Jump to content

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct disputes archive/Mintguy

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Statement of the dispute

[edit]

This is a summary written by users who dispute this sysop's conduct.

User:Mintguy was made an administrator on 5 Aug 2003 by a vote of 6-0 as a result of his self-nomination. Though an accomplished editor, since his appointment Mintguy has not made a significant contribution to that role. Instead, the user shows a pattern of using those privileges and functions almost exclusively to further his edit pereferences, and in some cases, has overstepped those bounds and violated policy. This, combined with no apparent history of assisting with routine sysop-level Wikipedia maintenance tasks, is strong enough cause to re-evaluate his position as an admin on Wikipedia.

Although not yet posted in the Response section below, Mintguy has admitted wrong-doing to some of these accusations in this WikiEN-l mailing list posting.

Specific incidents

[edit]

These represent the more serious offences alleged. Specific logs and additional occurences are documented below under "Powers misused".

  • Kenneth Alan - Kenneth Alan (currently under WP:RFC and WP:RFAr) is alleged to be a bothersome user. Unfortunately, the proper procedures were not followed by User:Mintguy, specifically regarding the Blocking Policy and Three Revert Rule. Specific incidents are documented below in the appropriate sections. In particular, it seems this user has gained the attention of Mintguy, leading to a threat of future editorial persecution. In the comment, Mintguy left the following on this user's talk page: "I will continue to revert everything you contribute, for reasons which do not need to be explained. If you revert any article more than three times, like you did on Friday. I will impose a block on you again, because this is the correct procedure. Mintguy (T) 16:44, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)".
    • Mintguy admits - "I ended up a revert war with that well-known troll Kenneth Alan and after both he and I had reached and exceeded the three-revert-rule, I decided that the only course of action was to block his account for 24 hours. When KA came back from this ban he directly obscene language at me and I blocked the account for 48 hours. I now recognise that I overstepped the mark in terms of my rights to block him."
  • 5 Jul 2004 - Mintguy blocked Naryathegreat for a period of ten minutes. This appears to be solely as a result of an edit war based on a dispute on spelling (British vs. US) on World War II (see page history & Talk page). Content disputes are, by policy, insufficient reason to initiate any block, even one as short as 10 minutes. Use of the Blocking privilege in this way is against the open discourse of Wikipedia because the editor fears admin retribution if they voice a dissenting opinion.
    • Mintguy admits - "I blocked a user called narythegreat for a period of 10 minutes, because he was systematically changing instances of the word "theatre" to "theater" in articles related World War II and was not listening other users concerns about this."
  • 20 May 2004 - In this case, the page history shows a minor revert war between Mintguy and Garryq. He twice reverted good faith edits by Garryq, then at 22:27 UTC, he protected the page. Only after that, at 22:28 UTC, did he contact Garryq directly, leaving only the message "Kindly leave my user pages alone" on Garryq's talk page's talk page. According to policy, Mintguy should have attempted to resolve the situation first, and failing that, contacted another administrator to enforce the protection.
    • Added comment: This issue is documented primarily to support the assertion that Mintguy used his Protection privilege to settle an editorial dispute with a non-vandal. -- Netoholic (Talk) 03:12, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Powers misused

[edit]
  1. "22:27, 20 May 2004 Mintguy protected User:Mintguy/British and Irish peers requiring disambiguation (N - R)"
    -- "09:32, 22 May 2004 Mintguy unprotected User:Mintguy/British and Irish peers requiring disambiguation (N - R)"
  2. Between "10 Nov 2003" and "23 Aug 2004", except for the above, Mintguy has never exercised this privilege, and therefore has not provided assistance to the community.
  • Deletion (log):
  1. "13:36, 12 Aug 2004 Mintguy deleted "Five-a-side football" (five-a-side football is not futsal, futsal is a type of five-a-side-football)"
    -- No record on Wikipedia:Votes for deletion (history) and doesn't appear to qualify as a candidate for speedy deletion.
  2. "23:56, 16 Apr 2004 Mintguy deleted "Hove" (content was: '#REDIRECT Hove_(disambiguation)')"
  3. During the period of 1 Jan to 23 Aug 2004, Mintguy has made many other deletions, but not one was discovered that was listed on any formal deletion page, nor one found which was outside of Mintguy's editing "sphere of interest". The conclusion is that Mintguy uses this function only in the areas of his interest to promote his editing goals, but without the benefit of posting the deletion requests on the designated pages for open comment.
  1. Between "10 Nov 2003" and "23 Aug 2004", except for the listed blocks, Mintguy has never exercised this privilege, and therefore has not provided assistance to the community as a whole, but only as a measure to solve his personal disputes. This activity is deplorable, as editors (particularly admins) should attempt to resolve conflicts rather than make them worse.
  2. "12:48, 9 Apr 2004 Mintguy blocked "Kenneth Alan" with an expiry time of 24 hours (persistent breaches of wiki etiquette)"
    -- Unblock - "14:09, 9 Apr 2004 MyRedDice unblocked "Kenneth Alan" ("breaches of wiki etiquette" not sufficient rationale for instant blocking (not vandalism))"
  3. "21:54, 5 Jul 2004 Mintguy blocked "Naryathegreat" with an expiry time of 10 minutes (continued reversions against agreed spellings)"
    -- Unblock - "21:58, 5 Jul 2004 Mintguy unblocked "Naryathegreat" (time up)"
  4. "09:17, 13 Aug 2004 Mintguy blocked "Kenneth Alan" with an expiry time of 24 hours (Potential case for permanent banning, who continues to unrevert his nonsensical edits)"
    -- Unblock - (As of 07:35, 24 Aug 2004 (UTC), no unblock has been recorded in the Block log)
  5. "17:11, 15 Aug 2004 Mintguy blocked "Kenneth Alan" with an expiry time of 48 hours (Use of abusive language directed at another Wikipedia user)"
    -- Unblock - (As of 07:35, 24 Aug 2004 (UTC), no unblock has been recorded in the Block log.)
  6. "17:56, 13 Sep 2004 Mintguy blocked "Netoholic" with an expiry time of 24 hours (continual disruption of Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (television))"
    • Please note, that the reason stated for the block was regarding a talk page. The conflict was due to Mintguy's removal of a survey before the expiry time was over, and Netoholic was blocked for replacing the survey. Here is the last edit (at 17:51) that Netoholic made before being blocked. Netoholic replaced the survey, but left Mintguy's survey in place - a seemingly amicable solution. In the course of this, Mintguy also violated the Three Revert Rule (see below). The block against Netoholic was removed within minutes, evidence of it being improper.
  • Three Revert Rule (WP:3RR) / "rollback" function:
  1. Mintguy's contribution history shows a pattern of using the "rollback" function to perpetuate edit wars and to rapidly revoke reasonable contributions, particularly with regards to spelling. Having access to "Rollback" seems to discourage discussion on a regular basis.
  1. 16 Aug 2004 - Mintguy reverts spelling changes made by Birkett, a relatively new user performing his first edits. There is no Talk history showing any attempt to contact the user first.
  1. New England - User:Kenneth Alan makes some changes here. Mintguy reverted to the previous version five times on 13 Aug 2004 (1 2 3 4 5)
  2. Yorkshire - User:Kenneth Alan and an IP user make some changes here. Mintguy reverted to the previous version four times on 13 Aug 2004 (1 2 3 4)
  3. Robin Hood - User:Kenneth Alan makes some changes here. Mintguy reverted to the previous version five times on 13 Aug 2004 (1 2 3 4 5).
  4. George Villiers, 1st Duke of Buckingham - User:Kenneth Alan makes some changes here. Mintguy reverted to the previous version five times on 13 Aug 2004 (1 2 3 4 5).
  5. Wikipedia:Naming conventions - User:Netoholic makes a change [1]. Mintguy reverted to the previous version four times on 20 Aug 2004 (1 2 3 4).
  6. Wikipedia:Naming conventions - User:Netoholic makes a change [2]. Mintguy reverted to the previous version four times on 20 Aug 2004 (1 2 3 4).
  7. Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (television) - User:Netoholic reinstates an active survey which Mintguy removed before the expiry time. Mintguy reverted the page at least four times on 13 Sep 2004 (1 2 3 4) (Note: Other reversions were made by Mintguy that were not direct reversions, but still violate the spirit of the rule. The only substantive change was to remove the reinstated vote. 5 6 7)

Applicable policies

[edit]
  1. "Sysops are not imbued with any special authority, and are equal to everybody else in terms of editorial responsibility."
  2. "The community does look to sysops to perform essential housekeeping chores that require the extra access sysops are entrusted with. Among them are watching the Votes for deletion debates and carrying out the consensus of the community on keeping or deleting these articles, keeping an eye on new and changed articles to swiftly delete obvious vandalism, and meeting user requests for help that require sysop access. Since sysops are expected to be experienced members of the community, users seeking help will often turn to a sysop for advice and information."
  1. "Administrators have no special authority on Wikipedia, but are held to higher standards. Because admins have been confirmed by the community as trusted editors, they are perceived by many, particularly new, users as the official face of Wikipedia. Therefore they should take care to be courteous, exercise good judgment and patience in dealing with other users."
  1. "A semi-permanent protection is used for ... User pages and their subpages that are subject to repeated vandalism."
  2. "Admins should not protect pages which they have been involved with (involvement includes making substantive edits to the page or expressing opinions about the article on the talk page). Admin powers are not editor privileges - admins should only act as servants to the user community at large. If you are an admin and you want a page in an edit war in which you are somehow involved to be protected, you should contact another admin and ask them to protect the page for you."
  3. "Consider encouraging a resolution between the disputing parties."
  1. "If a page does not fall into one of the categories listed under Wikipedia:Candidates for speedy deletion, then you cannot delete it without it spending five days on Wikipedia:Votes for deletion (or the analogous pages for Wikipedia:Images for deletion, Wikipedia:Categories for deletion, Wikipedia:Templates for deletion, Wikipedia:Redirects for deletion) first."
  2. Wikipedia:Redirects for deletion "...avoid deleting such redirects if: 1. They have a potentially useful page history. If the redirect was created by renaming a page with that name, and the page history just mentions the renaming, and for one of the reasons above you want to delete the page, copy the page history to the Talk page of the article it redirects to. The act of renaming is useful page history, and even more so if there has been discussion on the page name."
  1. "... blocks are not meant to be used against unpopular opinions, or one-off vandalism incidents."
  2. "Blocking may not be used to prevent a user from posting unpopular opinions. A content dispute between users should be settled on the article's talk page or on their own user talk pages. If it cannot be resolved that way, there is a clearly defined dispute resolution procedure to resolve contentious issues."
  3. "... blocks should not be used against isolated incidents of disruptive behaviour from IP addresses nor against user accounts that make a mixture of disruptive and useful edits." (emphasise added)
  1. "Don't revert any page more than three times within a period of 24 hours."
  1. Explain reverts - "Always explain your reverts."


Evidence of trying and failing to resolve the dispute (provide diffs and links)

[edit]
  1. User:Netoholic attempts to point out violations to Three Revert Rule in the Wikipedia:Naming conventions article, and then others (see above).
  1. Summary of discussion as of 23:22, 20 Aug 2004
  2. Attempt to move the discussion to Mintguy's Talk page, and immediate revert.

Users certifying the basis for this dispute (sign with ~~~~):

[edit]
  1. Netoholic (Talk) 20:11, 24 Aug 2004 (UTC) - please see the Talk for additional comments.
  2. Kenneth Alanson 02:01, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC) - I agree, it's like tourettes with the rollback/revert function and editorial prerogative/monopoly by a sysop.

Other users who endorse this statement (sign with ~~~~):

[edit]

Response

[edit]

This is a summary written by the sysop whose actions are disputed, or by other users who think that the dispute is unjustified and that the sysop's actions did not violate policy {Add summary here, but you must use the endorsement section below to sign. Users who edit or endorse this summary should not edit the other summaries}

There is no case to answer. I see no need for further comment. Mintguy (T) 08:50, 24 Aug 2004 (UTC)


Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~~~~):

  1. older ≠ wiser 14:31, 24 Aug 2004 (UTC) I don't see any substantive merit to any of these charges.
  2. Chris 73 Talk 16:27, Aug 24, 2004 (UTC) The actions of Mintguy seem to be reasonable to me. I also didn't like User:Netoholic removing comments on this page.
  3. Charges are absurd. [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality (talk)]] 16:34, 24 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  4. An incredible litany of nonsense. Please note that I gave a detailed rebuttal of Netholic's accusations, which he saw fit to delete. RickK 19:12, Aug 24, 2004 (UTC)
  5. This is all utter rubbish; people should just act adult when possible. Mike H 23:50, Aug 24, 2004 (UTC)
  6. Ambi 07:16, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  7. I swear, this sort of garbage will have me writing Wikipedia:Nonsense on stilts. The edit record clearly shows Netoholic's attempts to rely on policy he wrote himself mere hours before - David Gerard 18:18, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC)


Hove

[edit]

I have no intention of wasting my time by making a point by point rebuttal to these ludicrous charges, but as the move to Hove from Hove, England has recently been highlighted, I will address it. The page about the English town of Hove had been happily residing at Hove until User:Dhum Dhum moved it to Hove, England on 14:07, 28 Nov 2002. The page at Hove became a disambiguation page. I am not clear whether this page remained as a disambiguation or whether it got moved to Hove (disambiguation) and back again during the intervening period but anyway in April of 2004 the page is a disambiguation page. So, as Netoholic suggests it probably came up on my watch list when Angela changed the written out disambiguation to the {{disambig}} template. This is an English language encyclopaedia and in the English language Hove, England is far more notable than Hove, Belgium. It is standard practice for pages to host the most notable of place names "especially" with place names in Britain, given the voluminous amount of pages on Wikipedia that concern the history of the UK. Consequently many links to Hove mean Hove, England. This can easily be determined by looking at "what links here" for Hove [3] and Hove, Belgium [4]. Looking at the links, I decided that Hove, England was a natural candidate for the Hove page. So I move what was at Hove to Hove (disambiguation) and deleted what was at Hove, (which was now a redirect to the disambig page) to make room for moving Hove, England back to where it belongs given the usual guidelines for place names. If anyone can find any error in my ways here, I'll give them the deeds to my house. Mintguy (T) 23:24, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Outside view

[edit]

These are summaries written by users not directly involved with the dispute but who would like to add an outside view of the dispute. {Add summary here, but you must use the endorsement section below to sign. Users who edit or endorse this summary should not edit the other summaries}

Your comment on the RfC page included "inactivity in performing sysop duties" nobody sysop can be required to perform sysop duties. That's bogus and should be deleted immediately from the RfC page. As to the speedy deletes, a lot of those look like speedy delete candidates to me. You're looking for excuses to cause trouble for Mintguy, and it doesn't wash. Please note that I had to restore this to the page because Netholic deleted it. I also made point-by-point rebuttals to Netholic's absurd arguments, which he also saw fit to delete. RickK 07:57, Aug 24, 2004 (UTC)

Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~~~~):

  1. RickK 07:57, Aug 24, 2004 (UTC)
  2. Angela. 22:13, Aug 24, 2004 (UTC)
  3. Mike H 23:51, Aug 24, 2004 (UTC)
  4. Michael Snow 02:29, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  5. Decumanus 03:35, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  6. Cecropia | Talk 03:44, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  7. Chris 73 Talk 05:22, Aug 25, 2004 (UTC)
  8. Ambi 07:18, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  9. Hephaestos|§ 20:26, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  10. JCarriker 00:46, Aug 26, 2004 (UTC)
  11. Jiang 01:28, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  12. Stan 23:56, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  13. Mikkalai 17:06, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  14. Jallan 01:23, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  15. David Gerard 17:15, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)

So many of these charges are misleading or wrong that it's hard to see whether there are any real problems here. For example, "20 Feb 2004 ... No subpage record on Wikipedia:Votes for deletion" -- The VfD subpage system didn't even exist in February, so Mintguy is certainly not at fault for deleting something that didn't have a VfD subpage. Wikipedia:Protected page#User pages shows plenty of non-vandalised sysop user pages that are protected, so it seems rather strange to single Mintguy out for this, particularly considering the page was unprotected three months ago. Many of the pages listed that Mintguy deleted are well within the bounds of WP:CSD and I don't see any example of him actually abusing his deletion powers. Slightly off-topic, but going back 10000 edits on the history of RfA seriously slows down the server. Jamesday had to kill this query at least once this morning (shortly before this RFC page was created), so please don't do this. Angela. 22:13, Aug 24, 2004 (UTC)

Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~~~~):

  1. Angela. 22:13, Aug 24, 2004 (UTC)
  2. Pcb21| Pete 23:50, 24 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  3. Mike H 23:51, Aug 24, 2004 (UTC)
  4. Guanaco 02:09, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  5. Michael Snow 02:29, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  6. Decumanus 03:35, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  7. Cecropia | Talk 03:44, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  8. RickK 05:18, Aug 25, 2004 (UTC)
  9. Chris 73 Talk 05:22, Aug 25, 2004 (UTC)
  10. Andris 05:27, Aug 25, 2004 (UTC)
  11. Ambi 07:18, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  12. Iainscott 08:33, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  13. Hephaestos|§ 20:26, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  14. JCarriker 00:46, Aug 26, 2004 (UTC)
  15. Jiang 01:28, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  16. Stan 23:56, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  17. Mikkalai 17:06, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  18. Jallan 01:22, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  19. David Gerard 17:15, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Discussion

[edit]

All signed comments and talk not related to a vote or endorsement, should be directed to this page's discussion page.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/User_conduct_disputes_archive/Mintguy&oldid=55573422"