Wikipedia:Requests for comment/168

(User:168... | talk)

Community edited version of what happened:

As a participant in a multi-party dispute over one much-discussed paragraph in DNA, 168 reverted to an old version, which he favored. When User:Lir undid the reversion, 168... reverted again and protected the page. Other admins said protection was called for, but said the fact that 168... had done it made the act improper. 168... also protected Wikipedia:Conflicts between users while a participant in a brief multi-party dispute involving Lir over that page then unprotected it again two minutes later.

Days later he used the rollback feature to revert the protected page Nucleic acid (another article he was in an edit dispute over) to his preferred version. He then engaged in a full revert war using the rollback feature with 3 other admins (168... used the rollback feature in that revert war more than 10 times in less than 20 minutes). [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] (this last one was a self revert) (Nucleic acid history One of his edit comments was "so de-sysop me." [14] At the same time he also used the rollback feature to repeatedly remove warnings on his talk page about his behavior. [15] [16] [17] [18] (User talk:168... history Also at the same time he was in another revert war at Wikipedia:Possible misuses of admin privileges. There he repeatedly used the rollback feature to revert a note by Lir that 168... had reverted a protected page (Nucleic acid). During this revert war another admin protected the page hoping that that would stop 168... but 168... continued to revert. [19] [20] [21] [22] [23] [24] [25] [26] [27] [28] [29] [30] (Wikipedia:Possible misuses of admin privileges history A poll was then started asking whether or not 168... should be desysoped but no action was taken at that time.

Between February 12th and 13th 168... repeatedly reverted DNA, removing the first two paragraphs that were voted on and passed with wide margins on the talk page (see vote at Talk:DNA/archive_4#Voting_on_February_5_Version ; four people were reverting him). [31] [32] [33] [34] [35] [36] [37] [38] On the 14th he again reverted DNA to his favored version and then protected the page.

At around the same time he was using the rollback feature and regular reverts to revert all the most recent updates to this page (five different people were reverting 168). [39] [40] [41] [42] [43] [44] [45] [46] [47] [48] [49] After one revert 168... protected his version of the page twice but that page protection was lifted by another admin. [50] Note that the above diffs may no longer work due to the fact that version numbers were reassigned after each deletion.

On the 14th he also deleted this page 11 times and blanked it four times. Based on a clear majority at 168...'s desysoping poll, Tim Starling then temporarily desysopped 168... and asked for a review of the situation. [51]

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

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

Applicable policies

Wikipedia:Protection policy

• Rule number 1: Do not edit a protected page. If you edit one anyway, please stop when asked to!
• Rule number 2: Do not protect a page you have edited recently, have been in a dispute with in the past, or where you are in some other way involved
• Rule number 3: Add {{msg:protected}} to the top of temporarily protected pages
• Rule number 4: List pages you protect or unprotect on Wikipedia:Protected page

Possible outcomes

• De-adminship - posts both in favor and against.
• Temporary de-adminship - posts both in favor and against.
• Censure - not discussed.
• Probation - not discussed.
• Only talk - so far, and perhaps that's all that's appropriate

Pledge Poll

Although the principle this poll invites people to affirm may not actually contradict current policy (it depends how strictly you interpret current policy), a broad affirmation of this rule may make sysops feel more free to police against antisocial behavior as we all wait for the arbitration system to roll into action.

If a determined troublemaker makes enough people lose patience, they will be shown the door. That has always been true, and I expect it always will. Whether that takes the form of Jimbo stepping in, or vigilantes taking action, or a committee rendering a decision -- whatever form it takes, this project will continue to fulfill its goal of making the world's best free encyclopedia. -- Uncle Ed

[Peak:] What is a "determined troublemaker"? How many people must lose patience? Or is it really a question of how many sysops lose patience?

[Peak:] I ask because your comments seem to imply that the system is generally working, but in my experience, existing procedures are actually inciting some "determined troublemakers" because trolling subvandals are being told, in effect, that they can wreak as much havoc as they like so long as it does not amount to vandalism in a very narrow sense. If the current system is as broken as it seems to be, then, as a stopgap measure, it seems reasonable for sysops to be given more latitude than they seem to have under existing rules. However I would like to see objective definitions of terms like "determined troublemaker". This could be done on the basis of number of reverts, number of pages reverted, whether any non-anon user has supported the alleged subvandal on the talk page of the article in question, etc. Peak 06:48, 6 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Should a sysop refrain from using protection or blocking against even notoriously, obstinately antisocial and uncompromising users on any page that the sysop has ever edited or on any page, the wording of which that sysop is fond?

Note: Yes or No votes by sysops should not be interpreted as expressing an unwillingness to comply with either of the two possible outcomes of the poll.

• Yes

1. mav
2. RickK (note that I do not consider pages that the sysop has reverted because of previous vandalism as having been "edited" by the sysop)
3. Angela (but there ought to be a way of marking a particular editor as someone who the rule can be ignored for -ie any page can be protected against Lir whether you've edited that page or not)
4. Tuf-Kat (agree with both Rick and Angela's caveats)
5. Sam Spade (Disagree with both above caveats)
6. Anthony DiPierro Sysops shouldn't be blocking users or protecting pages without consensus anyway.
7. Toby Bartels -- The phrasing is rather strong (ever edited???), but I think that I know what you mean.

• No

1. 168...
2. Jamesday ("has ever edited or on any page, the wording of which that sysop is fond" is overbroad.)
3. Dante Alighieri | Talk 19:21, 13 Feb 2004 (UTC) - I'll block vandals/trolls wherever and whenever they show up, whether or not said page has been edited by me. I won't be enforcing my own viewpoint or anything, I just hate vandals.

• Depends

1. —Eloquence - depends on the actions of the individual. Vandalism by such users should be immediately punishable with a block or protection if necessary, regardless of sysop involvement on that page, and sysops should be allowed to make a call as to which edits are vandalism and which are not.
2. Jiang - agree with Eloquence.
3. Tannin 07:11, 12 Feb 2004 (UTC) - agree with Jiang and Eloquence. Sysops should be very reluctant to do this, but sometimes it is unavoidable.
4. llywrch 17:09, 12 Feb 2004 (UTC) - if a sysop has made trivial or irrelevant changes to a page, there should be no problem; & vandalism should be judged by the action, not by the individual. However, if there is any possibility of conflict of interest, the sysop should recuse her/himself.
5. Jmabel 08:29, 13 Feb 2004 (UTC) - I concur with a lot of what the "dependers" and abstainers are saying. There's a gray zone, but it looks to me like 168 got past the gray zone here, and somewhere along the way should have called on a different administrator, just like a non-admin would have had to do.
6. Jake 08:13, 2004 Feb 14 (UTC) - Someone shouldn't be barred from taking protective action on a page they fixed a typo on last year. They shouldn't protect a page on a version where they changed half the text. Exactly where between these two points to drawn the line, I can't say.

• Abstain If you like, add your thoughts on where to draw the line

1. This is hopefully soon to be a non-issue. "Notoriously, obstinately antisocial and uncompromising users" should not be here. This problem is currently before the arbitration committee. - Hephaestos 01:38, 6 Feb 2004 (UTC)
   • The artitration committee can not be the first resort. It will only function well in the context of good faith efforts to reason with users. Fred Bauder 11:15, Feb 12, 2004 (UTC)
2. Vaguely agree with the "yes", but think current condition of "ever edited" is too strong. I do not think banning should be used either, and just protection. Jimbo has agreed to use banning himself for the next 3-5 days (or less!) left before the arbitration committee swings into action. --Delirium 04:07, Feb 6, 2004 (UTC)
3. The "ever" wording is too strong, though I agree with the spirit of the "yes" vote. I haven't made up my mind whether I prefer a phrasing of "edited in the past couple of months", or "has had a dispute over". - snoyes 04:24, 6 Feb 2004 (UTC)
4. As a practical matter, a sysop whose neutrality might be challenged might do better to solicit the intervention of a clearly neutral sysop. I have no idea of the number of cases per day that would need to be handled, but if 3-member panels of sysops could be agreed upon, the decision of such a panel would likely be more objective and less subject to recriminations than the decision of a single individual. As for not banning any users, as seems to be advocated by Delerium, what would be the appropriate response to someone who simply moves his/her arbitrary and capricious editing from a newly protected article to some article not yet protected? P0M
5. Whether the sysop is fond of the page is irrelevant. Whether she has ever edited the page is also irrelevant. Anthony DiPierro 23:00, 11 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Note: Popular support for "No" implies an affirmation of the following rule It's O.K. to use protection or blocking against notoriously, obstinately antisocial and uncompromising users even on pages that you have edited or may care about the wording of.

No it doesn't. It implies that this is OK under certain extreme circumstances. It is fails to address the crucial question: what is a "notoriously, obstinately antisocial and uncompromising user"? Who defines this? Tannin

That is what my no implies. Note that my no does not imply doing it in proximity to or with respect to any edit by the admin which has been controversial. It simply means that a typo correction or edit war a year ago doesn't prevent blocking vandalism today. Note also that it is not against the user, it's against whatever behavior is contrary to policy. Jamesday 16:52, 12 Feb 2004 (UTC)

The Larger Issue

[Peak:] By focusing on the details of how to ban a specific user, we may be missing the more important issue, which is that Wikipedia's current policies actually encourage a certain type of subvandalism, and are thus extremely detrimental both to Wikipedia and many Wikipedians.

Specifically, I believe:

1. there should be explicit criteria for how disputes can be resolved in a timely manner by some kind of voting procedure that does NOT require unanimity; and
2. sysops should be expected to enforce such decisions, if necessary by banning a user if that user disrespects the decision.

If such procedures were clear, there would be a double benefit: firstly, many (and perhaps most) would-be subvandals would be deterred; and secondly, those who aren't deterred could be dealt with expeditiously.

There are many possible decision procedures that could be adopted (in particular, approval voting may be worth a close look), but I would like here to focus on the requirement that the overall decision procedure allow a previous decision to be revisited.

I would propose that if N people have participated in a decision (where N>2), then it would require N/2 (rounded up) different non-anonymous individuals to call for the previous decision to be revisited.

So, for example, if there is a decision made as the result of the participation of three individuals, then two others would have to request the decision to be revisited. Peak 07:45, 6 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Ahem. I question the wisdom of voting on the merits of my own "words of wisdom" (as 168 put it). But clearly the debate focuses on what troublesome actions are and also on what our community should do to curb them. Although I think I am better informed about theory I bow to Jimbo's superior experience. --Uncle Ed 15:05, 6 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Arbitrary protection of pages

168... is creating a series of odd pages without discussion and with odd titles, and protecting them without comment. Arbitrary protection of pages that were created and edited by a single user is an abuse of admin privileges. RickK 03:26, 8 Feb 2004 (UTC)

This is a really sad result. I am not accusing you of your intention. You have a point. Meta-pages are rather in chaos. Something needs to be done. But I don't think the way you are doing is right. First, discuss then implement the resulting schemes agreed. Otherwise, they look vanalizing wikipedia to some people like me. -- Taku 03:31, Feb 8, 2004 (UTC)

Taku, are you referring to what 168 has written or what Rick has written? P0M

Sysop Violation

168 has just reverted nucleic acid, a protected page. Lirath Q. Pynnor

Oh, and he just protected DNA on "his version." Pakaran. 01:19, 14 Feb 2004 (UTC)

You mean 168 protected DNA?

I almost can sympathize with 168 since Lir has removed my comments from the DNA Talk page and has reverted any attempts by anyone to go back to the consensus version that Peak tried so hard to establish. P0M

That's no excuse, as far as I'm concerned. "Lir is behaving badly, so it's okay for his opponents to behave badly too?" IMO 168's sysop status needs to be revoked immediately, if not sooner, if only for practical reasons - the lengthy debate over whether he should get it back can be done later, once the damage has been stopped. Bryan 01:46, 14 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I can't keep up with the rapidity of the changes. They're both behaving badly, for sure. Is there any point of anyone trying to do anything constructive? P0M

I was just going to ask, where in hell is the rest of this article. Now it's back for the moment.P0M

168 deleted it while I was editing this section, so saving simply created a page with this section only instead of resulting in an edit conflict. IMO 168 needs to be stopped from messing around first and foremost, everything else can wait. Desysop, ban, whatever can be done immediately. Sort out a permanent solution afterward. Bryan 01:52, 14 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Agreed.P0M

Fortuantely, he seems to have stopped on his own for now. I've never blocked anyone before, let alone a sysop, so I'm relieved by this interregnum. Hopefully things will stay a little more stable now. :) Bryan 02:12, 14 Feb 2004 (UTC)

168 has been temporarily desysopped

After 168's deletion/undeletion war on this page, the vote for temporary desysopship reached 11-2 in favour, and accordingly I desysopped him immediately. This action has been announced on wikien-l, and I have requested a review of this case by the arbitration committee or Jimbo. -- Tim Starling 02:17, Feb 14, 2004 (UTC)