Wikipedia:Requests for review of administrative actions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Irismeister (talk | contribs) at 19:06, 19 May 2004 (=User:Jwrosenzweig=). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Jump to navigation Jump to search

Wikipedia wants to remain as open as possible, consistent with its primary focus on accuracy and neutrality. But admins are human beings, and as such are fallible. If you think an admin has made a mistake involving their use of admin-specific features, please see information on possible misuses of sysop rights and then mention the matter here if you feel it deserves review. Matters are removed when resolved or when there is no continuing discussion.

Before listing a matter here, please try to resolve it on the article talk page or the user talk page of the admin involved. If you do list someone here, put a note on their user talk page setting forth the nature of the dispute.

This page is for review of actions that are limited to use by administrators only, specifically these actions and their converses:

  • protection
  • deletion
  • blocking users

For all other matters (such as edit wars and page moves) please see Wikipedia:Dispute resolution.

Archive:

This page is not archived. Please see the page history for older reviews.

User:Jwrosenzweig

Quoting directly from the bottom of Wikipedia:Administrators:

Dealing with grievances--If you think an administrator has acted improperly against you or another editor, you should express your concerns directly to the administrator responsible. Try and come to a resolution in an orderly and civil manner. However, if the matter is not resolved between the two parties, you can express your concerns at Wikipedia:Requests for review of admin actions.

Check list for qualifying complaints to be listed on this page.

  1. Did an administrator act improperly against you?-YES
  2. Did you express your concerns directly to the administrator responsible?-YES
  3. Did you try to come to a resolution in an orderly and civil manner?-YES
  4. Was the matter resolved between the two parties?-No, it was not!

Ergo, the matter can be expressed here, per Wikipedia:Administrators. So, I am insisting upon using this grievance procedure.

  • This admin is showing a pattern of continuously disrupting and diverting the editing process in the Iridology page. He simply feigns to be deaf and color blind to all facts, questions or answers. He only pursues a policy of destruction. When this admin has no arguments, sensible interpretations or simply evidence, he just goes on crying wolf. Trying to arbitrate in lieu of mediating is contrary to Wiki principles and abuse of sysop power.
  • Whenever this admin intervenes in Iridology he diverts issues and cannot handle simple communication with contributors. Unworthy of sysophood.
  • This sysop is subject to an ongoing fact-gathering procedure in a case of libel against me. He must desist from asking arbitration, for he is only trying to intervene in the process of gathering evidence in his case.
  • Every story has two sides. I'm sick and tired of having to face time-consuming procedures in Wiki and off Wiki only because he is incompetent in matters of iridology and incompetent in communicating with more legitimate editors than he is. He is raping other people's need for free time, and eroding their good will.
  • This admin has yet to provide written excuses for the mess he has caused in the Iridology article and by not reverting a written inflammatory statement he had made against rules of good behavior, common sense and honor. I have all the data, and will produce them whenever I feel appropriate - but having for ever less time to lose with such an admin, ungrateful and disruptive, I will refer this matters to people more competent in dealing with abuses, including sysop power and administrative privileges. I seek revocation of his admin privileges for one year, and desysoping for life or the reverse - you know, whatever - provided it's Justice.

Moreover, I would like to see a more straightforward procedure for the long, tedious, time-consuming procedure Wiki indulges in kicking unworthy sysops. Quies custodiet ipsos custodes ? If a sysop is a troll, dismiss her at once! Aren't all human beings created equal ? Why should trolls dressed like editors be always on the "good" side (demonstration at hand) ? irismeister 18:23, 2004 May 19 (UTC)

In what way has this admin misused their admin priviledges in dealing with you? (See the top of this page for the intention and scope of the page) - snoyes 18:48, 19 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Just look at the iridology talk page. And can't you read what I wrote ? - irismeister 19:06, 2004 May 19 (UTC)

I point out that your tearing over to request review of actions over conduct on a page that you have been banned from editing is rather against the spirit of the arbitration committee's decision. I also point out that the AC decision instructs this user to "desist from attempting to intimidate other users by making unfounded legal threats or by any other means." In light of these two facts, I thought I would offer that Irismeister might be wise to delete this section. Snowspinner 18:54, 19 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Oh yeah ? Light ? Where is the light in which you spin me here, Snowspinner ?

Quies custodiet ipsos custodes?

If a sysop is a troll, look at the HARD FACTS of EVIDENCE and dismiss her (him) at once!

Aren't all human beings created equal ? Why should trolls dressed like admins be always on the "good" side (demonstration at hand) ? Isn't Wiki a meritocracy any more ?

Just why the hell should people work and lose nights for some medically illiterate, science novice Wikicop, with an admin cap like User:Jwrosenzweig to come and start messing around medical articles - only because she (or he) is an admin ? Does adminship confer some "annointment", or intrinsic ad hoc qualifications, or are admins named here in order to HELP us, specialist contributors ?

For User:Jwrosenzweig has been less than useful and indeed disruptive in Iridology. When he had no more things to say in his Wikicop police report he worked hard to have me banned for life from editing the article I happen to know best. "Reason" ? His imagination running wild, thinking I am a fool or something advertising other people's work and websites. This is sheer arrogance, and disregard for ideals and motivations outside his or her own petty system of values. This is also plain nuts! This will make Wiki a dead end! No healthy minded specialists will come here to contribute, facing administrators like she (he) is, with insults, bans and all. We urge you to set a severe precedent and indeed, an exemplary jurisdiction!

Therefore, and in conclusion, let us measure admin performance as per my previous proposal (remember, anyone?), or I'll see the real, good will people will flee Wiki en masse. Let us measure administrative performance. I have designed measures of admin trolling activity and objective ratios calculated for the so called "admin" severly disrupting Wikilife!

Again, interested, anyone, or we are yet to get in a second round of the "dialogue de sourds" ?

In the meantime, the Wikicops are protected and the victims are blamed!

What a shame! What a disgrace this Wiki has become eversince ten Wikicops have been made admins for every serious editor (ratio increasing) !irismeister 18:23, 2004 May 19 (UTC)

The case has merit. Why on Earth did you forget audiatur et alteram partem ? Are you all deaf ?

User:Theresa knott

Quoting directly from the bottom of Wikipedia:Administrators:

Dealing with grievances--If you think an administrator has acted improperly against you or another editor, you should express your concerns directly to the administrator responsible. Try and come to a resolution in an orderly and civil manner. However, if the matter is not resolved between the two parties, you can express your concerns at Wikipedia:Requests for review of admin actions.

Check list for qualifying complaints to be listed on this page.

  1. Did an administrator act improperly against you?-YES
  2. Did you express your concerns directly to the administrator responsible?-YES
  3. Did you try to come to a resolution in an orderly and civil manner?-YES
  4. Was the matter resolved between the two parties?-No, it was not!

Ergo, the matter can be expressed here, per Wikipedia:Administrators. So, I am insisting upon using this grievance procedure.

That text was added by Dori in this edit. I have edited it to more accurately reflect the way things are done. silsor 19:01, May 19, 2004 (UTC)

Over a period of a couple months at least, I have attempted to communcate to User:Theresa knott that she has been engaging in a persistent pattern of harassment directed against me, User:Mr-Natural-Health.

Starting at the beginning, Theresa knott was reminded during the voting process of the Irismeister matter about refraining from making personal attacks or harrassing people (4.2 Decree A. & B.).

The latest instance is recorded in the edit summary of Alternative medicine: m 05:59, 19 May 2004 . . Theresa knott (Reverted edits by Mr-Natural-Health to last version by Geni). This was totally uncalled for as both me and Geni were engaging in dialogue in talk:Alternative medicine only minutes before this instance of deliberate vandalism / harassment by Theresa.

Another recent example of harassment directed against me by Theresa in Alternative medicine is the following edit summary: 03:26, 18 May 2004 . . Theresa knott (If you insist on having it so it clashed with the TOC I'll just delete it.) This is obvious harassment because most, if not all infoboxes, are placed on top of articles and most if not all infoboxes clash with the TOC, such as the one in hip hop music. The infobox or article series box in alternative medicine is quite small.

I am filing this complaint because Theresa knott has been following me around from article to article harassing me. No other administrator during this time period has taken any actions against me. Theresa, however, persists in a deliberate pattern of harassment direct against me. And, I would like for Theresa to stop harassing me. She seems to think that it is some kind of a joke.

A few more recent examples of harassment directed against me by theresa is as follows.

From Talk:Iridology: I think it's Mr NH's design. I agree it's revolting (sorry NH). I've deleted it. We don't need it here. theresa knott 20:12, 17 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

On Iridology in page history there are numerous edit summaries by Theresa attacking the infobox. This infobox was added recently to around 20 or 30 articles by the Wikiproject on Alternative Medicine.

From Wikipedia talk:NPOV dispute: John is claiming all alternative medicine articles as part of his wikiproject. He is writing guidelines that are over and above normal editting guidelines. He intends to use these guidelines to try and bully people to get his own way on all the AM articles.. We have been adding a NPOV header at the top of the page to let other poeple know that this is not policy, and we don't all agree to his rules. theresa knott 16:27, 18 May 2004 (UTC) This is an entirely inapproate response to a simple neutral question posted by me. I would definitely call this a personal attack. Why are paranoid people allowed to be adminisrators on Wikipedia? This was a neutral question, and she clearly attacked me here.[reply]

In Wikipedia talk:Wikiproject:Alternative Medicine/Standards of Quality: I hereby authorise DG to edit this page. Futhermore he is authorised to edit any other page on Wikipedia with the exception of pages in the "user" namespace. (although User_talk pages are fine) Furthermore i extend this editting right to all and sundry with the exeption of those users banned by the Arbitration Committee. Anyone who says otherwise, or tries to stop DG or anyone else from edditing this page, or any other page (noting the exceptions above) can be ignored. I declare that Mr NH does not have the right to prevent people from ewditting this page. I make this declaration with the authoritory vested in me by yo'all. theresa knott 16:05, 18 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

From Wikipedia:Wikiproject:Alternative Medicine/Standards of Quality: 07:30, 19 May 2004 . . Theresa knott (Adding the suggestion made in the talk page into the article). Theresa never joined our project so it is totally rude for her to be making edits on this project. Again, no other administrator has been editing on this project page except for Theresa. As I explained in the talk pages, numerous changes were already made to this project page. -- John Gohde 18:21, 19 May 2004 (UTC)~[reply]

You appear to be complaining about editing, not about use of administrator powers. This is not the right forum for that. All the same, it appears that Theresa thought your edits were lousy, and reverted them. This is largely standard operating procedure. Snowspinner 18:50, 19 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

User:RickK

Talk about absurd hypocrisy. I'm surprised that RickK doesn't think twice about requesting reviews on my adminship over trivialities, given that I can remind everyone about his own gross, blatant abuse of admin powers. This is coming from a user who **once blocked another admin to protect his preferred version of the George W. Bush page in an edit war** (see block log and talk page). I did not complain about it at the time because I had an ample array of better things to do. But since he hasn't put his vendetta behind him and learned from his mistake, I'll bring it up now. 172 02:43, 18 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Of course this is utter fiction, but then, 172's entire world seems to be fictional. RickK 03:02, 18 May 2004 (UTC) [reply]
Yes, I suppose I wrote that block log myself on MS Word. 172 03:03, 18 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I just looked at that talk page... I have to say, I'm impressed by the ability of people to point to evidence that discredits them as much as it does the person they're attacking. At the risk of violating the no personal attacks rule (Though nothing I'm about to say is more offensive than what you two have already thrown at each other), you are both acting like complete babies, and I'm appalled that either one of you has administrator status. Please stop this absurd fight while it's still at least dimly amusing. Snowspinner 15:29, 18 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I'm not sure that's a fair description of what went on, but I do think that RickK seems to feel that being an admin gives him the right to be self-appointed guardian of Wikipedia, along with the associated right to be as rude as possible to anybody he disagrees with. I mean, many sysops are rude on occasion, or even frequently, but with RickK there is an extent to which the rudeness seems to be associated with an attitude that his judgment is law, and that anyone who disagrees with him is operating from an illegitimate position. john 03:39, 18 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

User:Morwen

Moved to m:talk:Bans and blocks

Stevertigo

User:Stevertigo blocked me accusing me falsely of violating the 3-revert rule. --(Wik) 08:40, 5 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Good. - Hephaestos|§ 13:57, 5 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
Doubleplusgood. RickK 04:50, 6 May 2004 (UTC) [reply]
Wik's complaint is without merit. UninvitedCompany 16:04, 7 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
Wik's complaint is spurious. He often makes a revert that is a word or so different simply to avoid the 3-revert rule by what he believes to be a technicality. Stevertigo's action is within the spirit of Wik's probation as I understand it. - Tεxτurε 16:46, 11 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

As there is no evidence presented by Wik such as the article or day involved there is lack of evidence regarding the actions of Stevertigo and the complaint was properly dismissed. Fred Bauder 10:38, May 15, 2004 (UTC)

Wik points out below that Stevertigo cites no article either during the 24 hour period before the block on May 5, claiming that none exists. If true, Stevertigo would seem to be in the wrong. Perhaps Stevertigo could point out exactly what Wik did. Fred Bauder 14:17, May 15, 2004 (UTC)

Here is the exchange from the block log:

  1. 09:26, May 5, 2004 Silsor unblocked "Wik" (not a proper block)
  2. 06:05, 5 May 2004 Stevertigo blocked "Wik" with an expiry time of 24 hours (Violating the 3 revert rule - Generally uncivil behaviour toward fellow Wikipedians - Maintains a 'should be banned list' of trusted and respected Wikipedians - General nuisance)

As the matters other then 3 reverts are before the arbitration committee they should not be a basis for a block. Fred Bauder 14:29, May 15, 2004 (UTC)

In looking at the page history of Stevertigo's talk page [1] I note no attempt by Wik to discuss this matter before listing it here. See above, "Before listing a matter here, please try to resolve it on the article talk page or the user talk page of the admin involved." Fred Bauder 14:39, May 15, 2004 (UTC)

Yes, looking at user contributions for Wik for the period preceeding the ban shows 3 reverts on only 2 articles, more than 3 on none. It seems Stevertigo was going more on the general disgust with Wik than on anything specific. This is inapproriate and should be a lesson to all who would take the law into their own hands. Fred Bauder 18:56, May 15, 2004 (UTC)

What law is that? I haven't noticed much around here lately. - Hephaestos|§ 19:00, 15 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
The arbitration committee is actively hearing complaints regarding Wik and stands ready to hear more. While it is slow going, as the months and years go by eventually the slow wheels of justice will grind Wik into a well-polished diamond we can all hold up as an example. Fred Bauder 19:09, May 15, 2004 (UTC)
Indeed. An example of how any user may with impunity disrupt and distract from the work of building an encyclopedia, week after week, month after month, and continue to do so long after specific complaints have been voiced, all the while publicly declaring that he/she will not change behavior. - Hephaestos|§ 19:21, 15 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
The above few entries seems to be a conversation of one. ;) Which articles? pick one, please. General disgust - Perhaps. While I personally had no involvement with him, I was made aware of his temperment a while back, and then came the more recent reports of good people leaving wikipedia, claiming a frustration with him and others like him who show uncivility to the community. I may have to dig in the record to find my motivation. I cant recall exactly (this was a while ago) and I dont think I crossed the line, but I will put my fair standing with the community up against someones vitriol anyday. On occasion, I am fine with taking the risk of being an 'attack dog,' if only to get the point accross, in defending our more timid wikicitizens. That said, I understand your interest in the process and protocol, and in reading the record straight. -Stevertigo 19:13, 15 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
I understand your frustration. Please be patient. Fred Bauder 20:44, May 15, 2004 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_review_of_administrative_actions&oldid=3647905"