::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. <font face="Broadway">[[User:Mr.Z-man|<font color="#056366">Mr.</font>]]''[[User talk:Mr.Z-man|<font color="#056625">'''Z-'''</font><font color="#054F66">man</font>]]</font>'' 23:46, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
::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. <font face="Broadway">[[User:Mr.Z-man|<font color="#056366">Mr.</font>]]''[[User talk:Mr.Z-man|<font color="#056625">'''Z-'''</font><font color="#054F66">man</font>]]</font>'' 23:46, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
: 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. [[User:Jossi|≈ jossi ≈]] <small>[[User_talk:Jossi|(talk)]]</small> 23:37, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
: 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. [[User:Jossi|≈ jossi ≈]] <small>[[User_talk:Jossi|(talk)]]</small> 23:37, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
:::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.--[[User:Jimbo Wales|Jimbo Wales]] 00:08, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
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]
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]
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]
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]
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]
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
"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]
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]
Relationships
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]
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 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]
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]
Going forward
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.
