Wikipedia talk:Possible misuses of sysop rights

message: I know this page was just created, but I think it would be a better idea to use Wikipedia:Requests for comment instead. --mav 03:32, 1 Feb 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I like the idea of that page and its cousins - a well laid out process of what needs to happen in various situations of dispute. Having all the actual discussions on article talk pages, with mere pointers from that page is great. The only gripe I have is the page name - it sounds like it is a synonym for what happens at Wikipedia:Peer review. It is a continuation of the neutralisation of page names that has happened over the last few months (e.g. Problem users -> Conflicts between users ). Although such neutral page names have their advantages (they don't inflame people even more) it does make it a little more difficult to learn what they are for! Pete/Pcb21 (talk) 09:11, 2 Feb 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that peer review should come before this page. Indeed, perhaps admins should be treated like anybody else? I am also dubious as to the utility of this page. Why not just use the standard process that has just been created? Jack 09:17, 2 Feb 2004 (UTC)

message: this page appears to be being used in a way other than intended. It seems to be all or nothing, either permanantly strip the admin of their adminship, or do nothing, condoning their misbehaviours. I want lesser punishments. Temp de'admin ship, probation, a public clarification of what they did wrong, etc... Jack 08:35, 1 Feb 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: How about restricting them from certain powers, like banning, or page freezing, or telling them to avoid certain users or subjects? Jack 08:37, 1 Feb 2004 (UTC)

text: I'm quite upset about an experience with tannin, but I don't think he needs to be desysop'd. I think his problem was due to overriding POV, and I seriously doubt he misuses his authorities in regards to bird photography ;). Can't we just have a good rebuking from the boss, as it were? Whose the boss between you guys and Jimbo? Jack 08:39, 1 Feb 2004 (UTC)

text: Adminship is not a prize so deadminship should not be a punishment.  There's no need for in-between punishments.  Temporary suspensions maybe.  Anthony DiPierro 14:45, 1 Feb 2004 (UTC)

text: You conciliatory? When and where? I'd like a citation ;) Jack 02:12, 2 Feb 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Jack: either make a substantive claim or else shut up. I am utterly tired of your eternal and relentless trolling. You have nothing whatsoever to complain about as regards my conduct towards you, so don't you fucking mention my name again unless it is in the direct context of a substantive complaint. Tannin 12:08, 2 Feb 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I find your tone, language, and use of "troll" in the edit summary offensive. My complaint against you is summed up best in your preceeding comment. There are other issues (innapropriate usage of CbU) but the sort of behaviour evidenced here is really the focus of my complaint. Jack 12:23, 2 Feb 2004 (UTC)
replies: text:  You need to learn the difference between "offensive" and "offended". Well, your public persona does. In reality, of course, you know exactly what you are doing: trolling. Alas, for once, I responded to it. I must try to remember not to in future, as it is what you feed off. Tannin 12:43, 2 Feb 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I find your reverts of this talk page sad. Please review Flaming, Wikipedia:Wikiquette, Wikipedia:Staying cool when the editing gets hot and apparently wikipedia:revert. :( Jack 12:52, 2 Feb 2004 (UTC)

text: Please sign your post.Jack
My apologies. It was an oversite theresa knott 16:06, 2 Feb 2004 (UTC)

text: Tannin's actual name is Tony. I stated previously that I am not looking to review Tony's various acts of unfriendliness at this time, in this place. Tony should be well aware of why I am unhappy with my experiences with him. If you are ignorant of it, it is probably best that you not voice your opinions (accusing me of trolling) so strongly. I am going to take your response (no boss other than Jimbo, no lesser punishments than desysoping) as an answer to my question. Jack 15:57, 2 Feb 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Punishments 

message: 168... appears to be making alot of good points. Concensus politics necessarilly involves a good deal of networking, and a tendancy towards cliques. Thank God for Jimbo, and the arbitration commitee! While I want to believe the majority of admins are solid contributers, I also feel they have not been held to any standard higher than popularity. Jack 02:00, 3 Feb 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cronyism 

message: I think category three should read:
:However if it does happen, a consensus on this page might arise to take the matter to Jimbo the Mediation Committee and to the Arbitration Committee. If he also is concerned by the behaviour he may chat privately to the user, or ask for de-adminship The Mediation Committee will determine whether the situation warrants a ruling from the Arbitration Committee; the Arbitration Committee will then decide whether admin privileges will be suspended or revoked. 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 the Mediation and Arbitration Committeeswill always be involved.
Kingturtle 23:14, 12 Feb 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  category three 

message: :This poll is not formal; this poll represents no level of authority or power. Decisions involving immediate responses should be made by developers; decisions involving long term solutions should be made by the arbitration committee.
I'm not a ruler for crying out loud. Don't expect me to make any decisions beyond evaluating community opinion. I set the poll up for the purposes of gauging community opinion on immediate developer action. Based on the outcome, I won't be desysopping 168 without arbitration committee approval. -- Tim Starling 00:53, Feb 13, 2004 (UTC)
: For the latest situation, please see: Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/168#168_has_been_temporarily_desysopped
:Tim is correct. Developers are not super-sysops. Their job is simply to implement the view of the community when those have become clear. Unilateral action by developers is as wrong as it would be by a sysop. We're supposed to be a community and use at least a straw poll for these things whenever that's practical. Jamesday 18:35, 14 Feb 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Developer decisions

message: Kils desysopped - (this links to false information. I deleted it seven times, but some are digging it out again and again. If you want to ban me please make a discussion first and then a vote, as it is democratic in Wikipedia. I kept on cooperating with Wikipedia and donated over 40 images in 7 languages. Professor Dr. habil. Uwe Kils 22:33, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Kils