I de-sysoped 172, as he seems to have managed to start Wikipedia's first Blocking War. The problem is, I haphazardly blocked 3 other admins too, and one of them's mad at me.
I wish Snowspinner had e-mailed me or met me in talk first; he's put in a RFA instead. Well, I can't say I didn't deserve it.
It all has to do with the 3RR, sock-puppets and global warming. Any two of which is enough to push people's buttons in Our Town.
Or is it Peyton Place?
Ed Poor
To wit, I wish you'd e-mailed me or met me in talk before unilaterally desysopping me. :)
But I've removed the RFAr. The matter is resolved to my satisfaction for now.
-Snowspinner
On Mar 1, 2005, at 1:43 PM, Poor, Edmund W wrote:
I de-sysoped 172, as he seems to have managed to start Wikipedia's first Blocking War. The problem is, I haphazardly blocked 3 other admins too, and one of them's mad at me.
I wish Snowspinner had e-mailed me or met me in talk first; he's put in a RFA instead. Well, I can't say I didn't deserve it.
It all has to do with the 3RR, sock-puppets and global warming. Any two of which is enough to push people's buttons in Our Town.
Or is it Peyton Place?
Ed Poor _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On Tue, 1 Mar 2005 13:56:18 -0600, Phil Sandifer sandifer@sbcglobal.net wrote:
But I've removed the RFAr. The matter is resolved to my satisfaction for now.
-Snowspinner
So we don't get to find out what happens when every single member of arbcom has to recuse?
Why would they all have to recuse? This had nothing to do with the Ambi block...
-Snowspinner
On Mar 1, 2005, at 2:18 PM, geni wrote:
On Tue, 1 Mar 2005 13:56:18 -0600, Phil Sandifer sandifer@sbcglobal.net wrote:
But I've removed the RFAr. The matter is resolved to my satisfaction for now.
-Snowspinner
So we don't get to find out what happens when every single member of arbcom has to recuse? _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On Tue, 1 Mar 2005 14:33:06 -0600, Phil Sandifer sandifer@sbcglobal.net wrote:
Why would they all have to recuse? This had nothing to do with the Ambi block...
-Snowspinner
Never said it was. It was a joke It's just between us we have probably racked up enough incerdents (both good and bad) with the arbcom members to make a case for questioning thier nutrality.
Ah, OK. Sorry. Life stressful. Humor impaired. :(
-Snowspinner On Mar 1, 2005, at 3:09 PM, geni wrote:
On Tue, 1 Mar 2005 14:33:06 -0600, Phil Sandifer sandifer@sbcglobal.net wrote:
Why would they all have to recuse? This had nothing to do with the Ambi block...
-Snowspinner
Never said it was. It was a joke It's just between us we have probably racked up enough incerdents (both good and bad) with the arbcom members to make a case for questioning thier nutrality.
-- geni _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
geni wrote:
On Tue, 1 Mar 2005 14:33:06 -0600, Phil Sandifer sandifer@sbcglobal.net wrote:
Why would they all have to recuse? This had nothing to do with the Ambi block...
-Snowspinner
Never said it was. It was a joke It's just between us we have probably racked up enough incerdents (both good and bad) with the arbcom members to make a case for questioning thier nutrality.
Maybe I'm misunderstanding something you've said, but I'd like to ask: can you tell me a Wikipedian (admin or otherwise) who is 100% impartial and neutral on all matters? Perhaps if you could we wouldn't need a committee and we could just make that person the sole arbitrator on all cases. A user such as this that shows no fear nor favour would be excellent.
Incidently, should you find such an editor may I take you to my farm and show you my latest pet? It's a pink unicorn. You might be interested.
Cheers, TBSDY
geni wrote:
On Tue, 1 Mar 2005 14:33:06 -0600, Phil Sandifer sandifer@sbcglobal.net wrote:
Why would they all have to recuse? This had nothing to do with the Ambi block...
Never said it was. It was a joke It's just between us we have probably racked up enough incerdents (both good and bad) with the arbcom members to make a case for questioning thier nutrality.
There's *supposed* to be a rule that if half the arbcom recuses, then all are unrecused and back on the case. It doesn't appear to have made it into the rules. It or something like it really really needs to be in there. Came close in the new Anthony case ...
- d.
I asked Jamesday to remove Ed developer flag.
Explanation of the reason why is here : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Inciden...
Sorry Oncle. I love you, but you are not a steward so you should not desysop people. Only for urgent action would be okay for a developer to do so. I do not think Wikipedia was in danger.
It seems you should not have developer flag anyway... so this is technical clean-up
Sorry
Anthere
Poor, Edmund W a écrit:
I de-sysoped 172, as he seems to have managed to start Wikipedia's first Blocking War. The problem is, I haphazardly blocked 3 other admins too, and one of them's mad at me.
I wish Snowspinner had e-mailed me or met me in talk first; he's put in a RFA instead. Well, I can't say I didn't deserve it.
It all has to do with the 3RR, sock-puppets and global warming. Any two of which is enough to push people's buttons in Our Town.
Or is it Peyton Place?
Ed Poor
I asked Jamesday to remove Ed developer flag.
Explanation of the reason why is here : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Inciden...
Sorry Oncle. I love you, but you are not a steward so you should not desysop people. Only for urgent action would be okay for a developer to do so. I do not think Wikipedia was in danger.
Speaking as an arbiter (but only for myself -- not the Committee) I agree with Anthere. Ed is a valued contributor, both for his edits and sometimes but not always ;-> for his peace-making activities. However, he does not need the ability to desysop people.
--- Sean Barrett sean@epoptic.org wrote:
Speaking as an arbiter (but only for myself -- not the Committee) I agree with Anthere. Ed is a valued contributor, both for his edits and sometimes but not always ;-> for his peace-making activities. However, he does not need the ability to desysop people.
Unless there is an emergency, desysoping needs to be done via community consensus and/or ArbCom ruling.
But it is very hard to get mad at Uncle Ed. :) Besides, the issue is moot now that the purely technical mistake of Ed having the developer tag set has been fixed.
-- mav
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail - Helps protect you from nasty viruses. http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
The questions I have. Were any of them violating our blocking policies and why was it such an emergency that immediate action was required?
Fred
From: "Poor, Edmund W" Edmund.W.Poor@abc.com Reply-To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@Wikipedia.org Date: Tue, 1 Mar 2005 11:43:17 -0800 To: "English Wikipedia" wikien-l@Wikipedia.org Subject: [WikiEN-l] 172 de-sysopped
I de-sysoped 172, as he seems to have managed to start Wikipedia's first Blocking War. The problem is, I haphazardly blocked 3 other admins too, and one of them's mad at me.
I wish Snowspinner had e-mailed me or met me in talk first; he's put in a RFA instead. Well, I can't say I didn't deserve it.
It all has to do with the 3RR, sock-puppets and global warming. Any two of which is enough to push people's buttons in Our Town.
Or is it Peyton Place?
Ed Poor _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
--- Fred Bauder fredbaud@ctelco.net wrote:
The questions I have. Were any of them violating our blocking policies and why was it such an emergency that immediate action was required?
I would like to know this as well.
-- mav
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail - Find what you need with new enhanced search. http://info.mail.yahoo.com/mail_250
Poor, Edmund W wrote:
I de-sysoped 172, as he seems to have managed to start Wikipedia's first Blocking War. The problem is, I haphazardly blocked 3 other admins too, and one of them's mad at me.
I wish Snowspinner had e-mailed me or met me in talk first; he's put in a RFA instead. Well, I can't say I didn't deserve it.
It all has to do with the 3RR, sock-puppets and global warming. Any two of which is enough to push people's buttons in Our Town.
Or is it Peyton Place?
Ed Poor
Out of interest, was their an RFC filed on this administrator before this action was carried out? Shouldn't there be a more transparent and formal process in place when it comes to desysoping admins?
TBSDY
csherlock@ljh.com.au a écrit:
Poor, Edmund W wrote:
I de-sysoped 172, as he seems to have managed to start Wikipedia's first Blocking War. The problem is, I haphazardly blocked 3 other admins too, and one of them's mad at me.
I wish Snowspinner had e-mailed me or met me in talk first; he's put in a RFA instead. Well, I can't say I didn't deserve it. It all has to do with the 3RR, sock-puppets and global warming. Any two of which is enough to push people's buttons in Our Town.
Or is it Peyton Place?
Ed Poor
Out of interest, was their an RFC filed on this administrator before this action was carried out? Shouldn't there be a more transparent and formal process in place when it comes to desysoping admins?
TBSDY
There is a clear process to desysop people; It is (ahum) on *technically* possible to developers and stewards.
Developers can do it in case of urgency. But normally it is done by stewards. The current stewards are
* Andre Engels (en, nl, de, fr, nds, ...) * Angela (en) * Anthere (fr, en) * ArnoLagrange (fr, eo, en, es, it, de, ...) * Daniel Mayer (en, es) * Fantasy (en, de, it, fr, es) * Karl Wick (en, es) * Looxix (fr, en, nl)
Stewards can set or remove status from anyone, on any projects. The transparency is ensured through the bureaucrat log on meta. Requests for status are also made on meta, publicly : http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Requests_for_permissions
Stewards are not supposed to desysoped anyone just because they feel like it; They do it after community agreement, and there is a sorta rule that a steward avoid doing so in his own language project (for example, Fantazy avoids desysoping people on german, and Mav would avoids on en... when it is a community decision, not a personal request...).
We desysoped a couple of people in the past year. Some on en, a serious lot on de, very recently on ja. And a good bunch of tired wikipedians in need of a break.
In short, except for urgency, no desysoping should take place on the english wikipedia without first arbcom decision.
Ed was able to do it essentially because he still had the developer flag. But he was not really supposed to do so.
The flag is now removed - not as a punishment - as it is not me to judge whether there was indeed urgency. But as a technical clean-up, as Ed is now not a developer any more.
I might add that Uncle Ed had held that role for a long time before stewards were elected : running sql queries to make people sysop or remove this status. So, I really do not hold grunge against him. All this is rather a mistake from us.
Anthere
Anthere wrote:
I might add that Uncle Ed had held that role for a long time before stewards were elected : running sql queries to make people sysop or remove this status. So, I really do not hold grunge against him. All this is rather a mistake from us.
Anthere
For the record, I don't hold any ummm... "grunge" :) against Uncle Ed. It's possible that 172 did the wrong thing. I just wanted to know what process was being followed!
TBSDY
Has 172 been "resysopped" in the absence of either an arbcomm or some other community decision to "desyssop" him?
Andy
on 3/1/05 11:59 PM, Anthere at anthere9@yahoo.com wrote:
csherlock@ljh.com.au a écrit:
Poor, Edmund W wrote:
I de-sysoped 172, as he seems to have managed to start Wikipedia's first Blocking War. The problem is, I haphazardly blocked 3 other admins too, and one of them's mad at me.
I wish Snowspinner had e-mailed me or met me in talk first; he's put in a RFA instead. Well, I can't say I didn't deserve it. It all has to do with the 3RR, sock-puppets and global warming. Any two of which is enough to push people's buttons in Our Town.
Or is it Peyton Place?
Ed Poor
Out of interest, was their an RFC filed on this administrator before this action was carried out? Shouldn't there be a more transparent and formal process in place when it comes to desysoping admins?
TBSDY
There is a clear process to desysop people; It is (ahum) on *technically* possible to developers and stewards.
Developers can do it in case of urgency. But normally it is done by stewards. The current stewards are
- Andre Engels (en, nl, de, fr, nds, ...)
- Angela (en)
- Anthere (fr, en)
- ArnoLagrange (fr, eo, en, es, it, de, ...)
- Daniel Mayer (en, es)
- Fantasy (en, de, it, fr, es)
- Karl Wick (en, es)
- Looxix (fr, en, nl)
Stewards can set or remove status from anyone, on any projects. The transparency is ensured through the bureaucrat log on meta. Requests for status are also made on meta, publicly : http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Requests_for_permissions
Stewards are not supposed to desysoped anyone just because they feel like it; They do it after community agreement, and there is a sorta rule that a steward avoid doing so in his own language project (for example, Fantazy avoids desysoping people on german, and Mav would avoids on en... when it is a community decision, not a personal request...).
We desysoped a couple of people in the past year. Some on en, a serious lot on de, very recently on ja. And a good bunch of tired wikipedians in need of a break.
In short, except for urgency, no desysoping should take place on the english wikipedia without first arbcom decision.
Ed was able to do it essentially because he still had the developer flag. But he was not really supposed to do so.
The flag is now removed - not as a punishment - as it is not me to judge whether there was indeed urgency. But as a technical clean-up, as Ed is now not a developer any more.
I might add that Uncle Ed had held that role for a long time before stewards were elected : running sql queries to make people sysop or remove this status. So, I really do not hold grunge against him. All this is rather a mistake from us.
Anthere
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On Sat, 05 Mar 2005 17:42:09 -0500, AndyL andyl2004@sympatico.ca wrote:
Has 172 been "resysopped" in the absence of either an arbcomm or some other community decision to "desyssop" him?
Yep Ed did it himself.
Theresa