Wikispecies talk:Administrators/Archive 1

From Wikispecies
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Nomination of bureaucrats

Isn't it time for this wiki to nominate 2 bureaucrats? Waerth 16:25, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I agree... and I volunteer! *grins* - UtherSRG 16:41, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Hold a vote and after it is finished put it on requests for stewards at meta. Preferably 2 bureaucrats so there are no problems if one leaves. Waerth 17:57, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]


How long is an adequate amount of time to wait while pro/con/comments are being gathered? Should this time be different for becoming an admin than for a bureaucrat? - UtherSRG (talk) 13:15, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I think a week is enough. If the result is very unclear, the vote may be prolonged for a week or so. I think no vote is needed for bureaucrats, actually. If we trust someone to be an admin, why shouldn't we trust him/her to be a bureaucrat? m:Polls are evil and we must not use too many. Ucucha (talk) 18:09, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete my user


Please delete my User + discu page + all versions (history) of it... thanks. --Gunblade 16:34, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done Lycaon 19:39, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please block

Special:Contributions/ has vandalized multiple times over more than one day, including the warnings on his own talk page[1]. --Georgeryp 17:45, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Could we maybe just declare any nomination with (for example) less than 100 edits invalid? That'll prevent the chain of nominations without any chance of election we are now seeing. Ucucha (talk) 06:13, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Inactive admins

Perhaps admins inactive for a certain period of time should be desysoped? ---- Anonymous DissidentTalk 07:39, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To all bureaucrats

To facilitate renaming for SUL, please place any requests you received on your talk page or email to Wikispecies:Changing username to centralize the renaming process. OhanaUnitedTalk page 01:10, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Boîte Utilisateur

Bonjour à tous, je fais parti du projet de boîte utilisateur de la Wikipédia francophone et j'ai créé deux boîtes pour ceux qui ont une page personnelle sur ce wiki; w:fr:Modèle:Utilisateur adminWikispecies et w:fr:Modèle:Utilisateur bureaucrate Wikispecies. Ensuite avez-vous une boîte SUL sur Wikispecies ? Amicalement. w:fr:User:FrankyLeRoutier FrankyLeRoutier 21:39, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Admins activity summary

This is the list of admins' (in)activity. Only those with last edit and/or admin action before more than 100 days (~ 3 months) are listed. The number in table means the number of days passed from last edit (E) and admin action (A). ∅ means no admin action done so far. Edits in MediaWiki namespace are not counted as admin action though.

Data source: 2009-10-25 ca 09:30 UTC.

name E A
Benedikt 61 1209
Brion VIBBER 1190 1287
Dan Koehl 341 1528
EVula 102 331
Geni 577 253
Keith Edkins 64 464
Kempm 127 134
Lightdarkness 926 888
Maxim 113 94
MaximBot 122 122
MonoBot 498
Monobi 489 489
Mário e Dário 36 310
Open2universe 4 287
Totipotent 749 754
UtherSRG 1236 1236

Danny B. 09:49, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Data source: 2010-01-22 ca 14:50 UTC.

name E A
Benedikt 150 1298
Brion VIBBER 1279 1376
Dan Koehl 430 1617
EVula 191 420
Geni 666 342
Keith Edkins 153 553
Kempm 216 223
Lightdarkness 1015 977
MaximBot 211 211
MonoBot 587
Monobi 578 578
Mário e Dário 58 399
Open2universe 94 377
Totipotent 838 843
UtherSRG 1326 1326

Danny B. 14:57, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the information, but I was unaware that I am no longer an admin [2]. [[User talk:Ucucha|Ucucha]] 12:35, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nobody said you are no longer an admin. Read the header note carefully, please. Thank you.
Danny B. 22:40, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Now I see. Sorry for misunderstanding. [[User talk:Ucucha|Ucucha]] 02:23, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Use this for up-to-date stats. Rocket000 16:14, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That won't give you a measurement of (in)activity through the days. Again, read the header note carefully, please. Thank you.
Danny B. 22:40, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, that wasn't directed at you. Although, it can give you an idea about inactivity since you can set the time frame. Rocket000 15:48, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Data source: 2010-08-10 ca 20:20 UTC

User E A
Accassidy 16 126
Benedikt 351 1498
Brion VIBBER 1479 1576
Dan Koehl 630 1818
Geni 866 166
Keith Edkins 132 753
Kempm 416 423
Lightdarkness 1216 1177
MaximBot 412 412
MonoBot 787
Monobi 778 778
Mário e Dário 259 600
Open2universe 70 577
Totipotent 1038 1043
UtherSRG 111 117

Danny B. 20:28, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Offensive message

Could you have a look at my discussion page and maybe delete the last messages, someone is bugging me. Magnefl 18:29, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(This was fixed by Ark in February 4, 2010. Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 08:14, 17 February 2016 (UTC).)[reply]

Bad German

Hi, Hauptseite is written in very bad German. Could anyone unlock it for some fixes? -- 23:20, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you provide the corrected text, I (or another admin) cn insert it into the page. You could also help to completely redesign the German main page to look more like the English one. You could create this at a location such as User:EncycloPetey/German main page, and when it's finished I'd simply move it into place. That way your edit history would remain. --EncycloPetey (talk) 01:47, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Page unlocked. OhanaUnitedTalk page 02:31, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Administrator Stho002 (talk)

Dear active admins, I'm asking for your attention: I doubt that User:Stho002's behavior is appropriate for an admin.

See: User_talk:Accassidy#Conflict_with_Stephen, User_talk:Stho002#Your_recent_activity.

Summary of the current case:

"User:Stho002 ... made the following edits, after I tried to standardize the Thambematidae page (which means: to make it look like other Asellota pages): [3], [4], [5]. Please note the way of conversation he has chosen: [6], [7], [8]"

This is not the first dubious conflict and I'm not the only person to face problems like this one: make a cursory look at User talk:Stho002.

Kuzia (talk) 20:03, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No one answers? How long will we pretend that we do not see anything?
I do not agree with the way in which Stho002:
  1. reverted Kuzia's edits (because of controversial Template:Zfg)
  2. send a warning (you are making pointlessly antagonistic edits, which is not likely to lead to positive outcomes)
  3. send the last warning (The next time you vandalize a page...)
  4. described protecting Template:Thambematidae (Counter-productive edit warring)
  5. informed me about his decision (don't go (ab)using your admin powers in a destructive way without first getting the consensus of your fellow admins) and later wrote The formatting issue here is EXTREMELY MINOR.
  6. has used admin tools to gain an advantage in a dispute in which he is involved, blocking User:Kuzia account [9], stating reason: Intimidating behaviour/harassment. Ark (talk) 11:45, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
IMHO Stho002 exceeds acceptable limits and it should be said openly. Tolerating such methods to influence the other participants will cause their resignation from participation in the project.
I propose at least to remove protection from Template:Thambematidae (done by Stho002) and revert of last four editions made by Stho002 on the page User talk:Kuzia. Such descriptions are unreasonable and offensive to the user. Using Template:Zfg is a separate topic for discussion, not here. Ark (talk) 18:44, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I am in the process of writing something to place here, but as this is an ugly and complex situation, it needs much thought and cannot be written quickly. Koumz (talk) 13:46, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I had a badley experience with Stho002 too. I had add Species with subgenera with all information. He had changed the species without genera and didn't add all the information. Work of days where gone. His opinion is that Wikipedia is an information side with only species without further information and no additing subspecies. More didn't I had to do. PeterR (talk) 14:37, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Peter, no work is gone. The way you were doing it was badly structured. I fixed it at the higher level, but there may be lower level orphans temporarily resulting from this, but they can be fixed sooner or later... Stho002 (talk) 23:34, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's ridiculous: nothing is happening, despite several admins being around here: MKOliver, Mariusm, Open2universe, OhanaUnited, Ucucha and others. If you all agree, that Stho002 is right in behaving that way and doesn't abuse his administrative power, than please write it here. Otherwise, I have to open a discussion on Meta, where I'll certainly have difficulties explaining, why the conflict couldn't be solved in the project itself. Kuzia (talk) 14:18, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I only saw this on Recent Changes by chance, so that explains why it "appears" to take so long before I comment on this issue. Community changes, Kuzia. Back in 2007/2008, when Wikipedia/Wikispecies were experiencing relatively rapid growth, everyone's very welcoming but the landscape has changed since around 2009. Is Wikipedia doing better than us? Nope. Look at all the edit warring, random blocking, newbie biting, personal attacking, bickering, partisan editing, and under-the-table deals over there. Sure you could initiate a discussion on Meta but the problem of what Wikispecies experiencing is nothing comparing to Wikipedia. Now, back to Wikispecies. My question to all parties is, was there ever a wide-scale policy discussion on formatting? From what I see, no. Every time Stho002 contacted someone (or being contacted by someone) regarding formatting, it is always targetting XYZ page (where XYZ could be a family, genus, or species). There were no large scale formatting discussion on Village Pump that lays out what the page in each kingdom should look like (the kind where it settles disputes once and for all). I also examined the Help pages for any pre-established consensus, only to find that none exists and the help pages themselves are not well-maintained or even touched at all for years. I hate to see that editors on either side disgruntled on relatively minor issues like formatting or trivial details. (Still remember the debate on what is the appropriate usage of species talk page that consumed a week? The fact is that discussion is a perfect example of bicycle shed. We are nitpicking over stuff that we feel comfortable discussing, rather than focusing on the big picture.) Yes, Stho002 could smooth out the way he communicates but we are ignoring the bigger part of the project. We recognize that Stho002 cares a lot about the integrity and completeness of this project, as demonstrated by the number of articles he created. In fact, he has the most edits of all participants in this project and leads the edit count by 2.6 times comparing to the individual in 2nd place. No one denies that his intentions were for the best interests of the project. In summary, good fences make good neighbour. But if our fence is broken or non-existent (metaphor for our policy), shouldn't we be repairing or building the fence first? OhanaUnitedTalk page 23:12, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The choice is simple: do you want this project to succeed (it will never be "complete", but do you want it to be a serious player in world biodiversity, or just an amusement to while away some spare time?) If you want it to succeed, then (1) we have to evolve and experiment with formatting and content, learning by trial and error; and (2) the reality is that "consensus" is rarely if ever possible on anything, so if we have to wait for consensus before changing anything, then we will never change or evolve or improve. You can't go wrong if you just contribute new information to the project, but be aware that someone else might reformat it so as to integrate better into the overall project... Stho002 (talk) 23:29, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
To Ohana. "by chance" sounds rather strange since it's Administrators' discussion page. Concerning the topic. You overcomplicate the problem. I don't want to talk about nothing, we have a clear case of administrative abusement and it has nothing to do with activity. Stho002 is not competent in many of the groups he deals with (Asellota are a good example: [10], [11]). I can ceate thousands of pages with a bot which will just transfer information from a database or a book to WS (what Stho002 does manually). A single bot run can standardize formatting as well, we don't need an individualistic admin for that purpose. Kuzia (talk) 01:16, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, it is Kuzia who is not competent! He obviously hasn't actually read properly the relevant references for Microcerberus, or he would not have made such nonsensical edits ... Stho002 (talk) 01:24, 20 January 2013 (UTC) PS: I have just blocked Kuzia for 1 week for harrassment. His continued campaign to discredit me is a clear case of harrassment, in my opinion. Should other admins disagree, I will of course reconsider, as long as it is a majority opinion ... Stho002 (talk) 01:27, 20 January 2013 (UTC) Now that I have cooled down, I have removed the block as it is not necessary, though it may become necessary as a preventative measure to stop all this nonsense from wasting precious editing time ... Stho002 (talk) 04:30, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Kuzia is badly missing the point. It is not about transferring information from a website or book, it is about sourcing that information, and, of course, we can't use OR to do that, so even though I may not be an expert on Asellota, I am perfectly competent at sourcing biodiversity information ... Stho002 (talk) 03:11, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Kuzia, I certainly don't watchlist this page given its low activity up until now. The page only has 2 purposes: provides a list of admins/bureaucrat and request for either rights (which is reflected in the header of Recent changes). Regarding your diffs on some Incertae sedis pages, Stho002 actually gave me a well-reasoned response which I worked on to link into Peridium and Tuscaridium few days ago. (Plus, incertae sedis means uncertain placement. Rather than us debating about it, let the published work solve the issue for us.) Even though I belong in the "not competent" group, notice how his response does not descend to the level of annoyance. If both parties (Sthoo02 & Kuzia) could just stop for a minute and not calling for each other's head as retribution, may I lead the way to mediate and resolve this dispute? OhanaUnitedTalk page 04:35, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There are pros and cons of using incertae sedis pages, but on balance it is best not to, mainly because it adds complexity for little or no benefit, and they look like taxa, when they are not taxa. I have taken this opportunity to reformat Asellota in a manner that I think is far clearer than it was, where all information is explicitly sourced (overviews don't need to be sourced, as they are sourced in parts at the lower levels). My opinion is that anyone who objects to the page as it now is would just be a trouble maker, because it is much better than it was, and there is nothing wrong with it ... Stho002 (talk) 04:53, 20 January 2013 (UTC) BTW, the point of using zfg is just to highlight the fact that these names have authors/dates, but names above them in the heirarchy do not ... Stho002 (talk) 04:56, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
To Ohana. I haven't ever called for someones head. I repeat the third time, the way Stho002 uses his adminship is abusement, including this one: [12], or replies addressed to me on this page. It's up to you, admins, because you supposed to know better, what to do in such cases, I have zero power at all. If he has explained something on your talk page it doesn't make it the holy truth: for example, those two species do not belong to Microcerberus according to this source (the latest revision of the family). I worked on Asellota and continue to work as a by-project and I know personally for example the authors of the just cited paper. Besides my biological career I am the principal programmer and administrator of the database dedicated to Russian biodiversity, avalable here, so I'm not a stranger in the fields of biodiversity, taxonomy or programming. And again: if you do nothing, I have to consult Meta. Kuzia (talk) 10:22, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
An example of a page with sources, created by a bot: Asellus (Asellus) shikokuensis. I do not mean that every page can or should be created by bots, I just mean that many tasks need to be done by them - under the control of human users and with their involvement in adding/changing content which is absent or incorrect in the databases. IsoList, for example, is good starting point for most of the Isopoda, but it contains inaccuracies or outdated information as well and before Stho002 made his recent changes, our system of Asellota was the most up-to-date sytem of the group on the web. Kuzia (talk) 11:27, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm "suffering" too from Stho002's behavior, and I agree his conduct isn't appropriate for an administrator. Nevertheless we must weight calmly the pros against the cons. The pros are:
  • (1) He's the most prolific and the most accurate contributor.
  • (2) He tries his best to improve WS.
The cons are:
  • (1) His conduct.
  • (2) The emphasis he puts on New-Zealand stuff including a flood of unnecessary categories.
  • (3) Non-standard editing.
I ultimately say his benefit to WS outweighs his shortcomings, so we must bite our lips and put up with the situation for now, until we find the situation becomes unbearable. I suggest we administrators conduct a vote to see what the opinion around here is.Mariusm (talk) 11:42, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
OK. There is something I can't understand. A person cannot be competent in every taxonomic group - it's impossible. And he is not. I'm not competent in beetles, I don't touch that field. He is quite often not accurate (no one can be 100% accurate), but he doesn't want to discuss the problems: e.g. User_talk:Stho002/Archive_4#Trichocanace_.28an_example.29. Why are you all trying to engage that aspect of activity? My Bot, for example, is much more prolific than I am, it says nothing about our comparative abilities, authority or administrative potentials. The project is free, it's not a site of one. But what's extremely strange is that you all did nothing to stop the humiliation. Don't you see it? There are no "parties": there is one user without admin status and an admin which thinks he can and may do whatever he wants to shut his opponent up, including: blocks, personal attacks and page protection. Please ask him, if wants to delete my account, I'm quite sure it will happen in the nearest future. Kuzia (talk) 12:17, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Kuzia, I would like to help, but this is a very difficult situation, mainly because this is a low-volume wiki where one person becomes capable of dominating the site. Why won't you back up, even if you're right, and let this ego tug-of-war subside. Mariusm (talk) 13:08, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Mariusm asked about our opinions. As I wrote above (and in this discussion): (1.) Template:Thambematidae should be unprotected (and it has been done); (2.) last four edits made by Stho002 on the page User talk:Kuzia should be withdrawn as inscription that unjustifiably suggests vandalism. I treat this discussion as warning signal to User:Stho002 – admin tools should be used with extreme caution. It is not a crusade as he called in User talk:Trijnstel. I had no objection to the Stho002's editorial work, only to those specific responses that mentioned above. Ark (talk) 13:18, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]


I do not understand the attitude of the other admins of this project. Look at what is happening as a result of your silence. Next step will be "wheel warring"? Ark (talk) 22:12, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think what you mean, Ark, is that you neither value nor respect the opinions of your fellow admins, or else you would not block a fellow admin (me) without first consulting your other fellow admins to see if they supported the move. I must therefore question if you are suitable to be an admin? Note that an admin does not need to consult before blocking an editor, as that is what we must to to defend the wiki. Such a block may need to be undone if consensus finds it to be unjustified, but I was perfectly willing to do that in Kuzia's (and any other) case. ... Stho002 (talk) 00:09, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is why blocks should never be used to win an argument. Stho002 should be admonished for the block when he is an involved party. Ark should be admonished for using block as a punitive rather than preventive tool. OhanaUnitedTalk page 00:59, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, I saw it as responding to vandalism, but in future I will refer any possible vandalisms by Kuzia or Ark to another admin to deal with (though, with limited admins, it is a worry that anyone can prevent me from reverting their edits just be getting into a "dispute" with me ...) Stho002 (talk) 01:03, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It seems that only 3 admins have something to say on this matter. Stho002, about what opinions you are writing? Show me some, please. You call this edit [13] as vandalism, because Kuzia removed the link to WoRMS (BTW, It was enough to insert a link back and that's it). And what about next edit [14]? You have removed "Name" section with autor&date and 2 references. For me, it is the same "vandalism". It will be very good if you will consult such "vandalisms" with other admin(s) – I assure you that I will not be entered in a dispute with you. Let's get back to work. Ark (talk) 17:34, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Just to be clear, I called Kuzia's edit vandalism because he removed a legitimate reference, i.e., Raupach et al., 2009, from the references section. It had nothing to do with any link to WoRMS ... Stho002 (talk) 19:12, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
OK, WoRMS link is in template. Sorry. (It does not change the fact that adding this would solve the problem.) Ark (talk) 19:35, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Requested edit

Please amend Template:Sisterprojects has been tagged for editing for months. Does anyone check this backlog? —Justin (koavf)TCM 06:55, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Done. And no, I don't think anyone checks this backlog. OhanaUnitedTalk page 19:25, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Please block Special:Contributions/ Ghosh (talk) 13:32, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The user was warned (though not blocked) in October, 2013. No edits have been made from that IP since November 2013. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 19:02, 5 November 2014 (UTC).[reply]

Adding more rules?

In good faith I added the following text to this page under the header Misuse of administrative tools:

  • Admins must not protect pages they are actively engaged in editing, except in the case of simple vandalism. Read more on Wikipedia:Administrators' how-to guide.
  • Administrators must not block users with whom they are engaged in a content dispute; instead, they should report the problem to other administrators. Administrators should also be aware of potential conflicts involving pages or subject areas with which they are involved. It is acceptable for an administrator to block someone who has been engaging in clear-cut vandalism in that administrator's userspace. Read more on Wikipedia:Blocking_policy#When_blocking_may_not_be_used.

which, after Tommy Kronkvist was kind enough to fix incorrect interwiki links, was removed by OhanaUnited with the comment we don't import or inherit rules from other projects. If this is really true, then I apalogize for the error. But I still think its good to define what kind of misuse which is not accepted.

I would be interested to get opinions from the community regarding this issue. Would you accept to add those two lines from Wikipedia, or do you prefer the page as it is? Any further suggestion or comments to the page? I guess that if we can have a consensus in rgerad to those two lines, its OK to add them on the page? Dan Koehl (talk) 23:45, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am not against adding more rules, provided that they are written as result of a proper consensus (i.e. one that takes everyone's opinion into proper account in an objective and impartial way, based on rational principles, e.g. that opinions on X carry more weight with greater experience in X).

>Other relevant questions may be, when, and at which point should an abusive user be blocked, if he or she is being rude, insensitive or petty, makes people upset and stops Wikispecies from working well. Is a voting needed by the community?<

This sounds suspiciously like your next move to have me blocked. Not all, but a big part of WS "working well" is the number of (content relevant) edits that are done to populate our pages with useful information. Without my input, this would drop dramatically. Get real, sometimes people get upset when they are in the wrong and are challenged about it. I think you need to define your loaded terms like "abusive". To my mind, one can be both abusive and polite at the same time, and you seem to be the master of that, as I do feel "abused" by you.

Stho002 (talk) 00:22, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Also, since your proposal comes tainted by a dispute in which you are involved, any consensus cannot take into account the views of anyone involved in the dispute. What you really need is consensus at the crat level, but the only other active crat here is OhanaUnited. So, unless you can wake up the other crats and convince them to back you, I really don't think that you are on to a winner here Stho002 (talk) 00:30, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No, the implementation can be done at community level. Bureaucrats are only needed if the outcome of the poll was too close to call. OhanaUnitedTalk page 03:34, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@OhanaUnited: So what regulates what can or cannot be implemented by community consensus? Surely mob rule cannot go unchecked? Basic rights have to be upheld. They can't just decide to permanently block someone that they take a disliking to?? Stho002 (talk) 03:53, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
See meta for an explanation of consensus. The safety valve is that (to borrow wording from w:Template:Not a ballot) "consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes" OhanaUnitedTalk page 04:36, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
LOL! That sounds like I wrote it myself! Very sensible indeed! Stho002 (talk) 04:40, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Having said that, the evaluation of argument merits is far from straightforward in practice, though I guess that all I need is for the merits to be to some extent unclear (which they probably always are), and the status quo must remain, i.e. no clear mandate to block Stho002 (talk) 04:42, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]


I wish to add that, IMHO, Dan Koehl credibility is undermined by his timing. His "Adding more rules" proposal comes hot on the heels of "winning" (or losing, depending how you look at it) a request to have my admin status reviewed. Since I have resigned as admin, that is a done deal (though more by my own hand than by his). Above I have already "speculated" that it was just the first step in an agenda to have me banned permanently from WS. Subsequently, Koehl tried to discredit the opinion of his fellow crat, OhanaUnited, by attempting to twist their impartiality/fairness/measured response into some sort of dodgy conspiracy with me. And now, Koehl proposes new rules, some of which have a disturbingly retrospective angle, i.e. [quote]Other relevant questions may be, when, and at which point should an abusive user be blocked, if he or she is being rude, insensitive or petty, makes people upset and stops Wikispecies from working well. Is a voting needed by the community?[unquote]. Tayloring rules to fit an agenda is not fair play, so again I must question Koehl's suitability as a crat or even an admin here. Stho002 (talk) 00:47, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As anyone can read the rules are directly taken from Wikipedia, not taylored by me. Now Id like to hear what the rest of the community thinks? Dan Koehl (talk) 01:17, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Where the rules are taken from is irrelevant, it is how they are to be used that matters, and whether it is possible to get a consensus untainted by dispute. Also, why now? Since I am no longer an admin here (due to my voluntary resignation by the way - don't forget that now!), and there is no urgent need to add these rules at present, shouldn't Dan Koehl take some time to cool off first, and establish himself properly here as a crat, instead of trying to do a complete overhaul of our governance structure from day 1?? Also, can he explain this comment: [quote]Other relevant questions may be, when, and at which point should an abusive user be blocked, if he or she is being rude, insensitive or petty, makes people upset and stops Wikispecies from working well. Is a voting needed by the community?[unquote] Does he plan to put new rules in place which would justify permanent blocks based on retrospective infringement of such rules, and/or based simply on "consensus" [=popular vote]? That would surely be highly improper? Stho002 (talk) 01:25, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]