[WikiEN-l] Re: Erik, a couple of requests

[Anthere]

Jimmy Wales a écrit:

> The Mav/168 situation strikes me as being like that.  Here we have two
> valued contributors arguing endlessly about something that outside
> parties see as entirely pointless (the wording of the introductory
> paragraph of [[DNA]], where there's nothing transparently wrong about
> either alternative, and it seems impossible that there could be no
> compromise).  
> 
> They want to go to arbitration over it.

Jimbo

ahum, ahum

Mav and 168 requests for mediation then arbitration were NOT over the 
content of the DNA article

The initial request of Mav (I copy it, so to ensure I do not deform words)

As noted on Wikipedia:Requests for comment/168 (I have to refer to a 
diff because 168... has been reverting my changes to that and other 
pages) I feel that 168... has abused his sysop user rights and has been 
a disruptive force in the community by engaging in revert wars (often 
using the rollback feature as a tool in those wars and on at least two 
occassions using page protection as a revert war tool as well). What I 
want is for 168... to stop abusing his sysop user rights, stop engaging 
in edit wars and for him to start cooperating with others (as noted on 
the RfC page he has ignored the consensus on the DNA talk page). 168... 
indicated on my talk page that he was willing to start mediation. --mav 
06:05, 13 Feb 2004 (UTC)






The initial layout of the problem by 168 (I have some more detailed and 
more constructed ones, but these were privately given) is this one

  168..., an admin, feels that mav, another admin, has attempted to 
intimidate him by citing what are regarded by many others as rules of 
thumb as if they are absolute rules that demand de-adminship when 
breached ([example below]). 168... feels that the manner of mav's 
continuing inquiry into 168...'s actions shows a prejudice, which 
continued to characterize Mav's conduct, despite evidence of more 
tolerant views among other admins around him. Even before Mav made his 
first public calls for scrutiny of 168...'s conduct, 168... feels mav 
should have consulted with Cyan, an admin that mediated the disputed 
page and who is much more familiar with the context of the objected-to 
behavior than himself. 168... sees this failure to consult Cyan a 
failure of due dilligence and evidence of a disregard for principles of 
fairness and neutrality. 168... also sees this as an exploitation by Mav 
of Mav's notoriety and 168...'s lack of notoriety as a do-gooder. Other 
accusers could not have rallied so much support so quickly, 168... 
contends, and the presence of any bias or unjustified zeal in Mav's 
accusation can be expected to have had a very large impact on the public 
perception of 168..., which 168... could not effectly balance through 
self-advocacy. 168... would like to note that this whole conflict, 
involving many admins and many pages and many kilobytes of text, has 
only occurred because of the failure, despite the calls of many, to 
permanently ban User:Lir. 168... would also like to point to a bias or 
discrimination implied by Mav's having discouraged others from 
participating in a poll of opinion that 168... attempted to conduct 
about Lir [1] and Mav's failure to speak against a poll that others 
conducted about 168... here, and which resulted in 168...'s public 
condemnation and stripping of sysop powers. Mav claims to have brought 
accusations against 168... justly and without prejudice.

On top of many other accusations (see 
Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/168) Mav accuses 168... of raising 
accusations against Mav only in order to distract from the accusations 
against 168.... 168... says this is untrue and typical of how Mav has 
been prosecuting his case against 168, which 168... sees as involving at 
every turn either an assumption of bad faith and/or an action tending to 
bias public opinion against 168... and favor a resolution that Mav 
prefers: That the current version of community rules and guidelines 
should be obeyed "to the letter" and that 168... be harshly reprimanded 
for having interpreted them liberally.

An example of Mav's use of what 168... calls "guideline exaggeration" is 
this:

(cur) (last) . . 00:42, 3 Feb 2004 . . Maveric149 (putting Ed's note 
back again; Note that 168 used the auto revert feature to erase it last 
time; another abuse of sysop user rights)[2]





You may find this statement at 
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Mav




As you may see, this is of a different nature than the two paragraphs in 
question.