Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Mav

The existence of this entire RfC post is disputed: This dispute does not involve any charge of abuse of sysop user rights and it was not created after at least two other users tried and failed to resolve the conflict using Step 1

---

The guideline in question (not a rule) is "no use of the rollback feature on non-vandalism"; it's not much respected in actual practice.

It's true that mav's been pressing his point quite vigorously; I share his opinion about the original protection by 168, but I believe the discussion has reached a point beyond which there is nothing to be gained by arguing. I feel I understand 168's viewpoint on his actions; I just don't agree. I guess mav, unlike me, doesn't think that the point of diminishing returns has been reached, and that's his privilege. In any case, it seems to me that 168 is giving as good as he's getting on his own RfC page.

I do not require other sysops to consult with me before acting in whatever manner they feel is appropriate. I trust them to undertake due diligence.

-- Cyan 21:06, 4 Feb 2004 (UTC)

This is just a silly attempt by 168... to shift blame against him. --mav

One might reasonably argue that I am trying to shift attention to other actions besides my protection of DNA against User:Lir, but I am not blaming you here for what you have blamed me elsewhere. So the "shifting blame" cliche you've chosen isn't very apt, much like your charges against me in general.168... 23:08, 4 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Shifting attention away from yourself by attacking the people you feel are attacking you then. --mav

Removal of a post by Ed on Talk:DNA

This bothers Mav:

Shortly after 168... protected DNA, Ed Poor posted a message addressed to 168.. (named) and to Lir (unnamed) on Talk:DNA condemning the protection, while confessing he hadn't scrutinized the matter closely. About a week later, 168 removed the message, suggesting in the summary comment that its purpose was inappropriate to the DNA talk page. Mav reverted this removal, offering as explanation simply the assertion that Ed "has a right" to post it. 168 then reverted mav's reversion using the rollback feature. 168... 01:39, 4 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Link to a note Ed made at Talk:DNA.

Post to Talk:DNA that Mav made after reverting 168..'s removal of note:

Just a note that 168 removed the above message - which is very relevant to this page - and then auto reverted me after I put it back in (another misuse of sysop user rights). --mav 08:45, 3 Feb 2004 (UTC)

(168... then removed that note too)

Discussion between 168... and Mav

Why do you think that message deserves to be on talk:DNA? I told you why I think it doesn't.168... 05:31, 3 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I told you why. Ed has the right to say what he wants when it is relevant. Your abuse of sysop user rights at DNA is a valid thing to note at talk:DNA. Your removal of that note looks as if you are trying to hide that fact. Your use of the auto revert feature on me is another abuse of your admin status. I suggest you stop. --mav

Actually all you said originally was that he had a right. In your summary you offered no reason why you thought his comment relevant. I suggest you try to look at what I do with an open mind instead of assuming the worst of me, which you seem to be doing consistently. While you say Ed's post is valid because I abused sysop rights, actually that is a POV--yours. It has not been decided that what I did counts as abuse. Ed in expressing his own POV admitted that it's not well founded, because he had only skimmed the history and/or record. So it's one guy naming me and expressing a negative opinion about what I did and advice specifically for me in front of lots of people, and it makes no difference to anybody else how to proceed with the DNA article or discussion. I thought of replying to it, but it seemed obvious to me that it would not be appropriate for me to debate the matter with him there, not to mention redundant with the defense of my action I've been asked to give at the "Possible abuse" page. Given that, it seems obvious to me in turn that Ed's opinion and advice to me and Lir (who unlike me he doesn't "out" by naming him) belongs on my talk page and Lir's talk page and/or on the "Possible abuse" page. BTW I didn't know I couldn't use the autorevert whenever I revert. Seems like a silly rule, if it exists. I propose to ignore it until pointed to a sensible reason for it.168... 16:08, 3 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Then you should have moved it to your talk page or the page tracking your sysop abuse. Yet you silenced it. You are also not supposed to use your sysop user rights in an edit war. Yet you did that. --mav

Should should yet yet. Baloney.168... 23:12, 3 Feb 2004 (UTC)

P.S. You owe me several apologies now.168... 23:12, 3 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I owe you nothing. I do owe the community additional scrutiny of you and your actions. --mav

Please! I'm begging for scrutiny. It's your summary rushes to judgment that offend me. I owe it to the community to lend an opposing voice to your views and actions, many of which I consider reactionary and conservative. 168... 00:21, 4 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Then why did you delete Ed's scrutiny of you? My judgment is sound, your actions were uncalled for. --mav

I don't know which action you mean when you say your judgment is sound. Protecting agains Lir was called for according to both Cyan and you yourself. It's the appearance of the action you don't like. With regard to Ed and "scrutiny," in his post he specifically disclaimed close scrutiny. His post was a snap judgment and an opinion which served no reasonable purpose on the page he posted it. 168... 00:35, 4 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Then you should have moved it instead of censoring it. That's another thing that looks bad and thus makes all admins look like they are part of a cabal. Looks are very important around here. --mav

Moved it where? Part of it was addressed to me, part was to Lir, and it was a message Ed evidently meant as a timely announcement for a moment in time that passed now long ago, and which preceded the movement to formally debate the appropriateness of my protection on a separate page. Ed pays some attention to Talk:DNA. If he wants his message preserved on an active page somewhere, he can get off his rash behind and think about a good place to put it (i.e. the post, not his behind), in one two or three pieces. It's not my problem. BTW, that was really annoying that you moved the accusations against me to a separate page without moving the lengthy defenses I have offered for my action. You might want to think how the obviousness of your own bias affects the reputation of all admins. 168... 00:54, 4 Feb 2004 (UTC)

And you accuse me of ascribing motives to actions?! I was using the edit section feature to clear out the large 168 section on the Admin abuse page. I didn't know that "Related discussion from User talk:Cyan and User talk:168..." had its own section. That is why I didn't move it. Now wipe the pie off your face and consider this; You were the one to delete Ed's comment so it is your responsibility to move it to the right place or otherwise wait for it to be archived (since according to you it was directed toward the participants to the dispute at Talk:DNA, that, IMO, proves that Talk:DNA was the appropriate place all along). But removing comments critical of your actions just looks bad. It makes it look like you are trying to hide something from plain view. --mav

I accept your explanation and I'm trying hard to take what you said as an apology for removing my statements in defense of myself, but for some reason I'm failing.168... 22:00, 4 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Woah, woah, woah, woah, woah. Woah. (Woe.) ... I request that mav and 168 take 48 hours to consider. Anything that needs resolving can wait that long. -- Cyan 03:33, 4 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Yep. Timeout, guys. Tannin 07:09, 4 Feb 2004 (UTC)

K. I know I'm right and that 168... has failed to convince anybody he is right. So I've had my fill for now. --mav 08:09, 5 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Above Cyan commented:

"I feel I understand 168's viewpoint on his actions; I just don't agree. I guess mav, unlike me, doesn't think that the point of diminishing returns has been reached, and that's his privilege. In any case, it seems to me that 168 is giving as good as he's getting on his own RfC page. (emphasis added 168...)