Sat 4th August 2007, 11:31am
Let's put this in real terms so that everyone can understand.
On Karmafist's user page
it says quite clearly that he was banned for using sock puppets, which he admitted
. The link to his "confession" is a link to a Wikipedia Review post
In other words, Karmafist was banned for writing on Wikipedia Review, or at least for WHAT he wrote on Wikipedia Review...
In all 3 de-sysopping cases (and their subsequent attempts to be re-added to adminship), posts that they had made to Wikipedia Review were used as the primary rationale that they should be desysopped, and secondly that they should not be allowed back in. You can look through the links that Nathan provided, or someone else can provide some more explicit ones.
Everyking was de-sysopped because he agreed to post the text of a deleted post on Wikipedia Review. Everyking actually didn't post that text, he just agreed to. This was sufficient for him to be de-sysopped.
Karmafist was de-sysopped because he had said on Wikipedia Review a complaint about Wikipedia, and in particular a number of issues that had happened. This was used, in his arbitration (and beforehand) as an excuse for why his minor misdemeanour was sufficient to warrant him being de-sysopped.
Guanaco was de-sysopped for a variety of reasons, but "the feather that broke the camel's back" was his posting on Wikipedia Review.
All 3 of these people, while administrators, were supportive of Wikipedia Review. Certainly in the case of Everyking and Karmafist, I think that everyone here would agree that they were amazingly good administrators. I think that Karmafist was possibly the best administrator that I ever saw. Everyking was also a very good, very fair administrator.
In my first days of using Wikipedia, which I checked out much later, when admins like Tony Sidaway were engaging in rampant newbie abuse, I was running in to a heavily controlled article and getting abuse from all sides, Everyking told everyone to calm down and to treat me nicely, with some good faith, because I was a new user who didn't know what I was doing yet. Everyking said this on the Admin noticeboard.
Okay, so Everyking didn't make a big fuss of it, and that was about all that he said. But he was the only person that stood up for me. He went out of his way to help a newbie who was in big trouble. I didn't even realise he'd done this until 2 years later. He refused to join the crowd of people that were just having a great old time ganging up on a newbie.
If we have a rule that says that once an admin is "proven to be abusive", then we are going to be using admins like that.
There are right now a number of really wonderful admins. Eloquence went out of his way to get Wikipedia Review's off the spam blacklist, tried to get Blu Aardvark and Selina unbanned, tried to get Daniel Brandt's ban removed, and so forth. Linuxbeak did much the same. SlimVirgin did too, but for ulterior motives it seems. Essjay stood up to bullies like David Gerard and so forth. Essjay was a wonderful administrator who everyone here really approved of. Oh if only he hadn't lied about his credentials.
Should these people be de-sysopped and banned? Obviously, if Wikipedia were to de-sysop and ban the really bad ones, the Snowspinners, the MONGOs, the Tony Sidaways, the David Gerards, the Cydes, the Willbebacks, and all of those, then things are fine. But they won't do it. Okay, so MONGO got desysopped, but only briefly and they'll let him back in in a second. And even then that took about 15 people banned just to get that far.