Meta:Requests for adminship/Nemo bis (removal)

Add links
From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki
The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a closed Meta-Wiki request. Please do not modify it.

Nemo_bis (removal)[edit]

Ending 15 March 2013 06:12 UTC

In February 2012, there was a major kerfuffle around Nemo bis related to his being seen as an involved admin in his actions regarding an RfD for Requests for comment/Gwen Gale. As part of this, Meta:Proposal for a policy on involved administrators was created, gaining a fair amount of support. For some unknown reason, Nemo bis thought it would be a good idea to close it as withdrawn on February 21, 2013, despite the fact that it was his actions that caused the proposal in the first place. This indicates to me that he does not understand the community's concerns, acts against the community's clearly-expressed will, and therefore should not continue as an administrator here. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 06:05, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: See also his edit/protection warring on the Board elections page last month, pointed out below by Rschen7754. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 12:12, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
FYI: SarekOfVulcan is an involved editor, see for instance blind rollback [1] (and before someone says I have a grudge or something, I didn't remember ever seeing this username on Meta before checking contribs).
I've already commented on the closure proposed by Beeblebrox: [2] [3]. The statement «the fact that it was his actions that caused the proposal in the first place» is not entirely correct, but I just refer to the links before to see why. Let me add that the page doesn't mention me anywhere, so I didn't (and don't) consider it a proposal against me in any way, although I remembered that Beeblebrox 1) thought I tried to boycott it because of an attempt I made at calming him, 2) was unhappy about something the Meta sysops did and in particular about being blocked by someone for his personal attacks. Until now I had happily forgotten sad things like Beeblebox's block log here, so I hope the aim of this discussion is not reviving old drama. On the other hand, if it's true that you or others had me as target, I'm happy that this is now being clearly stated, so that the community can focus on actual problems instead of red herrings and I can easily remember the point of the discussion from the page title. :-) --Nemo 09:48, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for intrusion in indenting: more on the point of the discussion in my reply to Rd232 below. --Nemo 19:59, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing stops an involved editor for opening this request nor is it relevant what their behavior has been, I would think. Wikimedians who will comment here should do so on the basis of the substance of the complaint(s) and of your administrative action(s). By this I merely am trying to make a general point and I am not at this time expressing any judgement on the specifics of the matter at hand. Snowolf How can I help? 10:10, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Although Nemo bis isn't mentioned specifically in Meta:Proposal for a policy on involved administrators, Nemo bis became controversial for involved closures around the same time that that policy was proposed:
In addition, Nemo bis is mentioned and criticized in Requests_for_comment/Meta-wiki_requests_for_comment_on_users, and Nemo bis voted in that discussion, yet Nemo bis closed that discussion anyway. Nemo bis closed both of those discussions less than an hour after Beeblebrox made the "useless" comment that Nemo used as an excuse to close those discussions: [4], [5]. Nemo bis was probably watching Requests_for_comment/Meta-wiki_requests_for_comment_on_users, saw Beeblebrox's comment, and took advantage of that opportunity. Nemo didn't close any other proposals besides those two within the same period. I don't believe that Nemo bis closed those discussions as an impartial, uninvolved sysop. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 15:29, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Remove Remove – Nemo bis closed discussions that he's involved in or has a stake in:

Nemo bis blocked several user that he's in conflict with or had disputes with:

Nemo bis is practicing ownership of the Child_protection page by continuously attempting to censor references to Sue Gardener's statement since late December 2011:

--Michaeldsuarez (talk) 13:50, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wouldn't any admin be equally "involved" in closing a policy on involved administrators? Snowolf How can I help? 13:51, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
One minute, maybe less. Did you even look over the evidence that I submitted? --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 14:08, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No, which is why I specifically commented only on the general premise you brought up, tho I am far more familiar than I'd like with most of the material from last year's mess. Snowolf How can I help? 14:12, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. Back to your question: Since the proposed policy keeps all sysops in check by placing limits on their powers, then I guess that it can be argued that any sysop can have a conflict of interests in closing that discussion in a way that doesn't favor adopting the policy, but even so, it would've been preferable if a sysop who hadn't already caused controversy around involved sysops and closures had caused the discussion instead. Yet, this isn't merely a case of an involved sysop closing a discussion; the closure wasn't rational. Nemo bis closed the discussion against consensus at the time (claiming "no consensus"), and he or she used a flimsy excuse ("per proposer's suggestion"). Does that sound right to you? Nemo bis continues to use flimsy excuses. If it weren't for "assume good faith", I'd call Nemo bis a manipulator and a blatant liar. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 15:22, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I imagine it goes without saying that I firmly believe Nemo should not be an admin here, but I'll say it anyway. I know the blowup last year was a bad moment for all involved, and the other "worst of the worst" admin involved in that is no longer a sysop. It's not worth rehashing every moment of that. I did some things that made some people pretty angry too, it was nobody's finest hour. However, is it not true that when things are at their worst that is when we need admins to be at their best?
So, after the initial blowup was dying down, I floated the proposal for an invoilved admin policy in the hope that codifying that ethical premise would help avoid situations like what we saw with Wiazrd back then. Since so many were angry at being "invaded" by en'WP I thought it would be best to try and get some translations of the proposal so it would not be seen as a case of en.WP trying to force its way of doing things on Meta. However, I had trouble even figuring out how to ask for help with translations and so i posted a {{helpme}} request on my talk page. You can see that request here [11]. As you can see it is simply a politely worded request for help with the technical aspects of requesting translation. For some reason Nemo, instead of doing anything remotely helpoful as would normally be exopected of an admin, trolled me [12] I think we can all agree that that posting was not intended to helpful and served only to deliberately antagonize and insult me, which is the very definition of trolling. I asked for other admins to step in and the first one on the scene told me it was a reasonable response to my trolling. I don't think that makes the least bit of sense but I suppose that is another matter. Frustrated by this, I left Meta and doid not pay it any mind for about a year.
So, I returned for this year's steward elections, and duting the course of reviewing the candiddates I thought to chsck my watchlist here and saw an edit to one of the RFCs from the year before, which I was surprised to see was still open. I commented there on how sad that was [13]. Nemo came along shortly afterward and closed it. I have no issue with that close, there doesn't seem to be anything resembling a consensus there anyway.
What he did next, I have a big problem with. Using my remark as justification, he claimed [14] that the proposal was withdrawn. Feel free to look back at my remark at the other RFC and see if you can see me saying anything of the sort there. Nope, didn't find it? That's because it is not there. Such a close, especially when taken in light of his own bad actions the year before which specifically related to me and that proposal, iis pretty clearly a bad faith action and a lie to boot. When confronted about this his response was to defend what is obviously an indefensible action, even in the face of other admins and stewards pointing that out to him.
We all make mistakes, I certainly have. It is how we react and what we learn from them that counts. Nemo seems to have learned that he can get away with doing whatever he wants and abusing his adminsitratiove status however he pleases. This is unfortunately as much a failing of this community as it is his own failing, but I feel we cannot and should not let a person with this sort of mindset be responsible for maintaining order on what is supposed to be the central forum for the entirre WMF family of websites. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:35, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
On the first point: I've already answered several times your considerations about my supposed "trolling", so I won't repeat myself; but it's false. Anyway, it's not an administrative action.
On the second point: petitio principii, you're assuming what you want to prove i.e. that point 1 qualifies as "bad actions the year before which specifically related to me and that proposal" i.e. that I was in "bad faith" an a liar. --Nemo 22:28, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Whether responding to help request with an insult is an admin action or not, it is hardly what any responsible project expects of its administrators. I'll leave it to other participants to see for themselves if they think you were trying to be helpful in response to my request or if you were just deliberately antagonizing me.
And anyone who knows the first thing about ethics knows that even the appearance of impropriety should be avoided. It any event it is manifestly evident that you did lie and close the discussion in bad faith, regardless of what was in your mind at that moment. It seems equally clear that you are completely unwilling to concede that you messed up, which is not a good quality in an admin either. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:44, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Reminder: you're calling "insult" my highlighting your conflict of interest, which is what you're doing with me. Are you trying to insult me? --Nemo 07:43, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You voted against Beeblebrox's proposal, you shut down discussions regarding WizardOfOz's blocking of Beeblebrox ([15], [16]), you give a new reason for Beeblebrox's block, and you recently attempted to close two discussions started by Beeblebrox. I don't believe that you like Beeblebrox. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 15:46, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I can't say I find it surprising that someone was both too cowardly to make this remark while logged in when they wwre obviously already familiar with this situation and also obviously did not bother to actually read my remarks above where I clearly detail the exact sequence of events. I could make a pretty educated guess on whpo it is but it's not really germane to this disucssion anyway as we are discussingNemo, not me. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:06, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
@Anon: Beeblebrox's dissatisfaction with Meta and alleged hypocrisy don't invalidate Beeblebrox's criticism of Nemo bis, and they don't absolve Nemo bis of any wrongdoing. Beeblebrox isn't Nemo's only victim. Delicious carbuncle (wikipediocracy.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=31492#p31492), Alanscottwalker ([17]), and Future Perfect at Sunrise ([18]) were also blocked by involved sysop Nemo bis. Beeblebrox isn't Nemo's only critic, and Beeblebrox didn't initiate this request. In addition, please keep in mind that we're discussing Nemo bis, not Beeblebrox. Beeblebrox doesn't have sysop abilities to abuse or remove. Please don't derail the discussion. If you wish to criticize Beeblebrox, Beeblebrox's talk page would be a much more appropriate place to do that at. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 00:09, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Michaeldsuarez, here's the deal. Beeblebrox says that "for the most part" Meta is administrated by "the abusive cowards". I agree with this assessment, except English Wikipedia is administrated by the abusive cowards too, and Beeblebrox himself demonstrates this kind of behaviour time and time again. Delicious carbuncle says "Meta is a joke", and I agree with this too, except English Wikipedia is even a sicker joke. I think before one starts removing some trash from a neighbor house, why not to clean up his own first? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 31.193.141.238 (talk • contribs) 15:47, 11 March 2013 (UTC).[reply]
  • Comment Comment: I think it would be nice of Nemo bis to acknowledge that some of his actions were not really nice. Every sysop should recognize when they should not use admin tools to avoid conflict of interest and I can see he failed in some cases. For example, Nemo bis and another non-sysop engaged on an edit war. Page was protected by Nemo bis, which should request protection instead of doing it himself, for he is clearly involved. Right after protection and while still protected, he edited the page, which was even worse, as he uses the sysopship to take advantage on edit warring. Not to mention the usage of rollback to engage on edit warring. All that is undeniably wrong. Not sure if it is enough to remove. Specially if these questions were never addressed to him (were they?), so it could have been clarified. However, a few actions in conflict of interest have brought bad consequences that could easily be avoided had this important non-written rule been respected.—Teles «Talk to me ˱@ L C S˲» 04:43, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • I agree with Teles. Some actions of Nemo bis were clearly not ok, and it would be good for him to acknowledge this. On the other hand, the presented material does not seem to me as sufficient justification for the removal of the bit, provided lessons have been learnt.--Ymblanter (talk) 09:32, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      Though I would be inclined to support removal if the errors are not acknowledged. --Rschen7754 09:46, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      Ymblanter, what actions were clearly not ok, in your opinion? I'd value such suggestions a lot. (I've often asked people to focus on such suggestions and complaints, that as Teles said I hardly received, and I was happy to see a clear desysop request finally allowing to collect some instead of attacking "Meta" or who knows what.) Teles, that was indeed a tough decision, I'm not sure I did the right thing: what would have you done? I don't remember all the details, but I remember that I thought a lot about it and these were the intentions: my first edits on the page tried to restore a consensual version [this didn't work]; when it became clear that there wasn't yet an agreement between the participants to the discussion on any basic detail of the page, and therefore it was impossible to decide which version to keep, I concluded that it was necessary to avoid edit wars and discuss on talk first, and that protection was needed instead [this was IMHO reasonable enough]; so I protected The Wrong Version (the last one), because protecting any particular version would not have been appropriate [this I'm sure of]; purposedly after protection, I tried to do what's appropriate under protection, i.e. applying a revision that all "parties" can agree on discussing (instead of wasting time complaining about The Wrong Version): ideally that would be a version agreed upon by all "parties", but there wasn't any, so instead applied a revision that a) didn't favour any of the "parties", b) could not be considered my text [I think both requirements were met; I don't know if it was the best idea to encourage discussion]. I didn't request someone else to protect the page for these reasons and because such request would have moved the discussion elsewhere, going against the purpose of forcing people to discuss and work toward a consensus, and instead encouraging the incipient ForestFire (over multiple requests pages as we had already seen): the two steps to avoid one are naming the conflict and centralising discussion. Later, I was happy to see that Sj intervened and I left the "management" of the page to him: I've not edited the page for a year and I did so recently just trying to follow something Sj had said, but it would have been better to just tell him as I now did. On rollbacks, I never use them for non-uncontroversial edits: I've not checked here but I think that the reason for the revert was stated in a previous unaddressed revert and was communicated on the [user's] talk directly (which is sometimes more appropriate, I think; do you disagree?). --Nemo 18:54, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      Following something Sj said? I see a pattern of censorship, dating back to December 2011:
      Each time, you attempt to remove reference to what Sue Gardener stated. Not having Sue Gardener's "zero tolerance" statement appear on the page is basically the POV that you're continuously trying to push. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 19:10, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
What should have been done in my opinion? Anything that a non-sysop could do. You could act like not being a sysop, by asking protection and, when protected, asking another sysop to perform the edit. Just acting as if you were not a sysop. Do you think that the way you used rollback button was correct? How can that be uncontroversial when you revert a regular user that was using summary?. If a summary was needed before, how it wasn't anymore if you were doing the same action right after that? If the issue require discussion, it is clearly not right to assume that it is uncontroversial.—Teles «Talk to me ˱@ L C S˲» 09:17, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The point of not using rollback is to add a summary, but I did add that separately, didn't I? I wasn't and am not interested in that discussion as an editor, as I said above: I was only as an admin, to let people discuss the matter, and I didn't intervene on the page before that. I already addressed the point about requests in other places. But yes, I guess you're right that it would have been better just to leave "the wrong version" protected. --Nemo 19:59, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove Remove: too many involvement issues (see above), and too many communication issues (e.g., insufficient acknowledgement of mistakes). Mathonius (talk) 16:11, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove Remove per Mathonius and per my comment above. User has the wrong temperament to be an admin. --Rschen7754 18:21, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove Remove I don't agree with everything presented here, but using your tools to win a dispute is just not OK. A formal involved policy is a lot of bureaucratese, but at its heart stands common sense, and I don't think Nemo bix gets that. Courcelles 21:21, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ok, this took me some consideration, but I'm now opining in favour of Keep keeping because I think that overall, Nemo bis does a good job as an admin on Meta, particularly in the field of managing translations. Nevertheless I think it was not a good idea of Nemo to close the RFC about involved administrators based on a very creative interpretation of the comment from Beeblebrox he linked in the closure comment (i.e. I don't see anything in that comment which says "I propose to take back my proposal"). I can however not agree to the opening concern "that he does not understand the community's concerns, acts against the community's clearly-expressed will" by that action - if there had been a clearly expressed will from the community on the RFC, it would be closed with an outcome today, not still open. To be clear: I think it is right that the RFC is not yet closed for or against any side. --MF-W 02:17, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Keep on the balance that the work being done by Nemo_bis with his administrative bit actions performed clearly outweighs the original premise of the argument to bit remove. This situation resulted in injury, no forced decision, and was quickly undone by the community. I can see that Nemo Bis has undertaken acts that have clearly have people in dispute, and I believe that some of the actions take were both ill-conceived and somewhat mishandled. That said I would like to see Nemo bis voluntarily move aside from those contentious areas with their tool at meta. I don't expect perfection from admins, and when mistakes occur, an acknowledgement should follow, and identifying a means to a better outcome next time around. For those who live their life baying for blood around this and other sites, with their intense effort to bring down all and sundry ... get a grip, pick up your halos and go elsewhere for your jollies. — billinghurst sDrewth 10:21, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not here for blood or "jollies". I want to see an end to injustice, abuse, and censorship, and desyopping Nemo bis would prevent further injustice, abuse of the system, and censorship. At the moment, I see a very adamant Nemo bis who isn't apologizing or acknowledging his or her mistakes. Nemo bis heard these complaints over a year ago (February 2012), and Nemo bis didn't change back then. If he or she didn't change back then, why should believe Nemo bis will change today? Losing sysop bits isn't the same as losing blood. No one is going to lose their head over this. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 11:46, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I assume you meant me and Michael with that remark. If you read my statement above it is clear I did no go looking to have another unpleasant encounter with Nemo, he very much brought that on himself. It is not so much the actions themselves at this point, it is Nemo's refusal to admit he erred and acted in areas where he should have known not to. I don't want or expect an apology, but would expect Nemo to be able to admit that the closing of that RFC was completely inappropriate and that the comment that it had been withdrawn was an out and out lie. An admin who is unwilling to learn from their mistakes or even acknowledge they made them is a bad thing. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:20, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with your sentiments about learning, apologies, and actions, and believe that it is reflected in my comments. My opinion is having to put a marker on a spectrum between 0 and 1, it is above 0.5 on the balance on the work done and the value in the work, counter to the damage and the damage done. With people's use of the binary bit with rights, it comes to self-regulation on the areas where one works, and on that I have expressed my opinion. — billinghurst sDrewth 05:15, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't identify anyone, if anyone thinks that the label applies to them, that is their assessment. — billinghurst sDrewth 05:15, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not sure how to vote here. I read this page and it made me pretty sad. I've worked with Nemo and I believe he's a really good guy who does a lot of valuable work for Wikimedia. I guess in some ways, I don't feel like Meta-Wiki adminship is the real issue here. I think others feel similarly. --MZMcBride (talk) 02:52, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove Remove - Has Nemo done much good work? Yes. Has he made errors of judgement - some related to admin tools, some related to quasi-admin tasks (closing RFCs isn't formally an admin task)? Yes. But of course everyone makes mistakes. Are there enough issues to outweigh the good work? Very hard to say, though I'm not entirely impressed with some of the attitude to acknowledging and understanding errors. Much of Nemo's good work can continue without admin tools; and he can re-apply for them down the line if he wants. And he's been an admin for a long time, and it may be healthy to take a break from that. But at the end of the day, I'm swinging for Remove because Meta needs shaking up. Maybe removing Nemo's tools on the back of these mistakes will do that a little bit. Rd232 (talk) 12:22, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for your comment. Could you please clarify this part, "some of the attitude to acknowledging and understanding errors"? I'm really a person with little affection to my own opinions, sképsis is my motto and the only thing I react badly to is dogmatism. You're not going to shake Meta with this vote, for two reasons:
    • first, because I'm only an individual here and this page is not discussing Meta;
    • second, because this is the very shaking up happening here, that I put an end to silly forum shopping and allusions, by intentionally forcing Beeblebrox to state whether his was a sincere general proposal to improve Meta, or was actually meant against an individual, so that criticism of my actions could be discussed — not in a general hypocrisy — but clearly and openly; which is now happening on this very page, allowing people to freely express their opinion on the proposal just for its real merits and not for its potential (or supposed) consequences (or references) to specific cases.
    In fact, if I were affectionate to my own opinions and if I disliked the involved admin policy proposal, I would never have closed that discussion, which was already dead by itself; see the reply to Snowolf below. I surely made many mistakes, it can be safely assumed because that's what happens when one is human and tries to do stuff; but I'm not sure that the closure in question was one, or it was a rather minor one, while for instance the protection discussed with Teles above can be a better candidate to the laurel of big mistake (being, in fact, at a big distance from my usual attitude towards protection). --Nemo 19:59, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
acknowledging and understanding errors - well your response to the criticism of the policy proposal closure is the clearest recent example. The closure was mindbendingly, award-winningly awful and it together with your inadequate response to criticism of it is almost enough on its own to support removal. Rd232 (talk) 17:06, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Keep, Agree with MF-W above. He has done always a good job on the whole, and I trust him to serve as admin. --Frigotoni ...i'm here; 16:20, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral NeutralRemove leaning towards remove Nemo_bis has done a lot of valuable work here on Meta and thru out the Wikimedia project and last year's mess is not that concerning to me, as it was a situation that was bad all-around, with appalling behavior from many sources. I also find the assertions that he was in COI in closing the RfC to which Michael and other refers to, I didn't find a reasonable answer that would explain how that would affect him more than any other admin on Meta. I also strongly disagree with the supposed need for a shakeup here on Meta mentioned by Rd232 above, presumably to look more like Enwiki; to that I say no and with emphasis. I do however have a major problem with the closing of said RfC: when somebody moves forward a proposal and it receives supports, he can no longer unilaterally withdraw it. It is not his to withdraw in my opinion: 16 people had supported the policy beyond the initial proposer. It is not within his powers to invalidate their supports, so the RfC should never haven been closed that way even if only on that basis. I do not feel appropriate to call for desysop on the basis of one incident, and this one is the only one I really have an issue with, but I also am very troubled by it, as it should be obvious to everybody that Beeblebrox never called for a withdrawal of this RfC nor even if he did should it have been closed at withdrawn when so many other people voiced their support for it. I read Beeblebrox's comments and find no conceivable way of interpreting it as withdrawing the Request for Comments in question and to me it seems very bizarre to interpret it as such. Snowolf How can I help? 17:05, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    That wasn't the whole closing comment though, it was just the edit summary: I said, "no consensus", and that's true. We're quite used at closing inactive RfC: this one was definitely inactive, although I didn't explicitly say so (it was the point expressed in the comment I quoted in closing), and [because] it didn't have sufficient consensus. I may be mixing my wiki experience with my bugzilla lessons, but stating clearly the status of a request is always a service to the request itself, which increases the possibilities that it reaches the most appropriate conclusion (including reopening), while ignoring requests is always offensive. --Nemo 19:59, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The finding of no consensus is hardly the point. PeterSymonds expressed it rather well when reverting you [20]. Given our history, combined with the fact that you simply made up the part about it being withdrawn, this was obviously not an appropriate action. You have to be able to see that by now. You have to have known from the beginning that I never said the proposal was withdrawn. Yet you seem unable to admit you have ever made an error in judgement. I can admit I have, and I am sure your fellow admins here would like to see an admission from you that you screwed up. That kind of thing goes a long way towards demonstrating an ability to learn from one's mistakes and improve as a result. You have demonstrated the exact opposite qualities, defending obvious errors of judgement and trying to evade the real issues. That, much more than the actions themselves, speak to a temperment unsuited for one charged with administrative duties. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:05, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm, yeah, I agree with most of this.

Though the number of users commenting here who are banned on other Wikimedia wikis is worrying. --MZMcBride (talk) 05:10, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

While I don't agree with Beeb's outcome, I definitely agree with a slab of the opinion. Administrator's need to listen to the community. — billinghurst sDrewth 10:21, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
@MZMcBride: I only count three commentators who are currently banned from one or more project: Ottava Rima, you, and me. The enwiki ArbCom recently unbanned Russavia, and there isn't any evidence that the anon(s) who commented here is banned from any project. I don't find that number worrying or unmanageable, and being banned from one project doesn't mean that that person isn't up to any good on another. As a banned user yourself, you should know that the opinions of banned users can be just as valid as the opinion of users who aren't banned. Speaking of blocks and bans, in December 2011, Nemo bis was blocked from itwiki for 15 days for misinterpreting / misapplying policy (i.e. making unconvincing excuses). --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 12:13, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Incorrect. The block was for (allegedly) not respecting the bot policy.
You see, this is the difference between hypocritical acknowledgements of errors and authentic, socratic humility. How many of your self-conceited comments are as clueless as your conclusions about a discussion in a language you don't know, in a multi-year context and a community you know nothing about... is left as an exercise to the reader. --Nemo 17:23, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Michaeldsuarez: I don't believe I'm banned anywhere. I was including Fæ and Russavia (in addition to you and Ottava), but I realize (maybe better than anyone) that blocks and bans are ephemeral. In any case, I find it a bit worrying, but as further outsiders comment here and this discussion receives wider participation, my concern is decreasing. I just want to make sure we don't kick out an administrator on the say-so of a few disgruntled users. :-) --MZMcBride (talk) 23:35, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I see that you were recently unblocked on enwiki. Just a little correction: Fæ didn't participate in this discussion at the time you left your comment, and when he did, he didn't voice his opinion on Nemo bis. The few disgruntled users here probably have a good reason to be disgruntled. They probably witnessed or experienced Nemo's misbehavior, and I believe that it isn't unreasonable to listen to what they have to say. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 11:37, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Off-topic comments moved to User_talk:Tarc#Ad_hominem_tangent
  • Keep Keep it seems Nemo bis speaks definitely worse than he actually acts. To me his "behavioural" mistakes are currently not enough to renounce to all the useful stuffs he uses to do. --Vituzzu (talk) 23:36, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove Remove. Nemo definitely does a lot of valuable work here, but a lot of that work could be done even without him being sysopped or by others. I find many of his actions to be problematic. I have a bigger problem with his reactions than his initial actions. If he had acknowledged what is problematic about some of his actions and committed to avoid the same sort of actions moving forward, I might vote differently, but he hasn't. I suspect that he is likely to act in similarly problematic ways in the future, and I don't think that there will be a sufficient net benefit to him remaining sysoped. Kevin (talk) 05:42, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm glad you see that I tried to help with a fair amount of admin actions (those being discussed here could be considered a rather negligible subset of unimportant instances). The problem is that you're not saying, among all that, what I should refrain from; if you defined the "sort of actions" you're talking about in an actionable way, it would be easier to answer you. Similarly, you've asked questions "for me" on pages where I could have overlooked them and then you ignored the answers I gave you directly... This is not helpful.[21] [22] --Nemo 23:34, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep keeping He has done always a good job. Agree with MF-W above.--Steinsplitter (talk) 23:00, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep keeping per Vituzzu. micki 15:07, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove Remove I strongly wanted to stay out of the conversation but in the end I decided I had to weigh in. I would never assume that someone means to do anything but the right thing and I don't assume that with Nemo. However, that said, I disagree strongly with those that say he is a net positive to the meta community. The level of OWNership, anger and lack of understanding that he extends to those around the project are almost without equal. He is, unfortunately, one of the major reasons that when I think about Xwiki projects like Outreach or Strategy I would never recommend that their leaders set up on Meta. If they want a welcoming and understanding community they are better on a new wiki or another behind the scenes project, or even on a language specific project like the English Wikipedia depending on what they are aiming for. Is Nemo the example that we want administrators to be? Because, like it or not, they are examples for other administrators and other users and Nemo constantly adds to the problems on this project. I've been active on Meta for far longer then I was really active on any other project and I don't remember voting to remove adminship before... but I'm sorry, I have to support removal. Jamesofur (talk) 09:16, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    This is the first and so far only request for removal ever filed since the reconfirmation process was abolished so you are most definitively correct in thinking you've never voted to remove adminship if you meant on Meta :) Snowolf How can I help? 10:54, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict) Sorry to respond (I also had not wanted to make further comments), but your comment reads like Nemo is like a great shadow hanging over Meta and scaring away new users all the time? I beg to disagree. The problems mentioned on this page are all coming from the RFC "Gwen Gale" problems (per the proposer) that happened mostly more than a year ago (except the recent RFC thing, but that was still a continuation of the same issue, if you will. But enough has been said on the reprehensibility of that). Have there been any more things since then? I really can't think of any, please mention them if they exist - particularly maybe cases where a crosswiki coordination otherwise located on outreach/strategywiki was hindered? [Since when do these wikis have "leaders" btw??] Also, I think from the comments from Meta sysops on this page who do not agree with some or all of the actions that Nemo has taken it is clearly visible that we do not need to think that he is particularly setting examples that many other sysops follow.. --MF-W 11:26, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I believe that Nemo bis recently pursued a grudge against Delicious carbuncle. The conflict between Nemo bis and Delicious carbuncle stems from the Child_protection page: wikipediocracy.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=31492#p31492. Here's a timeline of how Nemo bis recently blocked Delicious carbuncle:
    Nemo bis followed Delicious carbuncle to the WCA Chair election talk page and blocked Delicious carbuncle due to a grudge related to Nemo bis' ownership of the "Child_protection" page. Nemo bis was involved in the so-called edit war on the WCA Chair election talk page. Due to Nemo bis' past dispute with Delicious carbuncle and Nemo bis' involvement in the edit war, Nemo bis blocked Delicious carbuncle as an involved sysop. This behavior has to end. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 13:10, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I'll be asap remove all these wikipediocracy links: the same arguments you're using there are already replicated here so they are useless with the side effect to link some rants, insults and harassments from other people. --Vituzzu (talk) 13:38, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't believe that it would be appropriate to censor comments. I'm not trying to harass and insult people. Those hyperlinks contain information. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 14:05, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Informations written by you which you already posted here and which you can always write here. Is always better to use internal resources rather than external ones, especially if those external ones are hosted on a domain full of rants, harassments and insults.--Vituzzu (talk) 14:30, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Meta:Requests_for_adminship/Nemo_bis_(removal)&oldid=7423226"