Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Lir (talk | contribs) at 06:28, 31 January 2004. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.


Here you can make a request for adminship. See Wikipedia:Administrators for what this entails and for a list of current admins.

Guidelines

Current Wikipedia policy is to grant administrator status to anyone who has been an active Wikipedia contributor for a while and is generally a known and trusted member of the community. Most users seem to agree that the more administrators there are the better.

Wikipedians are more likely to support the candidacy of people who have been logged-on contributors for some months and contributed to and created a variety of articles over that time without often getting into conflicts with other users.

If you want to nominate yourself to become an administrator, it is recommended that you wait until you have been a user for a reasonable period of time - long enough to show yourself to be trustworthy (on the order of months). Any user can comment on your request—they might express reservations (because, for example, they suspect you will abuse your new-found powers, or if you've joined very recently), but hopefully they will approve and say lovely things about you.

After a 7 day period for comments, if there is general agreement that someone who requests adminship should be given it, then a developer will make it so and record that fact at Wikipedia:Recently created admins.

Nominations for adminship

Note: Nominations have to be accepted by the user in question. If you nominate a user, please also leave a message on their talk page and inform them about their listing on this page, and ask them to reply here if they accept the nomination.

Please place new nominations at the top

Mikkalai

Mikkalai has about 1969 edits in about 2½ months. Lots of sensible edits to mathematical articles, and other topics. Κσυπ Cyp   23:08, 30 Jan 2004 (UTC)

  • Support Tuf-Kat 23:28, Jan 30, 2004 (UTC)

Metasquares

I've known Metasquares for a few years now, and can vouch that he'd be a great sysop. He's been on the Wikipedia since August 2003, and although he hasn't made thousands of contributions, his edits do show that he's not the type to get into edit wars, and he's done his share of community clean up (reverting garbage, etc.) --cprompt 19:16, 30 Jan 2004 (UTC)

  • Uh....he hasn't even made 100 contributions. I'm sorry, Meta may well be a great person, but I'd have to see a lot more interest in and dedication to this project than 100 edits in half a year to make someone a sysop. Oppose. Jwrosenzweig 19:19, 30 Jan 2004 (UTC)
  • He's made 84 contributions. That's not enough for the same reason given by Jwrosenzweig. Oppose. →Raul654 19:21, Jan 30, 2004 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Reasons named above. - snoyes 19:39, 30 Jan 2004 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Needs more experience, more track record. ike9898 19:54, Jan 30, 2004 (UTC)

Kaihsu

Kaihsu has made nearly 3000 edits since April 2003, mostly on political/cultural topics relating to Europe and Taiwan. I've never seen him get involved in an edit war and believe he will make a good sysop. --Jiang 01:55, 30 Jan 2004 (UTC)

  • Support. I've always seen good work from Kaihsu. Jwrosenzweig 19:20, 30 Jan 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. From what I've seen an excellent contributor. - snoyes 19:39, 30 Jan 2004 (UTC)
  • Yep. --Menchi (Talk)â 20:42, 30 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Seglea

I would like to nominate Seglea for sysop, he has been with us since at least November 1 (#3515 contributions), and has done a great deal to add articles on animals and articles related to animals, and improved those we already have. He has a wonderful grasp of NPOV and encyclopaedic style. Don't recall him having ever got into a scrap anywhere.

  • Support. Tuf-Kat
  • Support. jengod 23:44, Jan 29, 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. Jiang
  • Support. Tannin 06:40, 30 Jan 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. Great idea. Bmills 15:33, 30 Jan 2004 (UTC)
  • Yep. I distinctively remember that somebody else nominated him and I had already supported him. Must be my memory betraying me. --Menchi (Talk)â 20:42, 30 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Roadrunner

User:Roadrunner has made about 5000 edits, most of good quality. His contributions list registers his first edit on Apr 2002. Though this may not be accurate due to the glitch, I pretty sure he's been here longer than I have. --Jiang 22:07, 23 Dec 2003 (UTC)

  • support. Greenmountainboy 17:38, 30 Dec 2003 (UTC)
  • Support, copious contributor. (Maybe nominations should be switched to the top of this page so they'd be more noticeable.) - Hephaestos 04:13, 8 Jan 2004 (UTC)
  • (Moved nominations as you suggest, though NB have no opinion for or against User:Roadrunner -- Trainspotter 15:31, 8 Jan 2004 (UTC))
  • nth. Can't believe a longtime contributor still haven't been promoted to sysop.大将军, 都督中外诸军事 (talk) 00:02, 9 Jan 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. Tuf-Kat
  • Support. I have seen him insert a quality NPOV compromise into a troubled POV debate/altercation regarding a passage, and thereby resolve the circumstance. He appears to have just the sort of judicial approach that would dignify adminship with his inclusion. Jack 04:04, 12 Jan 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. It's about time, and I hope he accepts. --Uncle Ed 16:55, 13 Jan 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. Infrogmation 05:17, 17 Jan 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. Hemanshu 06:27, 25 Jan 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. Tannin 22:11, 29 Jan 2004 (UTC)


Requests for adminship

Please add new requests to the top

Meelar

Hi, I've been contributing since November of 2003, and in that time I've made 877 edits, mostly to political topics. Despite this, I've only been involved in one edit war, during which I tried (and eventually succeeded) in reaching consensus on George W. Bush (roughly Jan 4-7--see Talk:George W. Bush). I've been a conscientious contributor; my current project is writing articles for each committee of the U.S. House of Representatives (and yes, this is a blatant plug). I'd like sysop powers because, when I'm just sick of committees, I do weeding, and it would make me more productive in doing so. Thank you very much. Meelar 06:31, 29 Jan 2004 (UTC)

  • Support. Your edit history looks good. I wouldn't call the scuffle over George W. Bush an edit war. silsor 06:46, Jan 29, 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. Friendly, active on cleanup and does lots of editing, this behaviour should always be encouraged.  ;) Fabiform 06:49, 29 Jan 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. Fixes numerous broken or borderline things rather than arguing about them. Seems cooperative and without an agenda. And we need more admins with names sillier than mine. -- Finlay McWalter 13:41, 29 Jan 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. -- Cyan 14:01, 29 Jan 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. I've seen you around in a number of places, and I think you do a commendable job. (David Cannon Davidcannon 20:39, 29 Jan 2004 (UTC))
  • Support. jengod 01:44, Jan 30, 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. --Jiang 01:47, 30 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Sarge Baldy

Hi! I've been around since mid-September 2003 and have 778 (assuming I counted correctly) edits to my name. True, the vast majority of these are minor fixes but in the long run minor fixes are nearly as important as major additions if you're trying to make a professional-looking encyclopedia. If you look through my contributions you'll see I messed up a few times when I was new (uploading images without citing a source, and/or was too trusting something was in the public domain) but I know what's going on now. Oh yeah, and being something of a spelling and grammar nazi I'm a member of the Wikipedia Typo Team. I've started a few articles too (all of which are listed in my talk page), although these aren't anything terribly special. So yeah, support me or not, I'm going to be around for a while :) Sarge Baldy 06:54, Jan 25, 2004 (UTC)

  • Support. Credentials and edit history look great. silsor 07:40, Jan 25, 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. I admit I havn't seen you around much, but this is a big place. Anyways I looked at your cotributions and I found nothing but good, fixing those little mistakes people like me make from time to time, adding content and writing articles as well. Jack 11:32, 25 Jan 2004 (UTC)
  • Support 100%. I've interacted with him and the experience was totally painless. →Raul654 18:05, Jan 25, 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. - Hephaestos 06:30, 26 Jan 2004 (UTC)

ike9898

I've been contributing for 7 months and I have about 500 edits. I have a good command of American English and I'm interested in a variety of subjects.

I really love the 'pedia and I want to contibute more by helping to squash vandalism. I would be conservative in my use of admin powers. My number of edits isn't huge, partly because half the time when I'm on the 'pedia I just read and read. I feel that my cruising around the database would be helpful in spotting nefarious user activity and stopping it quickly. I hope you will support my request for adminship. ike9898 15:20, 20 Jan 2004 (UTC)

  • While not a high number of edits, it's not out-of-the-question low either. He has been here 7 months, which is a lot longer than most people who apply. His contribution history is encouraging, and I think he's established a history of trustworthyness. Support. →Raul654 23:31, Jan 20, 2004 (UTC)
  • I don't think I can support just yet. Ike has certainly done some good things, but over half of those edits (which are definitely on the low end) have taken place in only the last month. The previous six months show bursts of editing for a day or two followed by long stretches of silence. Assuming ike continues to edit at the current pace, I think adminship would be in order...in another month, assuming ike had stayed around and showed real sustained interest here, I'd nominate him/her myself. At present, I don't feel comfortable doing so, unless there are multiple testimonials here from people who've collaborated with ike. Jwrosenzweig 00:02, 21 Jan 2004 (UTC) Having considered things more, and seen that ike really does seem like he's settled in and contributing very regularly (heck, more regularly than I am, these days), I withdraw my objection and extend a perhaps-still-slightly-tentative support. My apologies to ike for the initial reluctance. Jwrosenzweig 20:50, 30 Jan 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. I think he can handle it. silsor 02:30, Jan 21, 2004 (UTC)

Requests and nominations for de-adminship

If you're requesting your own de-adminship, you can do so private communication with a developer, should you wish to do so. If you're requesting de-adminship of someone else, you can do so here, but please first try to discuss the issue directly with the admin in question. Note that there are alternatives to removing sysop privileges: such as a "clarification" or "request" from Mr. Wales.

Hephaestos

He blocked me twice without justification. Sysops who abuse their powers should lose their powers. Nobody would tolerate me banning Hephaestos, I should be accorded the same respect. Lirath Q. Pynnor

Where is the pattern of Admin power abuse Lir? One case of incorrect blocking, especially when it when the person blocked is a known troublemaker, does not merit de-adminship. --mav 22:48, 30 Jan 2004 (UTC)
Twice is a different matter (Lir just changed his message). If Heph does not admit wrongdoing and promises not to do it again, then I'll have to support this request. --mav 02:40, 31 Jan 2004 (UTC)

It was not an accident, he intentionally banned me. I am not a known troublemaker. Have I done anything wrong, have I broken any rules? The pattern of admin abuse is clear from the 3 admins I have listed here, they are all acting inappropriately. Lirath Q. Pynnor

There is a very obvious pattern of you getting into edit wars and wrongly nominating people for de-adminship. That makes you a troublemaker. --mav
Who did I wrongly nominate for de-adminship? Hephaestos who banned me, despite my lack of vandalism; or 168, who protected in violation of the protection rules; or Snoyes, who unprotected every page for which I was attempting to find a mediator? Lirath Q. Pynnor

User:168...

  • ... protected DNA, despite his being involved in the edit war there. This is a violation of the rules for sysops.Lir 19:06 29 January 2004
    • I was wondering when this would show up. Functionally, 168's protection changed nothing, as I was about to do so anyway. I have some simple questions for 168 that will determine my view of this matter. 168, if you were given the chance to change your actions with respect to protection of DNA, would you? If so, how? -- Cyan 03:26, 30 Jan 2004 (UTC)
        • I responded to Cyan on his Talk page while this nomination was deleted. I thought it was reasonable when someone deleted, and I don't know that it will stay undeleted, so I plan to cool my heels until then.168... 06:19, 30 Jan 2004 (UTC)
      • Functionally what we are seeing here is the inevitable question posed when the wiki was first founded: what will happen when users disagree about the contents of an article? Its well and good to encourage discussion -- but 168 refuses to discuss. He, of course, will say that he merely doesn't want to discuss with trolls; regardless, he is refusing to discuss. As a community, we still don't know how to deal with debates.Lir. 21:28, 29 Jan 2004
        • Now, personally, I'm glad the page is protected again -- I despise edit wars; however, the fact that 168 cant even follow the few explicit rules of sysoping, kind of gives credence to my argument that I'm not the troublemaker. He is the one breaking rules, he is the one deleting valid information which has been added to the article, and he is the one making personal attacks. I don't think sysops should behave in that manner. Lirath Q. Pynnor21:28, 29 Jan 2004
        • "I despise edit wars." [rolls on floor laughing] Adam 06:15, 30 Jan 2004 (UTC)
          • Yeah, that's hysterical. RickK 04:41, 31 Jan 2004 (UTC)
  • Somebody please move this to Conflicts between users This doesn't belong here by a long chalk. -- Jussi-Ville Heiskanen 07:22, Jan 30, 2004 (UTC)
I tried but lir reverted theresa knott 19:56, 30 Jan 2004 (UTC)
  • Anyone is free to nominate anyone for de-adminship, but shouldn't there be more than one instance of wrongdoing? I would say at least a three-strike type of deal. Sysops are people too, and anyone can make a mistake. I don't think we should be forcing people to be so conservative that they stop taking any sysop actions for fear of people jumping on their back for having committed the wrong decision. Dori | Talk 20:58, Jan 30, 2004 (UTC)
    • But this wasn't a mistake. This is an example of him knowingly violating the rule because he feels that when dealing with me, he is free to do whatever he wants. Im tired of being criticized for doing things which there aren't even rules against; yet, sysops can get away with breaking the actual rules. Lirath Q. Pynnor
  • I'd oppose de-adminship, but I don't think protecting the article was the right course of action either. I don't think Hephaestos blocking Lir (a block that was quickly undone by Tim Starling) was justified either. --Delirium
Unless 168 admits wrongdoing in this case, I must, regretfully, support de-adminship (three strikes, IMO, should only apply to valid judgment mistakes - not to knowingly and blatantly breaking a very important rule). As I stated on 168's talk page, we don't have many rules for page protection, but the most important one is to not use it as a tool to get your version of an article at the top edit in an edit war. This is exactly what 168 did:
  1. 168 reverted DNA, removing Peak's and Lir's edits.
  2. 168 then protected the page.
All this was during a longstanding edit war that involved 168 as a major participant. I don't know what the intent 168 had (it may have been to bring a page he thought was protected back to its protected state), but the result has the appearance of a severe breach of protocol. Admins need to be above the appearance of misuse of sysop privileges. --mav 23:08, 30 Jan 2004 (UTC)

168 and I have had an extensive discussion on the matter, which can be seen on my talk page. I endorse mav's position. -- Cyan 04:30, 31 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Sorry, I do not think what I specifically did, in context, was wrong, and I will not say that I think it was. "Misuse" is wrongdoing. Mere "appearance of misuse" is not wrongdoing. Apparently the sysop privileged act I performed (protection) was due to be performed, because other sysops said either they would have been happy to do the same thing or were indeed were just about to do so before my preemption. So outside of caring what looks proper, my judgment has not been called into question. Is anybody's respect for sysops really going to erode if I am allowed to get away, unrepentantly, with having protected a page from Lir in this instance? Am I really setting a precedent that will foster actual and not merely apparent misuse of sysop powers by others or by myself in the future. I highly doubt this. Lir doesn't strike me as a slippery slope or the thin end of any wedge. His record and his behavior stand out starkly, and so far as I can tell seem to be condemned by everybody. I think it would be easy to articulate a sensible rule to explicitly allow sysops to do the same thing I did...except that I think the thing to do is temporary banning and not protecting. At the time I thought protection was the more conservative thing to do, but I see now I was wrong about that. 168... 06:05, 31 Jan 2004 (UTC)

I was wondering when this would show up. Functionally, 168's protection changed nothing, as I was about to do so anyway. I have some simple questions for 168 that will determine my view of this matter. 168, if you were given the chance to change your actions with respect to protection of DNA, would you? If so, how? -- Cyan 03:26, 30 Jan 2004 (UTC)

At the moment I see no reason to regret my action or anything truly wrong with it. I suppose you might be able to persuade me otherwise, but you'd have to try.168... 04:42, 30 Jan 2004 (UTC)

You have invited me to attempt to convince you that protecting DNA was not the best possible action for the circumstances in which you found yourself. Very well, I will give it the old college try.

First, I must state your position as I understand it. You feel that Lir is a vandal, making harmful changes and then being deliberately difficult on the talk page. You therefore feel justified in treating him as a vandal, reverting his edits and protecting the page. This is your position as I understand it.

The argument that I muster against such a position is simply that the best action for the sake of your reputation must take into account Lir's standing in the community. Few people enjoy dealing with Lir during conflicts, as he is... easily offended, shall we say, and apt to be retributive. (You may have noticed his edit summary of 02:45, 5 Jan 2004 on the DNA article, which is typical of the emotions-first approach Lir takes to editing here.) But for all that, there is not a consensus that he may be treated as a vandal. Certainly some editors feel that way, but others do not. In short, there is a significant, although perhaps not overwhelming, segment of Wikipedians here who accept Lir as an editor.

It's generally considered important that sysops not to use the special privileges they have in conflicts, particularly not conflicts with non-sysops. The principle is that sysop privileges are intended to serve the purposes of the community at large, not the individual sysops. Thus, when I protected DNA, I did it on behalf of the community, and likewise when Snoyes unprotected it. I can assert these things without fear of contradiction because neither Snoyes nor I were deeply involved in the editing of the page, nor had either of us expressed strong views about the text during discussions on the talk page. Your protection, on the other hand, is not such a clear-cut case. You have clearly stated a view on what should be written in the article, and the protection you undertook to perform favoured your preferred version. The thesis that Lir is a vandal could be a justification, but it is not universally accepted, and this is the source of the damage to your reputation.

This damage is not a huge deal: enough people find Lir to be a pest that your actions may be viewed as justified by a significant portion of the community. You will almost certainly not lose your admin privileges over it. Nevertheless, the action was not above reproach; you've generated a certain amount of distrust, and similar actions in the future are now more likely to cause people to distrust you.

Now, having made that argument, I must suggest a course of action that would have been preferable, in the sense that no shadow of a doubt about the propriety of the action could have accrued to you. This course of action is simply to treat yourself as a non-sysop for the purpose of this conflict. Non-sysops in conflict must request protection from a disinterested sysop, and this is the course of action available to you which was above reproach.

(I do not require a counter-argument; if you haven't been convinced by the above, then it is likely we shall not agree about the propriety of your action after any amount of back-and-forth, and I can live with that.) -- Cyan 05:33, 30 Jan 2004 (UTC)

I have searched extensively for community support for Lir and met with nothing but silence. Perhaps I didn't search in the right way or in the right places, but I feel very strongly that I have done due diligence in this regard. While I'm inclined to trust your take on the community, because I see you get around, nevertheless I feel it is reasonable to take a position of skepticism regarding your claim that Lir has people who want him here who are themselves people who are wanted here. I am very much more skeptical as to what my reputation might be at this moment and how my protection of DNA might have changed it. That said, you might well rid me of my areas of skepticism if you showed me where to look for the evidence. Regarding the distinction between you protecting DNA and me protecting DNA, I certainly see it, and I think you draw the line in a reasonable place. The rule however seems to me to draw the line somewhere else--seemingly it says that if you have had any connection with the article ever, you are not allowed to protect it. That struck me as absurd and a principle that manifestly was not conformed to, most obviously because I knew you had made at least one edit to the DNA page and so were bound to have a preestablished preference for the status quo version. So I inferred that precedent existed for sys-ops using their judgement as to what is allowed when. I also inferred that there is precedent for direct democracy and for creating custom here by just doing things that haven't been done before. I am also not aware of a clear hierarchy of rules or of grades of rules or indeed of any rules here that are actually enforced except for the rules against vandalism and offensive names. I think we have something not so distant from anarchy going on here, and at the very least a fluid system of rules and government. When I see bad things going on, I feel like it's reasonable and indeed best for the community to just do what I think is right, irrespective of convention. I think if people scrutinize what I did, it does not represent a bad example. But I accept the reality of PR. If my action becomes a bad example, then I will feel bad about that. I just don't see it as having become that yet. Yet I made a remark to you before about martyrdom. I figured scrutiny of my action would bring more scrutiny on Lir and a realization of the cost to the community of tolerating people like Lir--"good people being driven to bad things"/"good people being driven away by the bad". I figured ultimately I might be run out of town, but even if that happened, I would have made some kind of dent in the community consciousness. Also I figured, if I'm ridden out of town for that, then good riddance to the town. The town has problems. It needs a system of driver's licenses and drunk driving laws more than it needs a clampdown on the police.168... 06:09, 30 Jan 2004 (UTC)

In the block log, you will find evidence of both views of Lir. I don't think anyone actually defends Lir's behavior; rather, there are those who think he must be accorded respect as an editor because of due process, and those who would circumvent due process out of frustration. In short, custom decrees that it isn't for any one of us to decide when a contributor has become more of a burden than he or she is worth; that privilege has always rested in Jimbo and his designated agents. So when you treat Lir like a vandal by protecting the page against him, you violate due process. -- Cyan 06:24, 30 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Let me get this straight: Lir is tolerated because he hasn't been banned by Jimbo. Well, I have not been banned by Jimbo. Therefore I should be tolerated.168... 06:28, 30 Jan 2004 (UTC)


No, no, Lir is tolerated because he was banned by Jimbo, but then had a long email correspondence with him, following which Jimbo specifically unbanned him. Hence my previous comment that to my knowledge, Lir is the only person specifically allowed by decree to edit Wikipedia. -- Cyan 06:31, 30 Jan 2004 (UTC)

What specifically is the "due process" I violated and how did I deny Lir respect as an editor? I didn't ban or block him, which I think is what you said people objected to as a violation of due process. If I denied Lir respect as an editor by protecting the page, then I did the same thing simultaneously to everybody who might have wanted to edit or revert it, and you have done the same in the past. I don't think there is a due process, just a rule about who can do the protecting when, which is somewhat subject to interpretation. 168... 06:54, 30 Jan 2004 (UTC)

When protecting Wikipedia from vandals, you can put on your sysop hat. If you observe an edit war but are a neutral party, then you can put on your sysop hat. If you're in a conflict with another user, you should not put on your sysop hat. That's the guideline. Now, is Lir a vandal? If yes, then you can just protect against him without violating the guideline. If no, then you can't. If the question of his vandal status, as a matter of due process (i.e. arbitration), has not yet been resolved, and you treat him like a vandal anyway, then you are violating due process. I assert that the question of Lir's status has not yet been resolved via due process, ergo I think treating him as a vandal is a violation of due process. -- Cyan 13:55, 30 Jan 2004 (UTC)


I see your argument now. But first of all there are two due processes as I understand them. One is that sys ops have the authority to issue temporary blocks without Jimbo. The other one has until now has depended on Jimbo, but is in transition to a committee-based system. Anyway, as I said before I didn't block Lir from Wikipedia. But I've conflated a couple issues by offering "vandalism" as my excuse for protecting a page. I don't actually know that vandalism officially is an excuse to protect a page. Perhaps it isn't. If it is, because I have authority to issue temporary blocks, and because blocks are only issued for vandalism, therefore I have the authority to decide what is vandalism and what isn't. Are there rules pertaining to temporary blocking (and thus to the assignment of "temporary vandal" status) that say what relationship a sysop is not allowed to have with the page that is being vandalized? I don't think so. I think I stumbled into a gray area, accurately assessed it as such, and behaved both reasonably and--though this is unknowable at the present--for the best of the community. 168... 16:50, 30 Jan 2004 (UTC)
(I do not deny that I am stretching the definition of "vandal" and actually specifically what I said was I regarded Lir as a "class of vandal." I think Lir is bad and I trust my judgment, which has been informed extensively by what others write about Lir. I am using the democratic process, such as it is here, to stretch our notion of "vandal" in such a way as to enable the current system of rules to deal effectively with people like Lir, which it manifestly and despite the complaints of many cannot deal with now.168... 16:59, 30 Jan 2004 (UTC))

Ok, this nonsense has gone on long enough. Let me propose a simple solution. Let Lir's complaints stand, and have people vote on them. Lir - cite specific instances where you feel mistreated. Enough of this "he keeps revereting me" garbage. I want him to see specific instances where you made (inarguably) good changes that were reverted. If you can rally up a consensus of people to agree with you, then we'll considered desysopping heph, 168, snoyes, myself, whoever.

And let this stand as a future model. The next person who posts to this section, I want to see page histories that document that person's case. →Raul654 03:33, Jan 31, 2004 (UTC)

But this isn't about reverting -- if you want to see an example of that, you can look at New Imperialism where Wik keeps reverting me. You can look at the page history here, where my attempt to complain about this abuse was reverted numerous times. This issue here on this this page is about clarifying that sysops are only to ban clear vandals, and they are not to protect pages in which they are involved with an edit war (unless said war involves clear vandalism). Hephaestos banned me twice, 168 protected a page at which he was in an edit war. Lirath Q. Pynnor

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship&oldid=2268606"