / pull the trigger. Much like kids in a gang, all it takes is one to feel the need to be the "hero." Jimbo should have yielded to Durova. Once and Forever20:41, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Resysop Zscout, archive this post mortem and the other discussions and let's get on with doing something useful, like, writing content. Nick00:30, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
One day soon there would be more conflicts between admins than between editors. This is really a bad atmosphere. Conflicts and confrontations between admins have been going on since a long time and now even worse. I really feel that the project is heading for an anarchy. The project needs to review itself before it is too late. There should be a real and open debate about the issue (like if there's only one). Relationships that links the Community in a whole, editors, admins, ArbCom Committee and Jimbo together should be re-explained and/or revised (or whatever) again for the sake of a good continuity. Big and clear rules of the game should be explicitly clear to anyone, including kids. We obviously cannot discuss this here. Again, this is heading for an anarchy. I hope it is not too late. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 00:45, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly so. WP is continuously wracked with these childish melodramas over the actions or behavior of its administrators. If existing policy allows so many of these misunderstandings, then that's where the problem lies. These disputes are happening because admins aren't working together, probably because the policies are tinkered with so much, misunderstandings naturally occur. Is one revert a wheel war or are two required? Does everybody have the same understanding? If admins won't automatically defer or can't relent to the decisions of the others, then policies must be put in place for decision disputes that everybody just abides by. If, absent clear policy, admins are prepared to overrule or react against other admin actions at the least excuse, then these gossipy admin melodramas will continue to dominate, and drive away more good editors grown tired of all the immature squalling and tomato throwing going on the front of the theater.Professor marginalia19:10, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The issue that remains is not "who did what", it's that (whatever one might think) there is a lot of uncertainty in others' perception on the relationship, and how they are to interact, what to expect if they use "everyday judgement", and such. This ambiguity is not assuaged by an assertion that nothing is unclear and nothing unchanged. Many current editors do not remember you as an editor, and do not remember what used to be the norm.
Either way what's evident is that to the community, it is unclear (even if not to you). Your expectations (how you expected your actions to be received and perceived, and appropriate handling of the Zscout unblock) and their expectations (how they expect you to act and to respond to the unblock) clearly do not mesh, and that is pretty good evidence that there is uncertainty and a need for a double check as to clarity.
A clarification is not a demand to do differently, it's a request by those who hold you in great esteem, to re-set out in words, exactly how others should interact with you. It's useful here because Zscout (an experienced sysop) interacted with you precisely as another well known admin interacted with me a month ago, and the communal reaction on that occasion (which was close to the communal norm) was very different in many ways:
The unblocker was not desysopped nor sanctioned, nor did anyone suggest it -- or even suggest RFC on it.
A number of other admins very clearly and forcefully posted to his user page. They noted very clearly that the unblock was a poor judgement, and requiring an explanation.
All parties affirmed (as here) that they would not override others decisions.
The intial blocker posted to the unblocker a recap of the evidence that the block was well founded, noted the unblock might cause problems, expressed the hope it would not turn out badly, and having done so, recused to allow the community to indicate the best next step.
The unblocking admin accepted his actions were disapproved and unhelpful. He then expressed regret to other admins concerning the unblock, and posted an updated comment and warning to the unblocked party.
Consensus and amicable resolution was reached and lessons were taken home by those concerned.
There was no drama.
That is how the community handled an almost identical situation (Like the present case, the party, "Proabivouac", was also a near-banned problem editor with "history") within the last few weeks. The question is therefore, do you wish the community to handle this sort of situation that way or differently in future? Should the unblocker in the incident I describe (SlRubenstein) be instantly (if temporarily) desysopped in future for such an incident, for not discussing an unblock, for example? Do you want the community to decide these things, or will you direct how it should work? If the former, will it apply to you too? These are examples of the kinds of questions where clarification might help avoid misunderstandings in the future. FT2(Talk | email)01:00, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Do we need a policy page regarding Jimbo's powers and authority? Or does one already exist? I mean, I certainly did not know, until it was stated in this thread, that Jimbo's blocks have the force of an ArbCom block/ban. If this is the case, it should probably be documented somewhere so that people can act appropriately. It seems like there may be some unspoken rules that are assumed be understood by all, but are not. I think this is one of the main issues causing the drama. Perhaps spelling it all out would help get everybody on the same page and avoid drama like this in the future. -Chunky Rice01:12, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A policy has been suggested (see here). People responded saying that it wouldn't make sense because Jimbo can act outside of all policies. A.Z.02:15, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If we write a policy saying that Jimbo is able to act outside of all policies, then that would mean that Jimbo would be able to stop being able to act outside of all policies. A.Z.03:02, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A whole new policy is unneeded. If Jimbo explicitly states that he is issuing a block as an official Jimbo-ban or just a regular admin block then we can't argue semantics. If Jimbo makes a comment about policy, is he changing policy or just making a comment? Nowhere is Jimbo's original summary of the Miltopia block (or is it a ban) did he say, "Miltopia is banned" or "treat this as a block by any admin." The problem is in the interpretation of his words (and the fact that they need interpretation). On one extreme, some people see Jimbo as a regular user with the special power to do pretty much whatever he wants if he wants to, but most of the time he is just a regular user. Other people see him as the "god-king" of Wikipedia. Any block he does is a ban and anything he says can be treated as policy if it is possible to do so. Of course it is not that black and white, many people are closer to middle ground than either extreme. A little clarity though, could go a long way. Mr.Z-man04:06, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Whatever the exact reasons were this needs to be dealt with somehow. Jimbo and the community upon which the entire project depends are clearly out of sync when it comes to what Jimbo's role in the everyday operation of enwiki should be. It seems very apparent now that Jimbo needs to have this debate in full and in the open rather than deliver one-liners and then stay away from the conversation. The community won't stand for it and I think more and more people are realizing just who is dependant on who here. No disrespect towards Jimbo intended but we didn't reach over 2 million articles because of one person's involvement in the project. It may have worked that way in the past but it doesn't anymore. EconomicsGuy06:18, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is the wrong conversation to have. This is not about Jimbo this or Jimbo that. This is about an admin that reverts another admin's action without due process. Would Wikipedia suffer by having one editor blocked until his block can be reviewed, of course not. Is Wikipedia suffering because of this admin careless action: you bet, Read this page. ≈ jossi ≈(talk)05:04, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Is that what it's really about? Fine, then it's about an Admin (jimbo) who blocked a user out of policy, refused to allow discussion of the block, and then retaliated against someone who unblocked the user using privileged tools. I mean, if we're talking about it as just "an admin", right? ⇒SWATJesterSon of the Defender05:44, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Swayjester, this was not out of policy. Policy says that common sense is more important than process. Jimbo is trying to help us get the agenda back to building an encyclopaedia and away from what the trolls and abusers want, which is to build their memes. Miltopia has a long history of trolling, loves drama, hates MONGO, and makes few non-trivial contributions to the project. If it weren't for the trolling and baiting of MONGO we'd not care, but they vastly outweigh any positive contributions. Miltopia is deliberately provocative, and right now the last thing we need is provocation. Guy (Help!) 10:08, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Guy, without meaning to cause unnecessary, I think "few non-trivial contributions" is a little demeaning to Miltopia's editing history. He's made a handful of inappropriate comments, and occasionally been too aggressive in editing, but let's not treat him as an ill-intended troll who hasn't done anything for the project. — xDanielxT/C16:27, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Regardless of any private communications and resolution between Zscout and Jimmy, Jimmy's actions have caused a loss of trust and a lot of unnecessary drama, culminating in the temporary loss of one of our most creative and productive users/admins. It's especially hurtful to the community because Jimmy's actions were conducted outside of the normal standards of the community. The end result is that this debacle has hurt not just Zscout, but the entire community. As a result, I would like to see an apology from Jimmy to the community as a whole, for his actions here. ⇒SWATJesterSon of the Defender05:50, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I will never apologize for banning a user like Miltopia, and I will never apologize for insisting that admins should treat admin decisions with respect. This is not, as some have supposed, a 0RR for admin actions, but just some basic common sense around respect. If you think that sort of thing is the sort of thing that needs an apology, then perhaps you have misunderstood something important about Wikipedia. It is not an anarchy, it is not a place where people have the inherent right to edit (or admin) Wikipedia, it is a place where civility is to be paramount, and bad users should be shown the door promptly and firmly with a minimum of fuss.--Jimbo Wales19:22, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Nor should you have to apologize for either. The community here exists to serve the encyclopedia, not the other way around. People seem to have some strange ideas about this being a anarcho-socialist-democratic-constitutional society, complete with entitlements and wikicivil rights. If people have lost trust because you showed some common good sense, then maybe they should investigate other projects that are more appropriate to their mindset. - Crockspot19:29, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If not, please, a reversal of the removal of privileges. This nonsense has gone on enough; desysopping is a very serious action, and it has been abused, in my eyes, in this situation. As to an apology - I doubt that's coming, considering that JWales is still very much behind his actions. -- Anonymous DissidentTalk05:59, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Golly, I wouldn't want to be User:Jimmy Wales. 70% of users think he's a god-king, treat every off-the-cuff comment he ever makes as policy, and back him to the hilt no matter what he does. Another 25% run around trying to prove they're not like the other 70%, by disputing everything he does and baying for blood every time he fucks up. The remaining 5% ignore him. That he functions at all under that kind of pressure is remarkable. Hesperian06:15, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sure if he acted appropriately, instead of pointless and moronically desysopping admins who were doing their jobs, he wouldn't be in the position you allude to. Dihydrogen Monoxide (H2O) 06:30, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm quite certain he would be in this position irrespective of his behaviour (give or take a modicum of respect) by virtue of his celebrity. Hesperian11:40, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"Moronically"? Admins doing their "jobs" don't overide other admin actions with hardly a comment on the matter beforehand. I think this sends a clear message...before you rollback an admin decision, discuss the matter with the admin who did the action FIRST...as it clearly states in our blocking policy.--MONGO07:19, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The African barbecue brouhaha was a different story, but this one really can't be cast aside as a community screwup. Anyone who desysops a well-established admin for one reasonable revert in order to "send a strong signal" announcing their disagreement with the said admin's standards can expect some raised eyebrows. — xDanielxT/C06:33, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In addition, I would like to see a public apology from Zscout and every other admin who has decided to take it upon themselves to unilaterally revert the action of another, without having the decency to discuss it first. If he (and they) acted appropriately, instead of pointlessly and moronically reversing the actions of other admins who were doing their jobs, then we wouldn't be having this discussion and a lot of unnecessary drama. Rockpocket07:17, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wouldn't that lay the groundwork for a policy pretty much stating "Admins can make pointy moves without fear of any sort of reprimand?" I'd say the clear consensus is that you do not break wikipedia policy to make a point. Kyaa the Catlord09:16, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Apology? For what? Being ticked that someone undid a ban without even asking for the back-story? Hell, I'd be ticked, and I haven't had to handle half the crap Jimbo has about the problems Bagley has stirred up. Guy (Help!) 09:41, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that demanding public apologies is the best approach here. It sounds like Zscout and Jimbo have been able to resolve the situation by working off-wiki. Since one of the goals here ought to be to reduce drama and facilitate a diplomatic resolution, it's probably best that we let them work things out privately without the demand for public mea culpas. Forced apologies are generally meaningless in any case. MastCellTalk16:08, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see the need for a public apology. In fact, all of us should make one for making mistakes sometimes. We are all part of the same community and taking things to a personal level is not the right thing to do. I agree w/ the way MastCell puts it. We need to focus now on how to avoid such things to happen. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 16:19, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Does "all of us" exclude Jimmy? :O (I don't think it makes sense to ask him to apologize for his actions if he still endorses his them, I'm just being a prick.) — xDanielxT/C18:37, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am sure i heard him once saying something like 'everybody does mistakes'. My point is that it is for all of us to make apologies and not only Jimbo. Jimbo is part of the community and the community is part of the system. The system got many holes and instead of filling the holes and extending the encyclopedia we are digging all the time making too much noise. We got 2m articles and Wikipedia grows. Everything but our way of handling our stuff (admins and above). We don't grow up. Be it you, me, Zach, Jimbo or Tom or anyone else. Who cares? We have to grow up. It is very unprofessional. We collaborate to present knowledge to humanity and everybody is supposed to take it seriously. If we want Jimbo to have full rights while not doing mistakes we have to grow up then. If we want to ask Jimbo to let the community decide we have to grow up. There's no other option except to grow up. It is the settings of this system which must be revised/tweaked for the good of all. In fact you'll never expect anyone to grow up and take Wikipedia seriously if we don't set good examples to users. I can't convince someone to stop incivility if i am uncivil. I can't convince him/her not to edit war because i do it. It's so damn stressful. Do we still have admins who bring admin conflicts at the ANI instead of the AN? Yes and most of the time LAME indeed. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 20:28, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have sent Jimbo an email asking for my sysop rights back. I assume I will need to wait a week before I get them back. Honestly, I still believe what I have done was correct in my moral view, but my morals do not match up to the reality of what Wikipedia is about. I also know why the action was done, because of Jimbo explained to me. I won't issue a public apology; I issued one to Jimbo. We both had a chat, through email, and I got to see what we are dealing with. Now, it is just a waiting game of seeing what happens next. Until then, any admin/OTRS action that I have done, just email me about it and I can see what I can do. All mentorships I am overseeing are going to be dropped by me. I probably won't be blocking much or doing admin work, but the community still feels I should try to have the tools, either from Jimbo or from RFA. I should get back to doing what I came to Wikipedia for and we should get back to editing the encyclopedia. A quote from Android79 sums it up best: "Encyclopedia. Say it with me: en-cy-clo-pe-di-a. Now, go work on it." User:Zscout370(Return Fire)07:32, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, I think your mistake was a simple one: you forgot that Jimbo is more likely to be influenced by external events than the average admin. Most of us take our cue from what's said here and perhaps on IRC, Jimbo is much more likely to be working with arbcom, external emails, and will usually come to a situation like this with an independent view. Reverting Jimbo is not an offence in and of itself, I have done it myself. I don't think Jimbo is in any doubt that you are a good admin (several of us have told him you are), his problem, I think, comes from the fact that the project in general - and here I am definitely not referring to you in particular, as I don't think this is true of you - has become tolerant of people who stand on their rights to assert the ability to support or enable drama, while making little or no productive contribution to the encyclopaedia. I think he is becoming impatient with the fact that parts of Wikipedia are turning into a navel-gazing community where the agenda is driven by trolls and abusers. I absolutely don't see you as part of this problem, but I think Miltopia was an archetype. Guy (Help!) 09:49, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Guy, there are other aspects which need attention, not only ED and the likes if we'd consider that to be the cause of this drama. Both Zach and Jimbo were BOLD but denying the existence of those sites is a bad publicity for Wikipedia. That is the real drama. We must accept our mistakes and mishandling of situations because if we don't, we'll be more than mistaken and driven to chaos. In other words, i'd like to see Jimbo 'banning' long-term POV-pushers and people w/ clear political agendas who hide behind wikilawyers before dealing w/ a critical website or two 'we' don't like. We must accept criticism w/ a big heart and deal w/ more important problems instead. Give the ArbCom more power. Discuss again the main policies. Make it clear. My 2.1 ¢. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 10:28, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
ED is hardly a site that hosts balanced criticism of the Wikipedia/Wikimedia project, as such, removal of all links and contributors to ED is a sensible step and for that alone, Jimbo should be thanked for his precedence setting here. Nick10:52, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe i meant that there are more impotant issues to deal w/ before that. If the community do agree it hosts unbalanced critisism, say it and don't deny it. We report facts and not truth and we all know that Wikipedia is not censored. Again, that's the real drama. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 11:35, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What are you on about ? There's no more an important issue that writing an encyclopedia, ED and their merry band of trolls, of which Miltopia may well have been one have gone around and disrupted the whole writing content mission through their continual attacks on editors, general trolling and other assorted crap. There's little point in trying to write content when people are actively trying to force good content writers off the project through harassment, trolling and other highly disruptive types of behaviour. There's nothing more important for the bureaucratic wonks of this project than creating an optimal environment for the creation of quality content, that means removing attack sites, distractions and other general nonsense that gets in the way of writing content. You don't try transporting grain in a leaking boat, you take it ashore, fix it properly, then take your cargo to where it's needed, you most certainly don't try to fix the leak, dry the grain, pump the boat out all whilst trying to navigate through the sea. That's what we're doing at the moment and it's not working. Nick11:51, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think that one part of the problem is this: I have never seen Miltopia advocate in favor of linking to ED. There's something very wrong with the principle "If someone says something enough times, it becomes true". —Random83212:46, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Believe me Random832. It it were about me i'd simply declare "i'm not giving a damn importance to what they say about me at ED or wherever. Just do not feed the trolls and i'am ready to not make out of that a big deal and disrupt the process". Again, why aren't we adapting the "do not feed the trolls" strategy and sleep in peace. Get an article about ED and al and stop this internet war. We don't have time for that. MONGO or not MONGO. It is for anyone. See the results? Nick wants to go on w/ what he thinks is the best strategy. I say no, it is not. Look at this mess!
Because of my weird page design. You can read it at his talk page. I am glad Durova got him indef. I could have done it yesterday but i wanted to make him feel losing. You can see that he stopped harassing me just after i gave him the answers he didn't want to listen. He wanted me blocking him or feeling harassed and he just failed in what he was looking for. After all, someone had to block him w/o much fuss. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 17:05, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If one's purpose is to keep Wikipedia's agenda from being driven by trolls and abusers, it hardly seems like a productive strategy to make the obsessive focus here be on fighting those trolls and abusers. Maybe if you just ignored them (and getting into heated arguments about how evil they are and how a massive campaign against them is needed is far from ignoring them) they'd go away? *Dan T.*12:56, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That seems blindingly obvious to me as well. Per WP:DENY, ignoring people you think are trolling is often a win-win strategy. If they are truly of bad intentions they will do something unambiguously bad and be blocked sooner or later. I hate this recent tendency to treat Wikipedia as a battleground. I hate the assumption that anyone who opposes the ill-conceived BADSITES proposal supports harassment. WP:BEANS applies too; making up a new policy every time you think of something you don't want to see happen here is a terrible way for an online community to proceed. We already have all the rules we need; it is time to start enforcing the ones we do have even-handedly. --John14:44, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps taking WP:DENY to the extreme actually means blocking a vandal completely, without any major drama about it. For routine vandals that is what happens today, all the time. Blocked and ignored. Working as Designed. If one of Miltopia's goals is to cause drama here, this episode is another notch in his gunbelt, isn't it? FWIW I don't often agree with Dan T. but he's got a point about Twilight Zone being useful and a more important point about Shirky's thinking about self destructive group behaviour. When you read that, remember that his citing Wikipedia as a group that apparently avoided the traps is based on his observations from quite some time ago. We've gotten far more dramatic since then. ++Lar: t/c15:35, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Just in case there is any doubt about how Miltopia feels about it being a notch in his gunbelt, you can go to that site (you know which one) and read topic:13475 and post:80, and that will make it pretty clear: "For myself: it sucks that I'm blocked, but I could not have hoped to go out in a better way. After coming back from indef blocks from MONGO and Fred Bauder, to be banned by Jimbo himself, indirectly inspiring a poorly-received desysopping and ultimately spawning two subpages of WP:ANI? This is the most fun I've had watching Wikipedia since the MONGO-ED drama in summer 2006." I think we're well shut of him. Ya ya, I know, some say don't hold what people say at other sites against them here. Horsefeathers. ++Lar: t/c22:08, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't blame him for finding it amusing that we're staging a 3-ring circus over his block. I would find it hilarious if I didn't find it so sad. If I were blocked amidst such ridiculous histrionics, would I go to another site and laugh about it? Hell yes; I'd be a fool not to. That's certainly no proof that he wouldn't have been far happier had we shown ourselves capable of avoiding the traps, and acting like a grown-up website. We had a chance to be that site, and to force Miltopia to rise to the occasion, but we raced him into the mud, and we won. Of course he's laughing. -GTBacchus(talk)22:23, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
One point I think needs to be raised is the wisdom of taking possibly controversial actions before going on a break. I know that when I'm getting ready to leave for a weekend break, or a long holiday, I get stressed. I also know from past experience (several times) that this stress affects my judgement when taking part in discussions and deciding what course of action to take. The pressure of "need to stop editing and get ready to leave" can lead to hasty actions. I'm not suggesting that this is what happened here, but it is something that I think people should bear in mind for the future. Instead of saying "here's my action, let's discuss in a few days time", why not wait until you get back and can devote time to dealing with the matter properly and avoiding drama? Maybe the principle should be "if you carry out a block - make sure you are around to discuss it". Having said that, in general I support Jimbo's role in taking these god-king actions, though I'm not sure about the specifics here. My feeling is that once Zscout has the admin bit back (and not having the bit for a week is really not a big deal), things will have got back to normal. I think both Jimbo (for the desysop) and Zscout (for the unblock) could have handled things better. Carcharoth12:36, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Cool. Glad to hear that, Zach. OTH, we need Jimbo to tell us if he's planning to go forward w/ his troll fighting strategy. Is he listening and taking into consideration other possible approaches? -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 13:28, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That has not been discussed yet. The only other things mentioned, other than the block, is what messenger software we use. Anyways, I got classes soon and I need to run. Any questions can be posed at my talk or in my email box. User:Zscout370(Return Fire)13:43, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Does this settle the question from a community perspective then? Or does there need to be some comment here from Jimbo regarding his actions? K. Scott Bailey14:10, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That is what yall get to decide. Personally, I am at peace. I don't hold a grudge against anyone in the issue; the same people who respected me before will most likely respect me tomorrow and everything else. I want to move on, I got bigger fish to fry. User:Zscout370(Return Fire)07:48, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Jimbo initially blocked User:Miltopia for making a joke about having HIV. This block was a good idea in my opinion. Jimbo clearly asked for calm over the weekend regarding the issue, however User:Zscout370 unblocked Miltopia citing lack of justification for his block. This in itself if taken in context is no big deal at all. Administrators FREQUENTLY undo actions of other administrators, including blocks. This is done on an almost daily basis and none of the administrators undoing indef blocks are punished. Jimbo has stated that the desysop is meant to 'send a signal', possibly to other administrators letting them know that wheel warring is not acceptable. This in my opinion will not be effective. The official policy of Wheel warring (WP:WHEEL) has changed in the past year or so to the point that simply reverting an administrators actions one time is not a violation of policy, but two times is. If Jimbo wants to send a signal that reverting the actions of other administrators is unacceptable then I think that it would be a lot more productive to have the official policy changed from "All administrative actions are subject to a one-revert rule." to "Do not revert the actions of another administrator without consensus." The desop of User:Zscout370 seems to have been resysop'd, however in my opinion this is not the end of the issue. If we all agree that the actions of other administrators should never be undone without consensus, then WP:WHEEL must be changed to reflect that. Wikidudeman(talk)13:52, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
We also need to rewrite WP:BAN to reflect that community bans no longer imply that no single administrator would not unblock since such an unblock would be grounds for desysopping anyway as long as consensus is in favor of keeping the block. Thus, a community ban would simply mean a block for which there is consensus. EconomicsGuy13:57, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Right. Undoing the actions of any administrator without consensus (or in some cases the agreement of the other administrator) should be prohibited. Jimbo states that no admin should undo the actions of another admin and doing so is wheel warring. If that is the case (and it should be) then WP:WHEEL needs to be changed to reflect that. Wikidudeman(talk)14:00, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If rewriting WP:BAN as suggested is the conclusion, all of this was for nothing, the fundamental issues that go to the very heart of how Wiki got into this position to begin with continue, and abuse and pre-emptive indef blocks will rule Wiki. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:40, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I also want to clarify that I believe that Desysoping administrators is No big deal and should not cause as much controversy as it has. The reason it has caused such controversy is Adminiship is increasingly becoming a big deal and is becoming harder and harder to attain for the most active editors and editors who edit controversial articles but easier to attain for less active editors and editors who edit the less controversial articles. This also needs to change IMO. Wikidudeman(talk)14:04, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It is a big deal - it's a pride thing. Most people would find the removal of their adminship as a big slap on the face, especially if they were trying to do something they thought was right. If it's no big deal then letting someone keep it shouldn't be a problem (though that is clearly not the case when a serious abuse of admin rights has occurred). violet/riga(t)17:16, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Work on making policies more practical w/ more sense of reality. We do not need obscure policies [WP:WHEEL] which gives the right for the first admin to undo but not for the second. Hell, why not get rid of our selfishness and think as a group (though we may disagree). There's too much selfishness in this project. Admin edit warring about policies (everyone tries to cover him/herself and not the community). Wondering? Check waht's going on at WP:BANright now. Wake up!!! Admins shouting at eachother. Incivil admins, etc... I totally disagree w/ Jimbo's approach and strategy re the trolls (why denying the existence of a critical mouth? Isn't it like telling the world to not deal w/ Cuba because you got some problems w/ it? Leave readers the choice and see how ED and al are trolls and avoid being seen as a censurer) but agree w/ his spirit of being against wheel warring and there was no need to make that signal. There are other ways to make signals as we do now. Zach did something in good faith but still something he could have avoided for the good of the community. Tom did the same. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 14:31, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wikidudeman's very good point is the first one I've seen on this subpage I feel strongly enough about to comment on - indeed, if adminship really is "no big deal", losing the buttons for a week should not be a big deal. The drama and strong response here seems disproportionate to me. Neil☎14:37, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If adminship is "no big deal" why remove them as a punitive response? Zscout370 had indicated that the unblock was a one-off, that he would not revert any reblock, and as he was working to what has been considered policy until then it isn't a case that that there was a matter of serial misuse of the mop - Jimbo doesn't really believe that is is "no big deal" if he uses them as a sanction. LessHeard vanU22:53, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is that becoming an administrator is a big deal, at least for those who edit highly controversial articles, regardless of their civility in doing so, unavoidably make enemies in the process, who subsequently prevent said users from becoming an administrator. For editors with a few thousand edits who have avoided controversial articles, it's quite easy. Wikidudeman(talk)14:48, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think "adminship is no big deal" has a double-meaning: (A) we should have low standards for adminship, as it just entails a simple set of tools that most users can be trusted with and (B) the status difference between admins and non/admins is unsubstantial. (B) implies that desysoping is no being deal, but (A) suggests that it is quite insulting to a well-meaning admin. So it can go both ways. — xDanielxT/C17:26, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think quoting Jimbo's "it's not a big deal" is kinda stupid, since he's capable of being just as much a hypocrite as anyone else. Come on people, he's not god, so using his words as justification don't really cut it for enlightened discussion. As pointed out many times, the theory behind adminship and the actual practice are far removed, for better or worse. It seems a solid majority of people think a desysop is a big deal- from WP:SYSOP "These privileges are granted indefinitely, and are only removed on request or under circumstances involving high level intervention"- can someone tell me how one contrary action justifies unilateral "castration" of a sort? This smacks of "You revert my block? Me smash you instead of assuming good faith and having an informed discussion." David Fuchs (talk)22:14, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Since Adminship is "no big deal" then removing it as a punitive measure should not be a big deal either, though it's worth mentioning that Jimbo clearly stated that it was not punitive but preventive. As far as Adminship being a "pride thing" and users taking desysop as a "slap in the face", perhaps such users shouldn't be admins in the first place if they take it so personally and seriously. The first step in abuse of power is the belief that one is somehow "special" or "separate" due to having such powers. Quoting policy makes about as much sense as quoting Jimbo Wales since policy seems to change every time I turn around. Wikidudeman(talk)23:54, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I would think we would want to avoid punitive blocks to begin with; it's in the blocking policy and thus it makes fair sense to apply it to adminship and the removal of priveleges. Can Jimmy show us how Zscout was a menace to the Wiki so that he had to have his powers removed? David Fuchs (talk)17:14, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Increasingly, the administrator culture at Wikipedia has drifted towards an overly accommodation-ist spirit with respect to disruptive editors. Trolls in their disruptive editor clothing come in many shapes, sizes, and colors and can often be insidious leeches on the activity of writing an encyclopedia. They're clever: they try to make their edits look less controversial and less confrontational than they actually are. I have had many a disruptive editor tack onto me to the point now that I feel it necessary to give out barnstars when an admin is brave enough to block one of them. Unfortunately, it seems that lately, invariably, some other admin will come by in the spirit of accommodation and say, "Oh, we should adopt this user." or "Let's not bite so hard." or "Assume good faith, don't block them!"
It's a waste of volunteer time. Wikipedia volunteers aren't here to help jackasses make one or two decent copyedits in between shitting all over the encyclopedia. If there is a disruptive editor: ban them and throw away the goddamn key. They'll get the message. If they really want to return, let them demonstrate through e-mail that they have a purpose at Wikipedia.
Ironically, while becoming an admin is a fucking huge deal (there's no way this community would ever let me become one, for example), becoming a Wikipedian can be done by any asshole with a computer. While I'm all for opensource equality, when someone abuses the trust, we should be ruthless. Someone who is banned from Wikipedia should have to go through a process similar to WP:RfA in order to get their ban lifted. It shouldn't be the other way around. Jimmy Wales is right. Administrators need to stop wasting their time unblocking problem editors and get back to being the effective janitors at the encyclopedia.
This is really a demeaning (albeit well-intended) message in the way it belittles the work Miltopia has done. Yeah, he slips sometimes, and maybe the ban was a good idea, but let's not dismiss his constructive efforts as "one or two decent copyedits." He hasn't set any edit count records, but it can hardly be said that his contributions have been unsubstantial. — xDanielxT/C18:47, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You're kidding, right? Among the more "constructive contributions" this user has made have been earth-shattering edits to Uncyclopedia, Horseland, and Wikinfo. I'm sure those topics are of the highest priority for a good encyclopedia. For godsakes, even if the majority of his edits are nominally productive, that doesn't mean we should be bending over backwards to make him feel welcome while he behaves like a troll. What the fuck? ScienceApologist19:41, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You were the one who built the strawman, not I. Trying to say that Miltopia did "valuable" work when all he did was try to improve some low priority material isn't exactly a convincing argument for letting a troll fuck about. ScienceApologist21:19, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am fairly sick and tired of people wringing their hands over the loss of Miltopia, and all the "good" he did around here. Here he is on September 18, just barely over a month ago, finally coming to the realization that he needs to actually make some encyclopedic contributions in order to justify his presence here. The fact that he follows up on that realization with a few hours of trivial copyediting does not make him Editor of the Year. He made only token contributions to content, and only because he felt that he had to in order to deflect accusations that he was only here to troll. I have actually been accused of doing hundreds of hours of RC patrol only to cover up for my "neocon agenda". Double standard? - Crockspot20:02, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is truly a fruitless line of conversation. We're not going to learn anything by determining whether we want to give Miltopia's mainspace edits a C, or an A-, or an F. Such talk is beside the point, beneath us, and unhelpful. Your contributions, Crockspot, are noted with gratitude. I hope nobody will disagree withe me that you are a valued Wikipedian. Miltopia is essentially community-banned; what need adding sticks to the fire?
Your point is well taken, but there still are editors who feel that Miltopia's contributions are grounds for keeping him around. (Just look up a couple of replies). I'll stop beating on this hobby horse. - Crockspot21:12, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You are correct Crockspot. But, no Miltopia supporter has shown that JW's edit summary when making the block, was incorrect. Refresher --"user not here to work in good faith with others to build an encyclopedia". Moriori21:46, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Whether or not it's correct is pretty immaterial. What's important is whether or not it's an appropriate block reason. Wasn't he truly blocked for the fact that his interactions here generated more heat than light? Does it matter whether or not that was his intention? Can we ever say for certain what his intentions were? (That's a yes, a no, and a no, in case it wasn't clear.) -GTBacchus(talk)22:02, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It is often not intentional. People with bad communication habits, poor command of the language, poor dispute resolution skills - all of these people can cause ongoing disruption while acting in perfectly good faith. The disruption may be a reason to block. The intention is none of our business, ever. -GTBacchus(talk)00:28, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You surprise me. When blocking someone, admins can choose Wikipedia Vandalism - only account as the reason for the block. I think that's pretty clear that intent is certainly part of our business. Moriori01:07, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, they can. Doesn't mean it's necessary. I'm not arguing that every feature of Wikipedia is optimized for civility, just that they should be. We never have any business making any claim about any editor's intent, full stop. -GTBacchus(talk)07:13, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Of course there will always be cases of clear-cut abuse. Those are the easy cases. But then there are the less obvious cases, like Miltopia, where intent is not so clear. That's when we should do our best to avoid guessing at an editor's intent. ATren13:25, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflicts)None of my business, but it looked to me like Miltopia had reformed. He turned on his "friends" at ED and seems to have earned his attack page there. It seems to me that people here who knew him from before wouldn't let him go straight.—ALFOCUS!22:07, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I would argue to those editors that, whether or not it be his intention, Miltopia's presence here seems bound to generate more heat than light, so there's really no solution but that he has to go. It is probably worthwhile to state that as the reason for his block, independently of anyone's opinion about his intentions. -GTBacchus(talk)21:32, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I find this interesting, especially the whole "more heat than light" bit, especially since it could be easily compared to Crock's fiasco of an RfA. I think judging an editor's article writing is a bit biased to begin with- I spend most of my time editing Halo related articles, and I've seen people at FAC who would gladly nuke a "stupid video game article. Not another" (real words). So going down that track is a bit foolish. And I think very few are arguing that Milt was the most bezaubern of editors, but at the same time this distracts from the whole issue of this page- the desysop of Zscout, which peple are arguing was unilateral and foolish. Did he make a stupid descision? Prolly. But desysop is not the way to deal. David Fuchs (talk)22:07, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A year or two ago someone was crying a river on Jimbo's talk page about how all the good articles he wanted to write on wikipedia could not be written by him since he was so very unfairly blocked. Being an old retired guy with time on my hands, I decided to play along and asked him to put one edit or one article on my talk page every day (or week, I forget which) and I would take full responsibility for verifying it and adding it to the article. He provided one good edit about an astronomical object, a star, and then one bad edit to a page that needed to be deleted and another more general encyclopedic page created to replace it (so I did) and he lost enthusiasm when he saw he wasn't able get his LULZ (a word this wikidrama exposed me to for the first time) and so I never heard from him again. If Miltopia wants to help build the encyclopedia, he can provide edits to his supporters who can then take responsibility for them. WAS 4.25021:57, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Of course that's an option. As far as ordinary edits, he can probably make them anonymously without too much trouble. It's only the persona "Miltopia" that's blocked, which is appropriate, because it's that persona that was central to all the drama generated. -GTBacchus(talk)22:00, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Miltopia's a clever lad; if he wants to edit anonymously, I'm sure he can find a way to do it. Editing is easy, but participating in discussions is not nearly as fun when you can't use your account. Furthermore, as far as I know, his account is blocked, but there is not "officially" a community ban. Even if it is (and I might be among the first to agrue that it is) telling people who are banned what they "should" try to do is an exercise in pissing in the wind. -GTBacchus(talk)22:18, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Umm no in fact editing is quite hard if you want to do anything more than correct typos and yet avoid being detected evading a ban. - Merzbow23:47, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If he returns, shall you be the first to submit a checkuser request...or aide in a sockpuppet check? I mean, good idea, lets give him some advice on how to evade his ban, afterall.--MONGO17:45, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
MONGO, are you being remotely serious here? Do I look like an idiot? There's nothing I can say about power-cycling modems that Miltopia didn't know a year ago. If he returns and doesn't bring attention to himself, then we'll never know it. That's true of all banned users, and you knew that when you got up today.
If he returns and starts engaging in the same discussions, making it clear that he's Miltopia, or otherwise allowing his presence to generate heat as it has, and I'm the one to realize it, then of course I would submit a checkuser request; this is not something you need to ask.
Do you think for a split-second that my answer would be "no"? Do you doubt that I mean every single word I've said? Have I ever not played by the rules here? Ever? -GTBacchus(talk)19:00, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Just wanted to comment on one of the common disagreements from above. We don't need to try to decide whether someone is disruptive out of mischievous intent or social incompetence. We'll never agree, and both are disruptive. I don't think it's automatically wrong to speculate about intent. We frequently tell trouble makers "You look like you're being intentionally disruptive; you need to stop." This is not unreasonable, but if others disagree about intent, we should just let it drop. We are perfectly right to expect good faith and competence from our editors. We should be forgiving of mistakes, of course, but past a certain point, disruptive editors need to be shown the door, whether or not the disruption is intentional. Friday(talk)14:03, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. A disruptive editor is a disruptive editor regardless of intent. If they want to prove that they reform, let them prove it to the community. I don't understand why a ban takes a community discussion while reinstatement takes one single admin. That's backwards, in my opinion. Disruptive editors should be shown the door immediately and then, if they feel they would like to return, they should be subject to incredible amounts of discussion similar to WP:RfA. ScienceApologist15:48, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
WP:DE refers to disruptive editing of a Wikipedia article. Miltopia was accused I believe, of other forms of disruption. Some of the most disruptive behavior at Wikipedia has been admin behavior that is said to be for the good of wikipedia and some of it actually is. Without paying close attention the the plot it can sometimes be hard to tell which disruptions are for Wikipedia's good and which are not. Life is like that sometimes. Medical doctors, policemen, and soldiers often do things that in other contexts would be a crime and indeed I recall in the cold war many naive people who could not tell the difference between US and USSR behavior. All I am saying is that saying "A disruptive editor is a disruptive editor regardless of intent." and other absolutist talk is unhelpful and doing disruptive admin acts when they did not have to be disruptive is not thoughtful. Absolutist talk and surprise precipitous behavior by Wikipedia's leadership is disruptive, unneeded, and unhelpful yet obviously well-intentioned. WAS 4.25016:28, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm actually amazed that so many of you actually believe you can make a difference or change anything here.
Power corrupts. Absolute power corrupts absolutely. If ANY of you truly believe you have any power here to actually change or accomplish anything, you're truly Naive. Mr Wales owns wikipedia, Mr Wales runs wikipedia and you ONLY have the power that he chooses to temporarily bestow upon you. He can, and he will, as he clearly has, do whatever he chooses, whenever he chooses and to whomever he chooses. Get off your pity potty and get over it. Go back to your respective subservient roles and stop complaining about that over which you have no control.
This seems unnecessarily inflammatory, and not literally true anyway: the Wikimedia Foundation actually owns Wikipedia (the site / trademark / domain name / servers, not the content, which is owned by the individual contributors). *Dan T.*16:07, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Right. However, ignoring his exact words what is the point of this? Jimbo has stated quite clearly what his response is to the dissatifaction with his desysopping, Zscout370 has said he will not pursue this anymore and Miltopia has said that not only will he not appeal, he also believes that a reasonable case could likely be made against him anyway should Jimbo have chosen to consult ArbCom. So, what is left for us to do other than draw out own conclusions and do whatever we feel we need to do as a consequence of those conclusions. EconomicsGuy16:20, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Taking this to an extreme, but if some guy was tortured, but was coerced into saying he was fine afterwards, would you just say 'move along'? Obviously it's not perfect, it's just to make a point; whatever you think of the block, Jimmy's removal of sysop priveleges was at best bad timing and worse revenge for reverting his own decision and thus a serious misuse of his steward powers, especially since (I may be wrong?) he is the only steward here. David Fuchs (talk)17:17, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not disagreeing, on the contrary, but since Jimbo has quite explicitly stated what his response is to these concerns we are left to draw our own conclusions and act upon them. Ultimately, Wikipedia cannot be changed from the inside against Jimbo's wishes. Those are the terms and deep down we all knew that when we signed up. Jimbo's side in any dispute will always win and the rest are left with the right to disagree but beyond that learn to deal with the decisions being made or, as I said, act upon our own conclusions. EconomicsGuy17:47, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The point is, we supposedly have RULES here. Those rules should be followed by everyone, or we should acknowledge the fundamental falacy under which we edit and conduct business here. Regardless of what anyone thought of the actions of either party, there was no justification for a desysop, other than claiming the UberLord powers to do whatever, whenever and to whomever. If Jimbo can ignore the proper procedures and desysop someone, simply because his panties are in a knot, then my comments and observations are accurate. He can and he did. Ranting on, like everyone has, is silly. My message was "get over it". It's not a democracy and its not self-governed. Wikipedia is run, owned, and ruled by one person. Anything else is simply him bestowing temporary authority to those to whom he chooses. And, as shown, he can and will revoke said authority/power at his whim. And stating the obvious is deemed disruptive, but an inappropriate desysop isn't.
Whoever told you that Wikipedia is a "rules game", or that "proper procedure" is an authoritative skirt to which we can run - they were wrong. People who expect to fall back on "the rules" are often disappointed here. -GTBacchus(talk)05:28, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Uhh, the reason was obvious, I thought: undoing a block on a disruptive editor. You can disagree if you wish, and call the reason an invalid one, but let's not pretend there was no reason for it. There is no ongoing problem to be solved here, that I can see. So let's not be needlessly melodramatic. Friday(talk)17:41, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
For clarity, I made NO judgment regarding the reasons of either party. My observations are related strictly to the 'way' things were handled and the fact that established procedures were completely ignored for personal reasons. That is the scary part, (for those who believe in what is supposed to be going on here). As for being melodramatic.. you'd prefer that everyone stick their heads back in the sand and ignore those things we don't like? Bah. Mr Wales, in contrast to the specific wording of the rules, can define a single Unblock as wheel warring and take the extreme step of desysoping, and you say I'm being melodramatic!? indeed. Peace.Lsijohn18:00, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, John (and nice to see you back amongst us again), and I would point out that some of us are fully aware of Jimbo's unique position within en-WP, and of the powers that he retains and his right to exercise them. Even with that knowledge there are good reasons to simply discuss what he has done; Jimbo states that he has acted simply as an admin and as a steward and that his actions are consistent with those practices - and there are those who are here to say that this is wrong. No admin blocks without providing diffs or references or other solid evidence (or in response to a request at an appropriate venue), no admin blocks and then makes themselves unavailable for consultation - and especially when recognising that there would be consequences - with some platitudes about explanations at some future date, and no steward unilaterally desysops an admin in a matter in which they are involved without consultation with other senior wikipedians. Of course the truth is that Jimbo can do all of these things, simply by invoking his special status. He did not do that, and thus he is liable for all the consequences which, as you have pointed out, is the generation of the cyber equivalent of superheated air.
The other reason is, ultimately, the encyclopedia. For me, I wish to participate in the creation of the finest possible NPOV reference source there is - and I am unwilling to allow the shift toward a partisan, restricted viewpoint, absolutist decreed version to pass without comment. Jimbo needs to be careful in how his removal of "useless" contributors, who do not see his vision as being the only right one, does not taint and unbalance the work already done. For this reason alone those who disagree with any and all of his actions and statements need to keep on voicing their concerns, albeit in the knowledge that none of it need ever be considered. LessHeard vanU22:35, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Lots of blocks get undone. Some for good reason, some for personal reasons, some for no good reason at all. Are those admins desysoped? no.
Whether or not the original block, or the unblock was proper, is not the issue. There are proper ways to handle such things, RFC, RFaR, recall. Taking an arbitrary action to desysop someone should send chills down everyone's spine.. or at least anyone who truly believes in whats supposed to be going on here.
Refusing to acknowledge that it was an overreaction, refusing to apologize and do the 'right' thing, only compounds the transgression.
Deleting an RFC, or allowing it to be deleted, again compounds further.
There is absolutely no defense for desysoping someone for a 'single' unblock. And that is what people should be focused on, if they truly want wikipedia to have respect in the world. If one person can decide who can be desysoped, without having to go through any of the 'established' procedures, then that means everything we are doing here is a sham.
Bring back the RFC, get an apology from Mr Wales, re-sysop the offending admin and follow the procedures that have been established.
And, re-define what those who handle the on-off switch are permitted to do.
(edit conflict) The problem that needs to be solved, as I see it, is that of Jimbo's actions. Multiple times now he has done things which were very much at odds with Wikipedia's existing policies and procedures. Jimbo has also said that he perceives a problem with how those policies are being implemented. Yet instead of changing the policies (as he very much has the authority to do), he simply does an end-run around them in one case with which he is personally aware, ignores many other cases that are of equal or greater urgency, and ultimately does not address the underlying problem, which is that the community is not currently sufficiently empowered to deal with trolls and griefers. I think that an RfC would help focus attention on the issue of "How do we keep this from happening again? How can we improve our own systems, so that the head of the project doesn't feel that his only option is to personally step in when he wants to get something done? If we have a situation where the head of the project is throwing up his hands and saying that there's a problem but he doesn't know how to fix it, then there's definitely still a problem that needs to be addressed. --Elonka17:49, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What Jimbo did with the desysopping was call a time-out, essentially. First, he tried to make it clear by his words at AN/I that he wanted people to give it time and think it over. Zscout didn't get the hint. So, the hint was forced upon him. This is occasionally necessary. It's not the end of the world; they talked it over, and everything is fine now. Where is the ongoing problem again? Friday(talk)17:59, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly my point. One person decided that a time-out was necessary.. an involved person.. rather than take it to the established board for review and determination. And again, you're correct, if we ignore all of the times that Mr Wales does whatever he wants, there is no on-going problem.. Peace.Lsijohn18:04, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This sort of thing happens so rarely, there is no established process for it. Like it or not, Jimbo has a special status on the project, and grousing about it here isn't going to change that. Friday(talk)18:36, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, there is an established process. Take it to Arbcom. Take it to any uninvolved steward, if he really thinks an immediate desysop is necessary. This is, he claims, no different than any wheel warring. Why, then, was it dealt with in a different manner? —Random83214:26, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Jossi, the amazing thing isn't that people are still taking about it. It's that they are 'only' talking about it. Why is one person.. or a select group of privileged people, allowed to do whatever they want and we're only allowed to 'talk' about it, and then only for a pre-determined amount of time.
@Friday That's the exact point- a "time out" by desysopping. Is there no real process established for this? Yes. But he's flying in the face of the blocking policy, for one thing. Whether you argue it's futile or not, Jimmy definitely went against the spirit of the policies, even if there is no real law in stone against it. David Fuchs (talk)20:43, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see it as being against the spirit of any policies, but your mileage may vary. It's ok to do things that aren't written in the rule book from time to time. The "time-out" meant they had to stop and talk it over. Stopping and talking it over is very much in the spirit of Wikipedia and our policies and guidelines. Friday(talk)21:00, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
For me it is quite simple: If an administrator sets up a very clear warning, as was the case herein, it is not right for a second or third administrator to come along and block, even if that administrator happens to be Jimmy Wales. This is why WP gets this type of article: http://www.scrippsnews.com/node/28003 This case certainly presents as a "gang" or a "mob" type behavior. In any civilized society, yielding to another person in power is part of the law. (e.g., "I yield to the senator from Illinois.") Is that not civilized? It is Mr. Wales that is in the wrong here. Clear and simple. Once and Forever21:33, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is not right. Blocking someone and checking out for the weekend is poor form, especially when it was foreseen that the block would "cause some drama". The block couldn't have waited until Monday? And backing up the poor-form block with accusations of wheel warring and summary desysopping for what was clearly a good faith unblock is just digging the hold deeper. What ZScout did was reasonable and out in the open, and he left the door open for others to revert as they saw fit. And the reward for this good faith, reasonable admin action is punishment (albeit temporary) raining down from the heavens. As an admin, this concerns me greatly.
The sooner Jimbo admits that what ZScout did was reasonable under the circumstances, the sooner we can put this behind us and get back to worrying about the troublemakers, as opposed to stressing about the valuable admins involved here. --But|seriously|folks22:45, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually Jossi, it is a very good thing that people are still talking about it -- especially considering who these people are. This shows that we care about Wikipedia. I could say more about this, but I'm feeling under the weather at the moment & I'm not sure I could explain my reasons in a coherent manner. But trust me on the fact that this ongoing conversation shows that we care about Wikipedia succeeding. -- llywrch21:36, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
When I look at this situation (the desysoping of Zscout) I see it stemming from a fundamental misunderstanding of who Jimbo is. The fact is that Jimbo is not unlike a Superhero-- he has multiple identities, which causes confusion.
The Jimbo Problem
I'm not really knowledgeable enough to comment on the wisdom of the initial block of Miltopia.
However it seems like Zscout370's situation was probably an instance of what I will call "The Jimbo Problem". Namely, "Jimbo" can refer to User:Jimbo Wales: a highly respected admin on the project, but one who should be subject to exactly the same amount of oversight, doublechecking, and feedback that any other admin should receive. Simultaneously, "Jimbo" can also refer to WP:JIMBO-- The Jimbo-- the Chairman Emeritus of Wikimedia Foundation, who is a one-of-a-kind semi- constitutional monarch, whose words can be law. Both are wise and good people, both serve the encyclopedia, and I don't have as single thing against either one of them.
Unfortunately, it seems like this incident, and a lot of incidents, have resulted from confusion between the two.
For example, as I understand it, it IS generally okay for an admin to overturn a block that he feels is unwarranted. I just saw an instance of this last week, where one admin blocked, and then another admin overturned, saying the block was unjustified-- and that seemed to be an okay thing among the participants. Although there was much discussion about whose actions were right, I don't htink desysopping was ever mentioned.
So let's suppose we're dealing with a normal admin. A block is issued, the blocking admin is out of town, and you feel the block is unwarranted-- it seems like it's a standard course of action to alter the block within the bounds of good judgment. Absent speculation of bad faith, doing so is not that big a deal-- there is no deadline, and regardless of the consensus, nobody would be desysopped for it. Everyone makes mistakes, everyone benefits from oversight-- the original blocking admin, and the unblocking admin.
On the other hand, the Foundation runs the show, and when you directly contravene an action taken by a board member, that's a big deal. If a Chairman Emeritus and permanent board member declares a user blocked, and an admin overturns that block-- we act very differently, and desysopping starts to make sense.
I think the Zscout incident came from the fact the Zscout thought he was dealing with User:Jimbo Wales when really he was dealing with WP:JIMBO.
The Solution
When one human being shares multiple roles, the solution has usually been to find some way to clearly mark which role is being used for which actions. For example, in Catholicism, the Pope is usually the spiritual leader of the Roman Catholic Church-- what he says can be discussed, debated, and disagreed with. Popes make errors, and a later Pope may apologize for the errors of his predecessors. But, in a few rare cases, the Pope speaks ex cathedra-- invoking his role as the infallible teacher of christians, and vocal disagreement results in the catholic equivalent of desysopping.
Or consider Unix-like operating systems. Let's say "Dave" is a user on a unix machine, and he likes to browse the web from the machine. But Dave is also an administrator who makes drastic changes to the machine. Now if Dave (the user) issues a command, the computer is free to say "I'm sorry Dave, I'm afraid I can't do that". This prevents Dave from accidentally deleting his entire hard drive. But, if Dave wishes to, he can invoke his status as a Superuser-- in which case the operating system is compelled to do its best to follow his orders.
Maybe it's been suggested before, but it seems to me one simple solution would be for Jimbo to split himself into two accounts. One account would have the same permissions as a normal admin, should be treated like a normal admin (albeit a highly respected one), etc. The other account should be reserved for only those instances in which Jimbo is operating in a formal role as board member-- issuing instructions or taking actions on that basis. --Alecmconroy03:31, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ack! Thanks. :) I've gone back an corrected it. --04:56, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
Same issue was encountered with Danny Wool and the same solution was proposed. Danny constantly failed to clarify when he was acting as a regular admin and when he was enforcing WP:OFFICE actions. A seperate User:Dannyisme account was created specifically for performing WP:OFFICE — which he only rarely bothered to use. --MediaMangler10:53, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent idea for the solution. I would suggest that the default ident is WP:JIMBO, since most of his interactions are as per that identity. Editor or Sysop Jimbo would be for work on articles or otherwise in those instances where he is prepared to operate under the same conditions as any other contributor (best of all would be as an psuedo-anonymous - although the sysop bit might be a bit tricky - and find out what it really is like to work the wiki). LessHeard vanU13:53, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A well-written essay, but I don't think the problem is exactly with "confusion" between the two, or the initial block of Miltopia, but people arguing you can't have an "infallible" JIMBO as well as the "regular joe" admin- of which I agree. I don't think Jimmy should have all this power just because he's a founder, but that's besides the point in this case, as he's not voluntarily going to give it up and we (at the moment) can't do anything about it. What is pertinent is Jimbo himself seems to act like he can be both, but, as demonstrated in the handling of Zscout370, if he's thwarted he'll revert to "God mode" on us. I just wish Jimmy would at least admit he's going to use his special powers on us, inevitably- he can't be two people with two different sets of powers and thus two different motivations and reactionary consequences. David Fuchs (talk)14:03, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Right. At the moment there is nothing we can do about this. It would, however, be very helpful if Jimbo would at least admit that his double role is a problem. At the moment all we hear is "I have nothing to apologize for" followed by the usual invoking of his super-admin-bureaucrat powers. The least he could do as leader is listen to those who are concerned and let them speak freely without threats of being blocked and talk about Wikipedia's "legal system" (WTF???) The situation is so ridiculous that Zscout couldn't even write freely on an external site well out of Jimbo's jurisdiction in a perfectly civil tone without be slapped over the wrist for it followed by threats of bans for those who should decide to follow his example. Ignoring some people's obvious interest in getting Jimbo on their side in a certain unrelated dispute (initiated by themselves) how can anyone think that's okay? I'm baffled. EconomicsGuy14:45, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
We're neither a dictatorship nor any other political system.
The Wikimedia Foundation is controlled by its Board of Trustees, the majority of whose members the Bylaws require to be chosen from its community. The Board and Wikimedia Foundation staff do not take a role in editorial issues, and projects are self-governing and consensus-driven. Wikipedia founder Jimbo Wales occasionally acts as a final arbiter on the English Wikipedia, but his influence is based on respect, not power; it takes effect only where the community does not challenge it. Wikipedia is transparent and self-critical; controversies are debated openly and even documented within Wikipedia itself when they cross a threshold of significance.
