Wikipedia:Requests for comment/168

(User:168... | talk)

Version of what happened edited by 168... and other community members:

NOTICE: This article continues to undergo changes. The reputations of many people are affected by this portrayal of events, including the reputations of 168..., Mav, Lir, Peak, Stewartadcock and others. In making edits to this article, these users should be regarded as facing potential conflicts of interest. You may wish to check the Edit History to see who edited it most recently and what changes they made.

As a participant in a multi-party dispute with User:Lir over one much-discussed paragraph in DNA, 168 reverted to a long-standing older version, which 168... favored. When User:Lir undid the reversion, 168... reverted again and protected the page. Other admins said protection was called for, but said the fact that 168... had done it made the act improper[1]. 168... also protected Wikipedia:Conflicts between users while a participant in a brief multi-party dispute involving Lir over that page then unprotected it again two minutes later.

Later 168... used the administrators' "rollback" feature to revert one sentence fragment of the article Nucleic acid, which had been protected due to a revert war between 168... and User:Lir about a vocabulary issue that had been fruitlessly discussed at length on talk: DNA, in the context of which Lir demonstrated disinterest in reaching a resolution through reasoned dialogue. 168 reverted the sentence fragment to an earlier version that had been stable for a long time until Lir made his change. The page was protected at the time. When others tried to revert 168...'s reversion, 168... reverted theirs using the rollback feature. The others included 3 other admins and 168... used the rollback feature more than 10 times in less than 20 minutes. No one has recorded how many times the other admins may have used the rollback feature during this dispute.

Note there is evidence to suggest that 168... was engaging in this behavior in order to provoke political action. (Nucleic acid history. "So desysop me" 168... posted as summary of one reversion.

[2] 168...'s use of the rollback feature resulted in the removal from 168...'s talk page of accusations that 168... was violating rules and commands that 168... submit to the will of other administrators and decist.

[3] [4] [5] [6] (User talk:168... history 

Note that it is rare, if not unprecedented, to read about a user's removal of content from a user's own talk page in the context of alleged misbehavior. Pages in a user's personal directory tend to be regarded more or less as the property of those users. Note also that use of the rollback feature seemingly has not been presented as a kind of misbehavior in the evaluation of any other administrator prior to 168...[7]. Some might take the citatation of these two behaviors in the case of 168... as reflecting presuppositions about 168... that are not usually made when the behavior of other sysops is raised for public scrutiny. 168... claims that Mav and others are behaving in the manner of a lynch mob.

At the same time 168... was using the rollback feature to revert a posting by Lir to Wikipedia:Possible misuses of admin privileges, in which Lir made a complaint he had already made on two other public pages. 168... offered this is a reason not to allow Lir's post, but 168... was reverted without discussion again and again.

A poll was then started here asking whether or not 168... should be "desysoped" (stripped of administrator powers). The poll was not widely advertised (e.g. not on Wikipedia:Current polls)

Between February 12th and 13th 168... attempted to preserve the much-discussed intro paragraph of DNA described above. A new paragraph had been produced by a multi-day open polling procedure, which allowed voters to move their votes around until the arrival of a deadline which had been set previously. Although 168... and Lir had objected to voting, no one expressed objections to the specific deadline proposed. The process produced a paragraph that emerged with the support of more than a two-thirds majority of the witnesses who made their presence known on the talk page (-- see Talk:DNA/archive_4#Voting_on_February_5_Version). The vote was not advertised widely (not e.g. on Wikipedia:Current polls) which some consider a requirement for voting, according to 168.... Absentions were not solicited, and no one explicitly posted that they were abstaining. Prior to the start of a 72-hour final voting period, 168 reintroduced the original long-standing version of the paragraph and voted for it. No one else did. 168... says this posting was an attempt to redirect the process and to poke fun at the proceedings, which at the time (as can be examined in the page history) showed few voters voting for the same choices of phrase. As more votes came in and people moved their votes around, however, support converged on a single version.

The emerging paragraph had the support of five participants united in their opposition to Lir. 168... acted to prevent implementation of the voter-approved paragraph by reverting attempts to post it and calling for discussion. During 168...'s actions to preserve the long-standing older version of the introductory paragraph, four people were reverting it to the voter-approved version. Ultimately 168... protected the older version.

168... had alerted all parties multiple times that 168... would not recognize the vote's outcome. Lir also indicated that he regarded the vote as having no authority. Still, participants were surprised by their behavior afterwards.

According to Peak, who called for the vote, his intention and the intention of other vote-supporters was to try to produce a paragraph that a wide majority of participants could feel allegiance to, and which they could collectively defend against changes by uncooperative participants. The prior weeks of discussion had touched on all of the phrases in question and produced a variety of alternatives that could be evaluated by voting. 168... and Peak both believe that the weeks of discussion preceding the vote were done in the spirit of "consensus decision making" as per Consensus decision-making, which does not strictly require unanimity.

168... had offered arguments against holding a vote and proposed "reasoned discussion" as an alternative. This proposal was not seriously debated, partly because attempts toward reasoned discussion with Lir had already been tried in vain for weeks, and the sysop who was protecting the page had called for unanimity. In calling for reasoned discussion, 168... explicitly proposed that Lir be excluded from the process. According to Peak, this seemed meaningless, in the sense that without banning Lir could edit the talk page anyway, or trivial, because if 168... wanted to ignore Lir 168... was free to do so. In the end, the call for unanimity was rejected by the five voters and their supporters in the community who think the results of the vote should be binding.

At the same time as 168... was blocking immediate implementation of the voter-approved paragraph, Lir was making his own edits to the article, acts that suggest Lir did not consider the outcome of the vote as any constraint on how editing or discussion should proceed. 168... seems to believe that the vote was held in the mistaken belief that Lir would feel compelled to respect the opinions of the majority of others. In fact, the motives of the vote supporters varied. In arguing against the polling, 168... said the various options incorporated many accomodations to Lir, but in the end would neither satisfy nor be recognized by Lir. 168...'s prediction appears to have been accurate (although it is unclear whether Lir would have paid more respect to the vote if 168... had treated the results as binding). Because of this, it might be argued that 168...'s proposed alternative to voting--a reasoned discussion excluding Lir--would have been the better option to pursue. This does not say whether 168... was obliged to go along with the choice of most others to hold a vote and treat the results as binding.

Peak and others respect 168...'s preference for the old version of the paragraph in question, and 168... respects the voters' decision to pursue a compromise by voting. Both are disappointed with the other. Voters are surprised that 168... put a campaign to end tolerance of users like Lir ahead of efforts to deal with Lir in a somewhat more conventional way. Peak says what 168... did was contrary to the democratic principles of Wikipedia, and he says he is disillusioned that 168... would act in such a way.

Many Wikipedians called 168...'s protection of the older paragraph an abuse of sysop powers. Policy says that administrators should not use their powers of protection on articles they have edited. 168... had reverted Lir's edits to that page many times in the past and still farther in the past had been involved in its editing. 168... had also been an active participant in discussions on the talk page several weeks previously and had made recent posts. It is not clear how many Wikipedians, if any, took the time to personally evaluate the extent to which 168...'s involvement with the article constituted "recent editing." Nevertheless, it was widely publicized on Wikipedia that 168 had protected a version of page that 168... had recently edited and engaged in "edit wars" over and which 168... preferred. Following a previous campaign by Mav to call attention to 168...'s behavior, the recent charges were widely and rapidly embraced as accurate in detail. 168... claims the details paint a different picture from the characterizations that circulated, which 168... calls coarse and slanted. However, the simple fact remains that he chose to freeze the page at his preferred version rather than the version which had been supported by ALL participants besides himself and Lir.

Mav [8] [9], and others have repeatedly used the phrase "consensus" to describe the vote (Peak described it as "near-consensus") and described 168...'s intent as to simply over-rule it (rather than to introduce an extra step of discussion prior to implimentation). This is important to mention, because the manner in which 168...'s behavior was described may account for the swift and widespread condemnation of 168... and subsequent stripping of sysop status. Many expressed outrage that 168... had used sysop powers to block the immediate implementation of an edit that had received overwhelming support from voters. Peak adds that 168... had said Lir should be ignored, so that it was hypocritical to regard the vote as other than unanimous. 168... does consider the vote unanimous among the reasonable participants in the vote, but does not consider the vote a legitimate final stage in the process of agreeing on a paragraph. As the final stage, 168... called for a reasoned discussion of the merits of the voter-approved paragraph vis-a-vis the long-standing older paragraph, and 168... used sysop powers to try and force this course of action.

At around the same time 168... was using the rollback feature to revert the addition of new, undiscussed accusations to this Requests-for-comments page, which was created to address a distinct but related episode of behavior that is decribed above at the top. Five different people were reverting 168. 168... protected the old version of the page twice but that page protection was lifted by another admin. [10]

168... went on to delete this page 11 times and blank it four times. Based on a clear majority at 168...'s desysoping poll, Tim Starling then temporarily desysopped 168... and asked for a review of the situation, which has yet to take place [11]

Mav requested mediation at Wikipedia:Requests_for_mediation#168..._and_maveric149.

For discussion of the original issue for which this page was created, see Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/168

Applicable policies

Wikipedia:Protection policy

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

Possible outcomes

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

Pledge Poll

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Yes

1. mav
2. RickK (note that I do not consider pages that the sysop has reverted because of previous vandalism as having been "edited" by the sysop)
3. Angela (but there ought to be a way of marking a particular editor as someone who the rule can be ignored for -ie any page can be protected against Lir whether you've edited that page or not)
4. Tuf-Kat (agree with both Rick and Angela's caveats)
5. Sam Spade (Disagree with both above caveats)
6. Anthony DiPierro Sysops shouldn't be blocking users or protecting pages without consensus anyway.
7. Toby Bartels -- The phrasing is rather strong (ever edited???), but I think that I know what you mean.
8. Denni While a categorical 'yes' may be a bit strong, Wiki has zero credibility if it allows clowns at the controls. I'd rather be firm and give the odd break than be easy and then have to show my teeth.

• No

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

• Depends

1. —Eloquence - depends on the actions of the individual. Vandalism by such users should be immediately punishable with a block or protection if necessary, regardless of sysop involvement on that page, and sysops should be allowed to make a call as to which edits are vandalism and which are not.
2. Jiang - agree with Eloquence.
3. Tannin 07:11, 12 Feb 2004 (UTC) - agree with Jiang and Eloquence. Sysops should be very reluctant to do this, but sometimes it is unavoidable.
4. llywrch 17:09, 12 Feb 2004 (UTC) - if a sysop has made trivial or irrelevant changes to a page, there should be no problem; & vandalism should be judged by the action, not by the individual. However, if there is any possibility of conflict of interest, the sysop should recuse her/himself.
5. Jmabel 08:29, 13 Feb 2004 (UTC) - I concur with a lot of what the "dependers" and abstainers are saying. There's a gray zone, but it looks to me like 168 got past the gray zone here, and somewhere along the way should have called on a different administrator, just like a non-admin would have had to do.
6. Jake 08:13, 2004 Feb 14 (UTC) - Someone shouldn't be barred from taking protective action on a page they fixed a typo on last year. They shouldn't protect a page on a version where they changed half the text. Exactly where between these two points to drawn the line, I can't say.
7. ShaneKing - Agree with the concept that vandalism is different from geniune attempts to edit. I also agree with the idea that fixing a typo is different from a major edit. As to where to draw the line, I suggest that if you had nothing to do with the text being changed (ie only edited another section of the page), then that shouldn't count. I also think if all you did was what could be called a minor edit (fix typo, link, etc), treat as if you didn't change the page. That I think strikes a balance between the need to neutral adminship, and the need to protect pages.
8. UtherSRG 13:09, 18 Feb 2004 (UTC) - The matter is too grey to settle with this pledge. ...has ever editted... can be interpretted too strictly to include all minor edits which doesn't make the sysop have a conflict of interest. However, if the sysop does have a COI, then they should recuse themselves.

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

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

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

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

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

The Larger Issue

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

Specifically, I believe:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Arbitrary protection of pages

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

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

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

Sysop Violation

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

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

You mean 168 protected DNA?

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

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

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

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

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

Agreed.P0M

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

You can't effectively block admins, since they can just unblock themselves. That's why you need a developer to desysop him first. -- Toby Bartels 02:36, 15 Feb 2004 (UTC)

168 has been temporarily desysopped

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

168 is repeatedly deleting other people's comments from this page. RickK 23:23, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC)

That's a complete distortion of what I'm doing, which is editing to present the facts more neutrally, while others who are not the authors of the edited presentation are reverting my edits without discussion simply on the principle that the edits are mine!168...|...Talk 23:31, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Here is a record of people reverting me on principle:

• (cur) (last) . . 15:30, 16 Feb 2004 . . 168...
• (cur) (last) . . M 15:29, 16 Feb 2004 . . RickK (Reverted edits by 168... to last version by RickK)
• (cur) (last) . . 15:26, 16 Feb 2004 . . 168... (edits nearly always made without discussion! ("Be bold"). This supposed to be about "what happened"; i.e. a disinterested representation of facts. why mention "rollback"? "deleting" misrepresents me!)
• (cur) (last) . . 15:23, 16 Feb 2004 . . RickK (168 is repeatedly deleting other people's comments from this page. )
• (cur) (last) . . M 15:20, 16 Feb 2004 . . Silsor (your own changes to the complaints about you were made without discussion! BTW, rollback is for vandals only.)
• (cur) (last) . . 15:19, 16 Feb 2004 . . 168... (ibid)
• (cur) (last) . . M 15:18, 16 Feb 2004 . . Snoyes (Reverted edits by 168... to last version by RickK)
• (cur) (last) . . M 15:07, 16 Feb 2004 . . 168... (rv reversion that was made without discussion)
• (cur) (last) . . M 14:58, 16 Feb 2004 . . RickK (Reverted edits by 168... to last version by Silsor)
• (cur) (last) . . 14:52, 16 Feb 2004 . . 168... (It's inappropriate for someone to revert edits on principle. If the authors of the accusations disagree with my edits, let them say so and say how)
• (cur) (last) . . 14:48, 16 Feb 2004 . . Silsor (removing your "npov" edits: it is completely inappropriate for you to edit the complaints against yourself. They are supposed to be POV, that's the point. Reply&clarify instead of changing them.)
• (cur) (last) . . 14:46, 16 Feb 2004 . . 168... (remove bias relating to this page)

168...|...Talk 22:39, 17 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I for one don't think that 168's changes were so bad as to merit revertion - they should in fact be improved upon. He added something I missed - the influence of Lir - to the summary. I had planned to improve on 168's changes and to re-introduce some stuff he deleted. In short, he should be able to edit the summary just like anybody else (within reason - just like everybody else). Please add and edit, don't revert. --mav 23:28, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Was this page created fairly?

From Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Ed Poor:

Why does this page exist? I see no evidence that at least two people tried and failed to resolve this "conflict" with Ed and failed. This looks to me like an attempt by 168... to silence those who try to speak against him. --mav

This makes me want to ask:

Why does this page exist? I see no evidence that at least two people tried and failed to resolve this "conflict" with 168... and failed. This looks to me like an attempt by mav to silence those who try to speak against him. 168... 01:20, 5 Feb 2004 (UTC)

On your talk page, Cyan's talk page and the admin abuse page (started by Lir). We could not resolve the conflict that way. You protected a page in an edit war. We don't want you to do that again. You refuse to admit what you did was wrong and therefore indicate that you will continue this behavior. --mav

Must I ask again? Please state the conflict with me that both you and cyan tried to resolve. "The conflict between 168... and [your answer here] about [your answer here] remains unresolved despite mav's attempt to do so [where and how] and cyan's attempt to do so [where and how]." If you can complete that sentence satisfactorily, mav, I won't have to call you a liar.168... 02:48, 5 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Hint: I don't believe cyan tried to resolve a conflict to do with me that is also a conflict you have tried to resolve that is to do with me and which is also the issue you are pursuing here, whatever that may be.168... 02:54, 5 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I already answered your question above. But just for fun "The conflict between 168... and [mav] about [168...'s use of sysop user rights in an edit war and mav's request for 168 to admit wrongdoing and promise not to do it again] remains unresolved despite mav's attempt to do so [by discussing the issue with 168... on his talk page, mav's talk page and the admin abuse page] and cyan's attempt to do so [on 168...'s talk page, Cyan's talk page and the admin abuse page]." Your response to me has been: "Sorry, I do not think what I specifically did, in context, was wrong, and I will not say that I think it was." Your response to Cyan basically was, "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." Both Cyan and I continued to disagree with you in later posts. Oh and both Cyan and I were taking issue with the same thing - your revert and protection of DNA while engaged in an edit conflict over that page. Let the readers decide just who is lying. --mav

"Edit war" means revert war. "War" suggests a prolonged engagement. Therefore, what you have written seems quite false to me. Also, Cyan did not ask me to admit wrongdoing and then proceed to try to get me to do so on my talk page. Ditto for you. So that part is also false. So you went against the rules when you posted this request for comment. What you personally did is to issue me an ultimatum on the "Admin abuse" page, condemning me if I did not admit what I did was wrong and pledge never to do the same thing again. That seems to be your issue. Cyan has not asked me never to do the same thing again; or if he meant to do so when at one point he wrote that he supported your position, then he did this after his discussion with me. 168... 15:43, 5 Feb 2004 (UTC)

---

Part of an ongoing series of disputes brought to you by User:Lir

See also:Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Mav, Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Lir, Wikipedia talk:Possible misuses of admin privileges#Whether to Desysop 168