Wikipedia:Possible misuses of sysop rights

This page is for listing issues when a Wikipedia:Administrator has misused their privileges. Sometimes, in the heat of the moment, you may be tempted to list someone here when you don't need to - please read the following before listing anyone.

Admin actions will fall into one of three categories:

A genuine "good call" by the admin in question. He/she acted in a way that clearly was a combination of good common sense, meeting with Wikipedia policy and fitted with any consensus that existed on relevant talk pages. Please be very careful that your complaint doesn't come into this category. If it does, it will be removed from this page and you will irritate those whose time you have wasted.
A border-line decision. This might be a simple mistake like confusing two people's names, or a decision in an area where policy wasn't very clear, or relating to page with few contributors and so no consensus could emerge. It is good to discuss these issues - usually the best place is on the talk page of the admin in question. Either the admin will remember not to repeat the mistake, or a more clearly defined policy might be introduced. If a resolution can not be reached on the talk page, then it may be appropriate to bring the matter here, to solicit the opinions of others.
A bad decision. A decision that is grossly outside Wikipedia policy and good etiquette, or the latest in a series of dubious decisions. These things have historically been very rare within Wikipedia. Almost universally those who've hung around long enough to be trusted enough to become an admin care about Wikipedia a lot and strive hard not to damage it or its reputation. However if it does happen, a consensus on this page might arise to take the matter to Jimbo. If he also is concerned by the behaviour he may chat privately to the user, or ask for de-adminship. These are not common events. Please note also that no de-adminship (unless it is self-requested) will occur solely as a result of discussion here - Jimbo will always be involved.

Final note: Please try to keep your perspective. Collaborative projects will always generate some hard feelings. If your anger or annoyance with another user is significant, you may well do better to just walk away for a while. Let's not allow Wikipedia to become a site for petty squabbling.

Current Issues

Hephaestos

Hephaestos talk moved to Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Hephaestos

User:168...

168 talk moved to Wikipedia:Requests for comment/168

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 sysop 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

Just as an aside, could somebody please show me how you ban someone? I know how to protect, but not to ban, and I've been working at a disadvantage as a result.168... 00:08, 2 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Could somebody please show me as well? Much appreciated. →Raul654 00:22, Feb 2, 2004 (UTC)

Enter the username at Special:Blockip. Dori | Talk 03:10, Feb 2, 2004 (UTC)

User:Eloquence

Banned me for a disagreement over the Wikipedia:Sites Using Mediawiki page. Anthony DiPierro

Oppose. I just looked up the edit history. Anthony insisted on adding a URL-less link to the page despite two other people telling him not two. After about the 4th time, it became vandalsim. →Raul654 14:48, Feb 1, 2004 (UTC)

And for the record, this looks like a genuine good call that is being moaned about later. →Raul654 14:49, Feb 1, 2004 (UTC)

Oppose what? Anthony DiPierro 14:50, 1 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I oppose any sanction against Eloquence. To me, this looks like it was entirely your fault. You acted like a vandal (5x repeatedly adding the same thing you were told not to when all you had to do was include a URL), and he treated you as such. I might have done exactly the same thing. →Raul654 15:00, Feb 1, 2004 (UTC)

Agree with Raul. Eloquence explained, before blocking, why the edit was untenable. He then did exactly what he should have done. This is a frivolous complaint. — No-One Jones (talk) 15:02, 1 Feb 2004 (UTC)

He explained his opinion, which was never discussed, and with which we disagreed. His reverts were just as much a bannable offense as mine were. Anthony DiPierro 15:24, 1 Feb 2004 (UTC)

No, because he had someone else who agreed with him, whom you also revereted. And you were trying to add an entry that was outside the standard set on the page. And you insisted on doing it after he asked you on your talk page. (To which you simply responded "No"). And then you posted him here. →Raul654 15:50, Feb 1, 2004 (UTC)

Two against one is not a consensus. And I'm posing him here to clarify whether or not his actions were appropriate. Anthony DiPierro 15:53, 1 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Ok, but since you obviously were in the minority, AND you were trying to change the layout of the page, the onus was on YOU to try a diplomatic solution. Instead, you provoked an edit war. When you got banned as a vandal (rightfully so), you posted here out of spite. Your attempts to justify this complaint ring hollow. I refuse to waste another second trying to explain what is already obvious to anyone who has read this page. This is so frivilous, it is beyond words. I'd be quite happy if someone else archived this whole post under Wikipedia:Frivilous complaints of admin abuse. →Raul654 16:06, Feb 1, 2004 (UTC)

I'm not sure if I was in the minority or not, and I wasn't trying to change the layout of the page, merely add a site. I didn't provoke the edit war, Eloquence did, and as a participant in an edit war it is a total misue of his privileges to ban me. It has nothing to do with spite. Please, stop wasting my time, has you have promised to do. Anthony DiPierro 16:09, 1 Feb 2004 (UTC)

From the talk page at the time of the ban:

please stop adding your site to Wikipedia:Sites using MediaWiki or provide a URL. Information in Wikipedia should be verifiable and helpful to the reader, and a name without a link is neither verifiable nor helpful.—Eloquence 12:22, Jan 29, 2004 (UTC)

No. Anthony DiPierro 21:16, 29 Jan 2004 (UTC)

From the talk page:

please stop adding your site to Wikipedia:Sites using MediaWiki or provide a URL. Information in Wikipedia should be verifiable and helpful to the reader, and a name without a link is neither verifiable nor helpful.—Eloquence 12:22, Jan 29, 2004 (UTC)

No. Anthony DiPierro 21:16, 29 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Why not? Κσυπ Cyp 15:17, 1 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Why? Anthony DiPierro 15:17, 1 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Because if there was an actual link to the site, people could visit the site. Κσυπ Cyp 15:19, 1 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Maybe I don't want people to visit the site. Anthony DiPierro 15:20, 1 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Pink flamingos eat wily worms. Anthony DiPierro 15:39, 1 Feb 2004 (UTC)

That pisses me off. This is frivilous. Get it the hell out of here. →Raul654 15:09, Feb 1, 2004 (UTC)

Support Eloquence. Anthony obviously was only interested in vandalizing the page and refusing to discuss it. Eloquence's actions were justified. RickK 20:15, 1 Feb 2004 (UTC)

(Expressing no opinion of Anthony's or Eloquence's actions). During the discussion on VfD of Anthony's page McFly (largely a link to aforementioned website) I did visit the website itself (at the same, rather memorable, URL). I can confirm that, at that time, it did indeed appear to run mediawiki (it wasn't especially different from wikipedia). Today it appears to be unresponsive. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 21:43, 1 Feb 2004 (UTC)

This is true. However, Eloquence took issue, quite properly, not with the listing of McFly, but with the lack of a URL: listing the site without providing some confirmation of its existence was no better than vandalism. — No-One Jones (talk) 21:54, 1 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Indeed. However, Anthony's final edit [1] did contain the url, but it too was reverted. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 22:30, 1 Feb 2004 (UTC)

That was after he was unblocked. - snoyes 22:37, 1 Feb 2004 (UTC)

and before he was reblocked. With the exception of the one page in question, do any of Anthony's other edits support the assertion that he is a vandal? -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 22:50, 1 Feb 2004 (UTC)

The site is not available and has not been for the past days since Anthony tried to add it, with URL and without.
Anthony added it not just to the list, but to "Wikimedia forks" and even to the official Wikimedia project list.
For the question whether a user should be banned for vandalism it is irrelevant whether that user vandalizes a single page repeatedly, or multiple pages once.

Unless and until Anthony ceases to add non-functioning websites to that list, with a URL or without, he should not be unbanned. A ban would not have been necessary had Anthony simply discussed the matter reasonably. But that is not why he is doing it. He is a troll, and he is trying to get attention (the URL "slashdotsucks.com" is a dead giveaway, as are his many other edits). For trolls like him, the best thing to do is to simply kick them out of the system swiftly and then ignore them.

I realize that many of us are concerned about due process and fairness in case of policy violations. I agree with these concerns. Trolls are a particular cancer of online communities, however, that requires quick treatment in order to prevent its growth. When an opportunity presents itself to get rid of a troll by any reasonable interpretation of policy, you should take it.—Eloquence

Thankyou for your detailed answer. I agree that trolls are a problem, although I make no judgement about whether or not Anthony is one. However, may I respectfully direct your attention to what is, I believe, the prevailing policy in this regard, namely the section of Wikipedia:Bans and blocks entitled "Blocks". This says "Blocks are the technological means by which bans are enforced, and are also used to protect Wikipedia from simple vandalism. Sysops have the power to block and unblock both user accounts and anonymous IPs. As noted above, this does not mean that sysops may decide that violators of Wikiquette deserve to be blocked — that privilege rests entirely with Jimbo. (Jimbo has stated that user accounts that do nothing but simple vandalism may be blocked without controversy. [1])". There doesn't seem to be any allegation that Anothony's other edits are vandalism, so that rules out the last case. His edits on the "sites using mediawiki" certainly are questionable, and his responses and editwarring regrettable (they may indeed be trolling, but trolling is not vandalism). Both, I feel, amount to breaches of wikiquette, and surely neither rises to the level of "simple vandalism" (which I've hitherto taken to mean either wholesale deletion or the addtion of profanity, abuse, or patent nonsense). Consequently I don't see how his being banned is justified by policy. Moreover, I don't understand:

why a "keep this up and you'll be banned" warning is not present on his talk page. There is a discussion there about the appropriateness of his additions, but no mention of a ban
why protecting the page was not a more proportionate response
why this issue wasn't, and isn't, mentioned on Wikipedia:Conflicts between users
why the ban was done by a sysop engaged in an edit war with the user concerned. Had the task been delegated to a sysop with whom Anthony was not in conflict, there would be considerably less oppertunity for him to allege impropriety.

Thanks. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 01:00, 2 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Protecting the page was not acceptable as this page is supposed to be used by MediaWiki users from all around the world to quickly add their sites to the list. There was no "edit war", this is complete nonsense. There was one user vandalizing an article and several other users fixing it. There is established precedent for sysops/developers to step in in such cases and use a temporary ban, which may later be made permanent if there is general approval to do so.

As for your other suggestions, all of them amount to feeding the troll, which is exactly what you are not supposed to do with trolls. —Eloquence 02:28, Feb 2, 2004 (UTC)

It still looks bad Erik. I agree with Finlay McWalter. --mav 02:37, 2 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I don't care how it looks. I will continue to ban vandals as I see them, especially when they are also trolls.—Eloquence 03:41, Feb 2, 2004 (UTC)

This was not a case of obvious vandalism. It looks like it was an edit war to me. And it does look like you used your sysop user rights as a tool to win that edit war. Appearances are very important. --mav

Not that important (as I argued above to seemingly deaf ears), that's for sure. Go Eloquence! You tell 'em!168... 04:06, 2 Feb 2004 (UTC)

A non-existent site without an URL being repeatedly added to the list of MediaWiki sites, as a Wikimedia project no less, is an obvious case of vandalism, and if it had been done by an anonymous IP we wouldn't even be talking about it. If Anthony pledges to stop adding "McFly" to the list, he should be unbanned, otherwise he should not. That's my last word on this matter.—Eloquence

FWIW, the site seems to be up now [2]. Dori | Talk 04:17, Feb 2, 2004 (UTC)

Who were these "several others?" And what gives you the right to reban me after "several others" unbanned me? Anthony DiPierro 05:13, 2 Feb 2004 (UTC)

1. The site has been available every time I added it. It just moved from NJ to Florida so there have been some periods of downtime, though. As for your comment about "before the URL was added," are you admitting you knew the URL all along and were just playing dumb?

2. It is a "Wikimedia forks" and and I never added it to an "official Wikimedia project list."

3. It wasn't vandalism, and the fact that you were involved in the edit war should preclude you from making the ban anyway..

4. How is the url "slashdotsucks.com" a dead giveaway of anything?

5. My repeated edits would not have been necessary if you had discussed the problem reasonably. Just because you're a sysop doesn't mean you have the power to enforce your viewpoint upon non-sysops by banning them when you disagree. That's what I'm bringing up here, as that was a clear misuse of your admin privileges. Anthony DiPierro 05:11, 2 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Is there a precedent for temporarily blocking an established user -- a user who had made edits that were not simple vandalism -- who later went on a vandalism spree? Because saying "Users who have made real edits may not be blocked, even if they have started spray-painting all over the walls" gives a rather large loophole to vandals, does it not? — No-One Jones (talk) 04:19, 2 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Sadly, it looks like precedent is being set by the actions of all three Admins above and the apparent support for these obvious breaches of protocol. If we don't do something soon Admins will begin to think that they are cop, jury, judge and, in the case of banning, prison guards as well. --mav

Reluctantly oppose de-adminship, but strongly support censure. It is very unacceptable to ban a user that you are in an edit-war with. If Eloquence had protected the page, that would still have been unacceptable, but less so. Since the conflict was entirely over one page, I'm not sure why he chose to ban the user instead of protect the page anyway. It is explicitly against Wikipedia policy (as unambiguously stated by Jimbo) to ban logged-in users who have any legitimate history of contributions, unless that banning has been approved by either Jimbo personally or by the arbitration committee. --Delirium 05:32, Feb 2, 2004 (UTC)

Very well put. But I would like to add that there are some extenuating circumstance due to the fact that Jimbo isn't involved in banning decisions anymore and the mediation and arbitration process has not been finalized yet. So in a vacuum of power like that, vigilantes do tend to try to enforce order. Censure seems to be appropriate here (I say for all three Admins listed on this page). Perhaps this can be the first case the arbitration committee hears? --mav 05:40, 2 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Seems reasonable to me. What I'm most interested isn't de-sysopping anyone, but in ensuring that these sorts of bans (Hephaestus banning Lir and Eloquence banning Anthony) stop happening. Except in very clear-cut cases where either the user is an obvious reincarnation of a banned user, or has done nothing but a spree of vandalism since registering the account, I don't think admins should be empowered to unilaterally ban logged-in users, which I thought was already our explicit policy. Or at least I remember a mailing list post by Jimbo to that effect, where he said the new feature to ban logged-in users really wasn't supposed to be actually used except in cases of pure vandalism (it was mainly implemented, as I recall, to allow reincarnations of Michael to be easily banned). Cases where a user is allegedly a "troll" should be referred to the arbitration committee. --Delirium 05:45, Feb 2, 2004 (UTC)

Delirium, please see the last two lines on Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration. - Hephaestos 06:05, 2 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I'm aware of that, but I was under the impression that until the arbitration committee was hearing cases, the power to ban logged-in users remained exclusively with Jimbo. He's always reserved that power for himself, and has just recently delegated that power to the arbitration committee. I assume he didn't intend to delegate it to all administrators at large acting individually in the interim. --Delirium 07:51, Feb 2, 2004 (UTC)

I support Erik's actions in blocking Anthony DiPierro. Anthony has frequently engaged in troll-like behavior (examples include inserting Bill Gates' social security number in the opening sentence of his article (repeatedly), nominating articles for deletion that he admits he does not believe should be deleted (perhaps to prove some sort of point?), and making outrageous claims about copyright (for example at Al Gore he removed a sentence he wrote under the guise that he owned the copyright to that sentence...), and others). If there is not a power vacuum at the moment, appearances certainly seem otherwise. People who engage in troll-like behaviour are very hard to get rid of. For example with BuddhaInside, he was only able to be blocked after he moved the main page to subpage of his usertalk. I am not saying to cases are the same, but they share some similarities (users who engage in annoying behaviour are blocked after committing vandalism). After the arbitration committee is in operation, unilateral actions such as this would of course be much more questionable and unilateral bans could set a dangerous precedent of vigilantism. Maximus Re x 06:19, 2 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I'd suggest if you have a problem with my behavior you take it up on some other page. I'm not even going to defend myself here other than to say that you have not accurately represented my actions, because this is not the appropriate forum, and my actions were not part of Erik's justifications. In any case, arbitration committee or no arbitration committee, unilateral action sets a terrible precedent, and that's precisely why I listed Erik's actions here. Anthony DiPierro 07:33, 2 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I think that Eloquence's action was unwise. It should not be taken as a precedent. A more appropriate action would have been to request another, non-involved, admin to review the situation and act appropriately. However, I also regard it as a good-faith error of judgement. Yes: reverse the action (as has long since been done) and administer a rap over the knuckles - a minor rap, as it can be very difficult indeed to apply the wisdom of Solomon during the heat of the moment - but we all know that Eloquence is (in the main) an asset to the 'pedia and should certainly not be de-sysoped. Tannin 23:37, 3 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Much the same comment applies in the case of Hephaestos. Tannin 23:39, 3 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Not to me, though, hoo-boy, I'm a known cancer and a plague. I wish somebody (besides Lir) would tell me why with examples that precede the current brouhaha.168... 23:46, 3 Feb 2004 (UTC)

168, I'm not familiar enough with your case to make an informed comment. Better say nothing than say something wrong and unfair. I had no intention of making a "comment by ommission" on your case here, and apologise for conveying that impression. Tannin 23:50, 3 Feb 2004 (UTC)

O.K. Clarification very much appreciated.168... 00:28, 4 Feb 2004 (UTC)