Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/Daniel Case

Daniel Case undiscussed unblocks

 * Moved lengthly topic over 50k to here from WP:ANI. Cheers,  Dav  nel  03   11:28, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

who has a highly negative history with myself, has unblocked two users whom I blocked yesterday for disruption, without attempting to first discuss matters with me beforehand. A brief account of the blocks is out lined at RFAR/Digwuren#Log of blocks and bans. As requested, I submit the block and unblock for review. El_C 18:24, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Have you tried using the recently revealed "secret email list"? I have heard this is quite an effective and fast method to sort these type of differences out. Cheers, --Tom 18:28, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, I did, but no one reads anything there. El_C 18:35, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Tom, if that was humour I'm afraid it was in rather poor taste. Guy (Help!) 18:42, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
 * But it is amazing how often the Durova incident is now being used to excuse any sort of misconduct, for example, calling a user a "liar and hatemonger," comparing me to Hitler, and so on. Forget that I was one her harshest critics, it just keeps getting invoked over and over again, by one of the blocked users, by Daniel Case, and soon by my own cat. El_C 18:47, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
 * What excuse? Inventing rules out of thin air needs no excuses(heres a diff incase youve forgotten).--Alexia Death the Grey (talk) 13:25, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Poor taste? How? I guess maybe it's offensive if one is sensitive about their use of a secret mailing list, but I thought it was rather funny. Has the secret mailing list decided that all jokes about the secret mailing list are not allowed? Natalie (talk) 14:59, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Note that unblock review for the first user was declined by another admin; I protected the page after the user compared myself to Hitler. The second user stated that he does not wish to file an unblock request; their page was protected following related insults. These are both 24-hour blocks/protections. What disturbs me is the negative history between myself and DC, as well any lack of prior communication. El_C 18:35, 8 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm probably looking at the wrong user, but Sander doesn't appear to have been unblocked Addhoc (talk) 18:38, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I might have confused that, then. He writes "I would have lifted Sander's block yesterday but I didn't have the time" This is the user who compared me to Hitler and whose unblocked request was already declined by another admin. Somehow, in light of the negative history between Daniel Case, I suspect perhaps he is just trying to provoke me, in which case, mission accomplished. El_C 18:47, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
 * User:Alexia Death was already under editing restrictions due to the RfAr, and the block was explained in the appropriate location. Unblocking the account without chekcing there doesn't appear helpful. "BRD" does not apply to administrative actions. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 18:51, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I only unblocked Alexia Death, not Sander, as I told you, since that had already been reviewed and declined without a second unblock request (since Sander decided to quit the project, at least temporarily). Prior communication between admins is nice regarding an unblock; however in this case there was only an hour left on a 24-hour block and I felt the blocks themselves needed to be discussed here as Alexia was asking for an opportunity to do. I did not think I would get a reply in that time frame and secondly, I felt from what I could examine that the block had been given for insufficient reasons and with insufficient warning to an editor with only one block in her history, a block that had itself been overturned for insufficient evidence after a very short time. I don't consider our history "highly negative", as what happened between us was months ago and we've both moved on. At least I have. I didn't see a link to the ArbCom editing restrictions in the discussions on her user page. The unblock request was posted only after protection had been lifted (specifically to allow her to post an unblock request), after most of the block had run its course. If there were ArbCom issues here not visible to the "second set of eyes", someone more familiar with the case should have been ready to review the request first. Daniel Case (talk) 19:02, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I think you were trying to provoke me, that you are holding a grudge. Why else would you legitimize my being compared to Hitler and so on? So you would have unblocked Sander Säde despite that, and Alexia for cheering him on. Well, I don't think that symbolic legitimacy from yourself amounts to very much, but those two users are likely to argue it means the world. El_C 19:13, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Daniel, I see you (sort of) disagreed with the block, though you mostly seem to be only arguing that you didn't see a good reason provided for the block, and you wanted it discussed on ANI. That's fantastic, except that your choice to simply unblock the account without any such discussion, or asking the blocking admin for more information, flies in the face of your own reasoning. As Will said above, it would have been far better to have simply gone to the admin, or here if necessary, and laid out your reasons for wanting the unblock. Dmcdevit·t 19:23, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
 * At the time, I was unaware of the editing restrictions. As I have said below, had I been aware of them (i.e., had the discussion leading up to the block included some mention of, or link to, those restrictions, I might have left it alone. In fact I probably would have. Still, though, I would have been hesitant to discuss it with El C because it looked like he was a little too personally involved. He understandably was upset about the Hitler comment; he should have asked another, uninvolved admin to review the situation for him. Daniel Case (talk) 22:32, 8 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm still blinking at Daniel's argument "Prior communication between admins is nice regarding an unblock; however in this case there was only an hour left on a 24-hour block and I felt the blocks themselves needed to be discussed here as Alexia was asking for an opportunity to do." Surely you don't mean to say "I had to unblock without consultation with the original blocker or I might have missed my chance to undo his action without consulting him, since the block was so short...?"Prior communication" before undoing another's admin action is much more than "nice" (I mean, good heavens, nice?), it's required. See WP:BLOCK. Bishonen | talk 19:57, 8 December 2007 (UTC).
 * It says "should not". That means strongly suggested, not required. Alexia had posted her request with only three hours left on her block. S/he had asked for it with the specific intent of opening up a discussion on AN/I, which I felt we needed to have and s/he needed to be part of. I expected s/he would start such a discussion right away. Someone else started it first ... one which used my name, implied I was the one who might have been out of line, and about which I was not notified. I did feel it necessary to at least notify El C of the unblock after the fact. Daniel Case (talk) 22:32, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Oh, of course, it's a mere suggestion, I do stand corrected. "Administrators should not unblock... without first attempting to contact the blocking administrator. ... it is a matter of courtesy and common sense to consult the blocking administrator. Not required at all, merely courtesy and common sense, what was I thinking. Bishonen | talk 00:48, 9 December 2007 (UTC).
 * Like you felt it necessary to lift a block an hour before it expired. Right. El_C 22:56, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

So, one of the blocked users, writes, and even frames the following: ''Why I wont file for an unblock if I find this so unfair? Because a good editor is blocked because of me. And why is he blocked? Because the blocking admin went and harassed him until he stepped over the line and said something rather rude''. I respond with: For my part, I rather doubt you would get such a request granted, but that is patently false, I did not harass anyone. I said: "Stop trying to demoralize an inactive user (who is your content opponent) when others are attempting to the opposite, both of you." He responded with: "Content opponent? No, see this. Just a liar and hate-monger." Then I issued a 24-hr block, which an unblock-review later concurred with. But I'm evidently outliving my usefulness here. El_C 21:03, 7 December 2007 (UTC) Then, he nonetheless goes on to file an unblock request. As for Alexia Death;'s block, I politely asked and then warned him/her to argue without inneundo, but he felt compelled to continue with an inflammatory approach: telling Bishonen she needs chocolate or a wikibreak, telling myself I lack sunshine or whatever. I still insist on having matter-of-fact, innuendo-free discourse. El_C 18:57, 8 December 2007 (UTC)


 * So, protection came long after this user made it clear they do not wish to file an unblock request (of course, then today, they did). I only protected the page after when I mentioned Sander Säde (whom Daniel Case would have unblocked, lest we forget) comparing me to "Hitler on adrenaline," Alexia responded with a sort of 'well, if the shoe fits.' These are the users whom Daniel Case is favoring. In the past, I had heavily criticized Daniel Case for highly inflammatory conduct. He certainly did not appear to forget, as he clearly notes on my talk page. El_C 19:09, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I was acknowledging that past only because it's better that I disclose it than not, in which case someone else would have brought it up and accused me (jutifiably) of trying to be deceptive about possibly having an axe to grind. If I truly held that against you, I would have done something like this a long time ago. As for Sander: Your stated justification for the block was "edit warring". One restoration of an ill-advised comment does not, IMO, constitute an edit war. Block for incivility if you wish (and if you felt insulted, as I don't dispute you had every right to, you should have asked someone else to make the block just to avoid the appearance of conflict), but block for valid reasons. And just because someone says they won't request an unblock does not mean they will continue to feel the same way. I wasn't the one who unprotected the page, after all. You could have played a more active part in later discussions. Daniel Case (talk) 19:24, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Of course, the timing between Coren's unprotection (first, telling me after) with one hour left in the block/protection(!), then Alexia sudden urge to forgo the solidarity with his compatriot and file an unblock request, and then Daniel Case appearing on the scene to grant it — well, that is some symbolic wonderness of would-be legitimacy and coincidences. Seemingly amazing maneuvering. El_C 19:36, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I really don't see the point, of complaining at ANI, over an unblock an hour early. I could see it, if it was 12+ hours early, and there wasn't concern over the reason for the block originally. It was granted one hour early, with the express purpose of allowing the block / protection to be reviewed. What net benefit to the project would one more hour blocked accomplish? Oh, and, as far as the timing, s/he had been asking for people to unprotect / unblock, at least 15 hours prior, and, when I came across them, they were upset and confused, and had no idea what to do, to request review, since their talkpage was protected. I directed them to unblock-en-l. SQL Query me!  20:47, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Now this I resent. I was approached by an editor that was unable to post an unblock on their page because it was protected, but that wanted to do so.  This is an eminently reasonable request (especially since there was barely more than an hour left), and one which I granted immediately under the provisio that the editor would only post that request, which they have.  Your innuendo that there was some sort of collusion to undermine you is complete fantasy, and I would appreciate your striking this remark posthaste.  &mdash; Coren (talk) 21:10, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm amused more than resentful. I doubt I communicate much with Coren; to assume there is some conspiracy between all of us would easily be dispelled by reading our edit histories. Daniel Case (talk) 22:35, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Just an amazing coincidence, then. One that helps you provoke me. El_C 22:46, 8 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Do you see the point of unblocking an hour early, then? It's the provocation that's the point. On a related topic: a longer block for generally making the atmosphere of the site toxic would be appropriate for Sander Säde and Alexia, IMO. As far as I remember, I wasn't involved in the Digwuren RFAR, except for giving evidence on a specific minor issue involving Digwuren only. But I read the input of these two on the workshop, and saw their unrelenting assumption of bad faith--atrocious faith. So it was with misgivings I appealed to Sander to not restore Alexia's comment, again, on Ghirla's page. And sure enough, he answered with his characterestic grab at the opportunity to insult and to wikilawyer; telling me I had violated rules (always with the rules) in removing incivil comments from Ghirla's page--did I think I was "psychic", to know what Ghirla wanted removed? Or did I imagine I was an "almighty Wikipedia god", as admins here generally do? I could have written it myself, having followed his typical comments on RFAR Digwuren. Alexia was a bit more rude on the same subject, and creepily personal about my likely psychological problems. Apparently these include, but are not limited to, a secret passion for Ghirlandajo. ("Even a wish for a happy life seems to upset you these days... I wonder why... Missing him that much?") (edit summary: "More wellwishes".) Why, seriously, does Wikipedia put up with users who puff poison smoke over any and all attempts at communication? Please read the entire conversations and then tell me if you think 24 hours each was a long block for the behavior shown, including calling El C "Hitler with adrenaline overdose", and making both El C and me--of all people--responsible for the Durova scandal--which, as it happened, we were pretty instrumental in showing up--but who cares, it happened on Wikipedia and we both edit Wikipedia... so why not insist it was all the fault of El C's cat?  Bishonen | talk 21:10, 8 December 2007 (UTC).

Basically:


 * Alexia posted message saying that she is not exactly waiting Ghirlandajo back, but wishes him well in real life.
 * Irpen reverts him.
 * Sander Säde restores the version.
 * All well known names, Bishonen, Jehochman, El C come up somewhere.
 * Something happens which I don't really understand.
 * Biggest contributor to estonian related topics with no blocks in his history gets blocked and his user page protected.
 * Some unrelated administrators decides to provide unblock ONE HOUR EARLYER. And gang jumps to his neck aswell.

I know you enjoy your little powergames, and cabals or circles of trust or animal-picture-exchanges or secret mailinglists or whatever you wish to call them. But that is stupid. This is not a god damn World of Warcraft. It is supposed to be an encyclopedia.

Instead of reverting, Irpen could have politely asked Alexia to tone down or remove the comment. Or was the comment incorrect at first place? I am not exactly waiting Ghirlandajo back either. I didn't like how he handled conflicts. But at the same time he was a good contributor, so I do think wikipedia misses some when losing him.

But either way, those "friendship-groups" you are holding here damage wikipedia MUCH MUCH MUCH more than Alexias comment. Every day many good contributors are leaving the project because they accidentally stepped on someones toes and group of cabalists gangs up on them. It's on the news of EVERY country! Wikipedia is losing credibility every day because of this. In next few years, it has nothing left. And the wikipedia haters cheer as their predictions that wikipedia eats itself with the present oligarchy have come true. Suva Чего? 22:30, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
 * He was blocked for calling Ghirlandajo a "liar and a hate monger" (the reason for the block) after being mildly warned not to place negative things on opponents' talk pages. Yes, I caught this on Bishonen's talk page, so what? That this user compared me to Hitler afterwards, and you, Suva, defend him speaks volumes about you. I'm not sure what is the underlying motive behind your diatribe, nor will I speculate. El_C 22:44, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Oh, now I understand the underlying reason, Suva; a five-second glance at your contribs reveals you are part of that ethno-national dispute. El_C 22:52, 8 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I am not protecting anyone. I only thought it was not necessary nor good idea to protect Ghirlas talk page. And I specially think that the blocks were unnecessary. And I specially-specially think that assuming bad faith towards the unblocking administrator who wasn't aware of the arbcase is unnecessary. Sander and Alexia are just people who I know. But at the same time this is not isolated case I disagree on. Suva Чего? 22:58, 8 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Hi, Suva. I was very disappointed to see you falling in with Sander's and Alexia's chorus on Sander's page, as well as joining the battleground here on ANI. I thought you held yourself above that stuff (shrug). Secondly, aren't you forgetting something in your nice friendly summary of Alexia's original message? Her edit summary. Perhaps you didn't notice it, or didn't relate it to what Irpen had just been saying. Bishonen | talk 00:10, 9 December 2007 (UTC).


 * I had three connections with the case. A) I find that everyone has right to leave other users messages, and users have right to discard messages from their own talk page. I felt it was bad taste to remove someones comments from someone elses talk page although it was not actual vandalism. B) I don't like active contributors being thrown away from the project. C) I don't like people assuming bad faith everywhere while when I would do it I would get blocked instantly.
 * Other than that, I find this whole matter pointless and childish, from both... erm... From every side that is now involved. Suva Чего? 02:36, 9 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Couple of points. First, there seems to have been a defect in enforcement as the Arbitration case specifies that editors must be placed on notice before they can be blocked.  I have created a log for warnings at Requests_for_arbitration/Digwuren and given Alexia Death and Sander Sade proper notice. Second, the idea that, absent this technical quibble, one admin would reverse another admin's block of a legitimate Arbitration action without discussion or consultation either on this noticeboard or with the blocking admin is rude at best.  Would Daniel Case care to explain how Alexia and Sander's edits do not fall under the editing restriction applied in this case?  . The restriction shall specify that, should the editor make any edits which are judged by an administrator to be uncivil, personal attacks, or assumptions of bad faith, he may be blocked for the duration specified in the enforcement ruling below.  This is not some random disputable civility block.  These are editors who have demonstrated such bad behavior across such a broad range of articles that Arbcom has placed them under a very broad restriction.  Was Daniel Case perhaps not familiar with this Arbitration?  Really, the fact that only an hour is left is an argument for not unblocking early; unblocking with only an hour left gives every impression of being done specifically to get a dig in at the blocking admin. Thatcher131 22:10, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I was unaware of the editing restrictions. Had I been, I would have let the block stand. There was no provocation intended, really. It would have meant a world of difference had the talk page discussions regarding the block(s) referred to the case (i.e., in the form of the warning you mentioned), particularly since it was not filed under either user's name. Daniel Case (talk) 22:32, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
 * It certainly looks as if you did this, an hour before the block expired, to legitimize the attacks against me. El_C 22:46, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I felt Alexia should have been allowed to initiate a discussion over here. That's all. I have zero interest in your recent editing history or anything else you do outside of this block. We already have enough users prone to conspiracy theories to explain everything; we don't need administrators who are. Take some time away from the box and cool off for a while. I did. Daniel Case (talk) 23:09, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Whatever. El_C 23:28, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

I see the discussion I felt we needed to have has started below, and since I don't consider myself an involved party in those issues I will just go back to editing, to, you know, creating and improving content, as we are all supposed to do. I will in the future strive in complicated situations to see if there's some ArbCom strictures, and of course contact the blocking admin. But otherwise, cheerio. Daniel Case (talk) 03:08, 9 December 2007 (UTC)


 * That seems wise. - Jehochman Talk 03:10, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Again, Daniel Case, that is not credible. El_C 03:21, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Even I was not aware you had logged it as enforcement block. How was he supposed to know?--Alexia Death the Grey (talk) 03:46, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

El_C has acted in a manner unbecoming of an admin
I meant to file something here immediately but as always, real life interfered.


 * A) I was told I was blocked for revertwaring. The reverwar is this dif only. One revert is not a revertwar. The editing restriction does not come into play here. Its not a content dispute nor was I blocked for any incivility. I also haven't edited anything Eastern Europe related in months.
 * B) Reverting other peoples comments on other persons talk page cannot be right. I always respect page owners wishes in regard of my messages, so even if I was out of line, its was not El_C-s place to make that decision.
 * C) When El_C posted this on my talk page I was already past the minor incident and peacefully reading a book. IMHO the whole message is written in very hostile tone and with intent to escalate the situation. Any attempts to explain or defuse the situation were countered with immeasurable hostility.
 * D) I changed my decision about filing an unblock request because El_C Reverted my personal opinion about his actions and then protected my user page effectively using his admin rights to gag me. His actions are not actions of a respect worthy admin.
 * E) The block explanation at the ArbCom page was added retroactively almost two hours later and with rather different reasoning than the block itself. That to me looks like an attempt to legitimize impulsive block decision. This is also apparent in the fact that neither on my talk page nor in the block info arbcom is mentioned at all as factors twoards the block.
 * F) El_C has exhibited clear personal dislike for me and Sander, persistently failing to assume good faith, and thus is not sufficiently uninvolved editor to make block decisions.

As an amusing side note, it took a day on unblock IRC channel until one admin dared to remove the restriction from my user page so I could actually file the unblock request. I got told pretty directly by an admin that he do not wish to get involved in fear of prosecution along the lines of the thread above. --Alexia Death the Grey (talk) 23:57, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

A. You were blocked for reverting insults back in (the lacking sunshine bit), after being warned to go do something else, or at least cut down on the innuendo. B. You, or your content allies, do not get to demoralize inactive users who are your content opponents, with negative comments when others are placing friendly greetings for them to return. That is highly disruptive and combative. C. The protection was preventing people from adding further positive comments to this user's talk page, because you and your allies were revert warring over having your demoralizing negative comments in. That's what you were warned about, upon me lifting the protection. So that's you would not revert again. Undoubtedly, you were satisfied in having the page protected. D. We were having a discussion after this at the time and you made no indication that you changed your mind about your "solidarity" vigil. E. We can start a new arbitration case, if you and Daniel Case and everyone else would like and if the Committee wishes to accept it. That would be my preferred course. F. Among the various insults was comparing me to Hitler, while I insulted neither of you. G. Wikipedia is not a battleground. So stop using underhanded, demoralizing tactics against your content opponents. El_C 00:43, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

I do hope You don't take the indents i added to your comment as an ofense.
 * A: AGF? Or is Assuming worst and gagin now the policy?
 * B: Demoralize? You are taking this way too personally you know. I was trying to cheer the person and make it clear that I hold no grudges.
 * C: Im sorry but the reply does not make sense... A lot of Assuming Bad Faith... I had just said good night, making it clear im going to retire.
 * D: We could start another Arbitration, true, but it would be wasted. I'm no longer an active editor as is and my experience with arbcom kind of took away the illusion that it can actually solve anything. However you are free to do just that.
 * F: I Have not used the H word to you or anybody. I expressed my opinion that you are a lousy admin and thats what Im doing here now.
 * G: If it is not a battleground why do you keep attacking me? I cant stop something I have NEVER done.

--Alexia Death the Grey (talk) 00:59, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I am not going to respond to these provocations. El_C 01:09, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

You both need to calm down. Alexia, when you are told to stop doing something by an administrator, chances are he is not trying to get you, but rather trying to stop disruption to Wikipedia. If you have any questions regarding why he is telling you to stop, politely ask him on his talk page, and try to avoid using derogatory terms toward him or her. Also, when you lose your cool, it's best to back away from the Wiki for a while - I see you have tried this, however another thing you should do is try to do other things and avoid interaction with the editor and/or administrator in question, unless you have no choice but to do so, and if you must, use polite terms - for example, don't compare them to Hitler. Disputes over civility will not improve anything.

EL_C, I applaud many things you do as an administrator, however you should really try to avoid protecting the talk page of a user you are in a dispute with in favor of trying to find common ground with him/her. Also, when you feel you have been attacked, address it politely on the user's talk page, instead of immediately threatening to block the user. As an administrator, you should try to prevent disputes as much as possible, and when you are in one, it is best that you try to provide reasoning as to why the editor you are disputing with has violated policy, so that the editor knows what to avoid for next time. Maser ( Talk! ) 01:04, 9 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I wasn't in a dispute with any of these users. This was the first time I ever interacted with them. El_C 01:06, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
 * El_C, How come I remember having some contact with you before? Are you not friendly with Ghrila and im not sure but did you not support his "anti-fashist" editors campaign?--Alexia Death the Grey (talk) 01:12, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm not "friendly with Ghrila" since I don't recall interacting with him and am unaware of what you may or may not be remembering. El_C 01:34, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Im calm as ice. And as I said, I have not compared anybody to Hitler, I resent the persistent accusations of having done so. You can also see that for me the trigger issue was over by 3 in the afternoon. Then queue El_C with block threahs and theres no way to explain anything.--Alexia Death the Grey (talk) 01:12, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
 * El C, I am not familiar with this particular discussion, but you do some things that are not appropriate, polite or correct. You edit war, accuse users of things that haven't done (like earlier with me) and have some problems with incivility.  These are things that would get everyday editors warned and blocked.  You are a good admin but you need to relax and chill. -  NeutralHomer  T:C 01:17, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Neutralhomer, piling on is not to your credit. If you think I have issues with civility, which I have never been seriously accuse of, feel free to submit these. I told you that adding the resolve tag to the Calton thread a few months ago was what I was referring to. As far as I know, you have issues with civility and edit warring, which is why I asked you to avoid Calton, and I realize that you have been angry at me ever since, but I still think it was for the best. It was getting too much. El_C 01:32, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Umm... I got blocked for saying people needed a bit of sunshine in their lives... Whats going to happen to you?--Alexia Death the Grey (talk) 01:31, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I asked you to cut down on the innuendo. But you kept it up up to telling me that I "lack sunshine in my life." It appears you fail to realize when your innuendo is negative, so it's best to avoid innuendo, in general, except with those whom you are very friendly with. At the event, you should not have restored that innuendo once I removed it, having already been warned twice. El_C 01:44, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
 * May it be also noted that this is not civility dispute. I claim that El_C has a acted impulsively and with bias, escalated the situation instead of trying or even allowing it to diffuse, failed grossly to assume good faith, abused his admin rights to block and gag a person by page protection and then trying to pass that wrongful block as ArbCom enforcement.--Alexia Death the Grey (talk) 01:20, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Try to assume good faith yourself, Alexia. There are several things you have said that can be interpreted as incivility. No it is not a civility dispute, but it appears to be a dispute rooted in uncivil statements. Maser  ( Talk! ) 01:39, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I have been trying to assume it all along. It is apparent from all my conversations with El_C from last night. But when all you attempts of diffusing and dismissing the issue are countered with more accusations, I admit I may have lost my cool slightly. But that was last night. I Have brought this issue here here because I hope for unbiased input from other people and hoping ultimately that this critique helps El_C to become a BETTER admin.--Alexia Death the Grey (talk) 01:46, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
 * PS: Could you please state your opinion in the matter of logging the block to arbcom page two hours later and with out a beep about it either in block message nor on my talk page.--Alexia Death the Grey (talk) 01:51, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I have no opinion on the matter, and simply see that you are arguing over a block issued. I would also like to add that I am not an administrator. Allow me to give an example of an edit that could be viewed as uncivil:


 * Edits like these can be viewed as uncivil because you intensify them with capitalized letters and it shows a lack of AGF in the sense that you misunderstand the reason for the block and assume he blocked you for giving people nice messages, which you believe he saw as trolling. Maser  ( Talk! ) 02:00, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Oh? Good to know. Showing emotion=Bad. And no, its not the block. 24 hours is negligible length and I would not make a beep if it was given by a properly neutral and well meaning admin. I am here to discuss El_C-s behavior.--Alexia Death the Grey (talk) 02:06, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
 * An emoticon is not an amnesty to misconduct. I doubt you would have accepted a 24 block hours from anyone. El_C 02:24, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm used to dealing with disruptive users. This isn't new for me, and my record is rather exemplary when it comes to the ehtno-national disputes & related spillovers. As I'm quite active, I attract some questionable attention, but it's to be expected. El_C 01:56, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I resent your insinuation that I am a disruptive user just as much as you resented the comparison to the terror of 20th century. And this is not one of those ethnic disputes.It started with some well wishes for Christs sake... --Alexia Death the Grey (talk) 02:02, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Amazing. As if being disruptive on Wikipedia is even close to being compared to Hitler, but you resent it "just as much," thereby defeating your own point. Once again, going to an inactive content opponent's talk page to tell him that you are not looking forward to him coming back after someone else wishes his return, is hardy well wishing, even if you add an emoticon & say, 'oh, but all the best in real life.' It works to create a toxic atmosphere for naught. El_C 02:13, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I did not intend to create a toxic atmosphere. My intent was opposite actually. In my mind the statement looked along the lines Ive liked the quiet and i cant say that I miss you, but know that I do not hold a grudge. The toxins came from people like assuming I was sneering etc. and refusing to give up the accusation long after it should have been forgotten.--Alexia Death the Grey (talk) 03:03, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I believe you. The problem is how that comment comes across (flippant, demoralizing), not your intent. El_C 03:12, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
 * It comes across like that to someone expecting the worst. However this topic just like that block are really not about that comment. It is about your actions. Pretty please try to explain yourself without a torrent of accusations? --Alexia Death the Grey (talk) 03:24, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
 * You resent being called disruptive "just as much" as I resent being compared to Hitler? "Just as much"? How do you think that comes across? El_C 03:29, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Don't bother answering that. I am done speaking to you. El_C 03:32, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Surely if the comment was not an outright, vulgar personal attack then it is upto the person whose talkpage Alexia posted on to take action, if he even felt it necessary. We are not Team America: World Police. --For Queen and Country (talk) 02:16, 9 December 2007 (UTC)


 * If the comment is negative and undermines positive interaction (urging the inactive user to return), then, no it is not helping the project. El_C 02:20, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Its a was an attempt at being nice and burying the hachet. Really... I will say this again: The way some people read into it is outright silly.--Alexia Death the Grey (talk) 02:49, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Few people seem to have thought so, hence the edit war. Even Sander Säde‎, who, having revealed that he feels the user in question is just "a liar and a hate monger" (I don't think he believed your comment was... uplifting to Ghirla) admitted he thought it was flippant. El_C 03:01, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
 * This is ludicrous. El_C is one of the most fair admins I know. He deals with difficult and controversial subjects and users all the time. He has great intuition and is very considerate with editors when the situation get's hot. He knows when to "hold them and when to fold them". I trust him with the tools 100 times over many other admins. I have an extensive block log, and there are 2 admins that I have experienced on that log that could use some of the positive traits and knowledge as El_C, and be here instead labled as "unbecoming of an admin". So if I were ever blocked by El_C, I would know I was way out of line, and would accept it as a just block. (and I would not use expletives, either. :p). - Jeeny (talk) 04:41, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Fasttrack to ArbCom
This needs to be resolved decisively. I am no fan of "civility blocks" per se. They tend to aggravate the situation rather than alleviate anything but exceptional attacks deserve an immediate action. Hate speech should be dealt with on the spot. Calling someone a "Hate-monger" or "Hitler with adrenaline overdose" deserve a crackdown even if "liar" can be overlooked.

Harassing the distressed user with "I don't want you back and we enjoy you gone" is totally disgusting even if "sweetened" by emoticons and best real life wishes. Add to this a revert war to keep this baiting from being removed by editors who try to convince the jewel to get back to the crown. Remember, we are talking about the user whose contributions to this project may exceed the entire archives of this Wikilawyering board and many FA's under the belt.

And now, this is turned against an admin who tried patiently to convince those fellows to stop before blocking. Seems like nothing is learned.

ArbCom material. --Irpen 01:16, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I dunno, ArbCom is usually a last resort. Is it necessary at this point? Maser  ( Talk! ) 01:42, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Have the remedies from the previous decision been exhausted? They do apply here, don't they? Jd2718 (talk) 02:09, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

All I was trying to do was to keep hostile ethno-national content disputing parties away from each other. I did not expect Daniel Case and Coren to undermine my efforts. El_C 02:17, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Eeh! None of this would have happened without your unnecessary threats and blocks and especially protections.--Alexia Death the Grey (talk) 02:37, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
 * When I warn a user not to restore negative comments on his content opponent's talk page and his response is that said user is not his content opponent, "just a liar and hate-monger," then we have a problem. If that user then compares me to Hitler, it compounds it. El_C 02:46, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
 * El C....check your talk page. - NeutralHomer  T:C 02:47, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

I dislike the title of this section. Fasttrack to arbcom should not be under discussion for something as simple as a civility block. Durova Charge! 02:49, 9 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Durova, it's best to familiarize yourself with the matter before making suggestions. Judging from what you wrote, you did not familiarize yourself with the subject on which you opine. First step is to read the thread and the second step is to check the diffs and contributions.


 * This is not about "civility block". This is two users triumphantly harassing their content opponent, Ghirlandajo, who left Wikipedia distressed by them and their likes. When told to stop, their turned into harassing the admin, and then another admin who've got old issues with the original admin unblocks and encourages such activity. The problem is not a "simple civility block". Never was. --Irpen 02:58, 9 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Read it from the top, Durova, from the top. El_C 03:03, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Allow me to restate my view more clearly. I dislike this recent trend toward fast tracking administrators into arbcom at the expense of normal dispute resolution.  Traditionally that's been done for wheel wars and not a lot else.  Durova Charge! 03:47, 9 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't believe the arbitration remedies have been exhausted. These editors have a broad civility restriction in place which may be enforced by any uninvolved admin by blocks of up to one week in duration.  Unfortunately I am going to be out of town for a couple days so I can't mop this mess myself. Thatcher131 03:11, 9 December 2007 (UTC)


 * The problem is Coren and Daniel Case unprotecting and unblocking, respectively, in way which, to quote yourself: "gives every impression of being done specifically to get a dig in at the blocking admin" (moi). El_C 03:18, 9 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Coren is a new sysop. He may not be aware that a blocked user sees a screen that contains the email address of the unblock mailing list.  Protecting a user talk page does not prevent them from requesting an unblock.  I agree that Daniel Case should have consulted El C before reversing the block.  Daniel seems to admit that above, so that issue is no longer in dispute. - Jehochman  Talk 03:25, 9 December 2007 (UTC)


 * That, actually, is entirely besides the point. An editor has come on #wikipedia-en-unblock (one of the suggested recourses).  At their request, I have unprotected the page to allow the placement of an unblock template, after making sure that abuse of that template was not the reason it was protected in the first place (it wasn't).  The request was reasonable (especially since there was only an hour's worth of protection left or so), and given that the only valid reasons to fully protect a user talk page is to stop abuse of unblock templates (which wasn't taking place) or other disruptions (which placing an unblock template most assuredly isn't), unprotecting the page was the only reasonable thing to do. As for the wild accusation of "collusion" with David to somehow "undermine" the blocking admin...  The sum total of our interactions (on- or off-wiki) is two comments of mine on his talk page months ago, regarding the DRV of an article he closed.  &mdash; Coren (talk) 08:19, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
 * It is highly questionable that "unprotecting the page was the only reasonable thing to do," and certainly without discussing it with me first, and certainly with one hour left, so as to effectively give the user moral standing in their lack of restraint during the block, which is why the page was protected. Don't cheer on people who compare me to Hitler, if you wish to have your page open during the 24 hour you are blocked. I think that's reasonable, not you giving this user sumbolic legitimacy one hour before the block expires. And, yes, the last hour of 24 (1 of 24) is amazing for this your highly offensive "only reasonable thing to do," (meaning, do, and tell me after the fact), but I made no "accusation" of collusion, which is, in any case unlikely. But your action was discreditable. El_C 11:08, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Coren, remember what I told you about getting flack for unprotecting my pange in IRC? I really wish I had been wrong.--Alexia Death the Grey (talk) 13:16, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
 * There is no apparent need for additional sysop actions in this case. ANI is not part of Wikipedia's dispute resolution system. Therefore, this conversation should end now, or move elsewhere.   If anyone would like to continue the discussion, my talk page is available.  Thank you. - Jehochman  Talk 03:25, 9 December 2007 (UTC)


 * (ec) There seems to be confusion over exactly what is being discussed here. I thought I was replying to Irpen who argues in this sub-thread that ArbCom is needed to resolve the fact that two disruptive editors were hounding a third editor and now are hounding two admins.   For the record, El_C was within his discretion to make an enforcement block; the unprotection is a trivial matter because it is only meant to stop the editor from abusing the unblock request and stopping blocked editors from communicating altogether should be rare; and the unblock without discussion was rude and uncalled for.  I don't believe Arbcom would accept a case against Daniel Case unless he was deeply intransigent and had done this before, and I don't believe a case against Sander and Alexia is needed because they can be blocked by any uninvolved admin on their civility parole.  Hope this covers all the bases. Thatcher131 03:27, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Thats the crux of the issue. El_C did not make an ArbCom enforcement block. He blocked me seemingly impulsively and then two hours later framed it as a an enforcement block with totally different explanation than on my user page or block log.--Alexia Death the Grey (talk) 03:38, 9 December 2007 (UTC)


 * El C seems to believe there is a history to Daniel Case's action; that past negative interaction influenced the unblock. However this does not seem at all obvious. Unless there is much more to this history, it would be best to assume a simple error and move on. Jd2718 (talk) 03:35, 9 December 2007 (UTC)


 * If I may make a suggestion....since it seems that everyone is forgetting what this whole thing was all about, I think all involved (which if you keeping score, appears to be El_C, Alexia Death, Daniel Case, and Coren....I think) should just call it a night and just let it go.


 * Since this discussion has been going on for, what looks like 24 hours, I think all involved need to just take a break. Nothing is worth getting this upset about.  Just let it go guys.


 * I would also suggest that Alexia Death apologize to El_C for the "Hitler" reference, that was really uncalled for. Take Care.... NeutralHomer  T:C 03:43, 9 December 2007 (UTC) (full disclosure: The above editor is not an admin, but an editor voicing an opinion.)
 * How many people do I need to point it out? I did not say or even hint anything about Hitler, or liars or hate-mongers. Sander did. You can check from my user page. Please get your facts straight before suggesting an apology. Really.--Alexia Death the Grey (talk) 03:54, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
 * No, she basically just cheered him on, which is why her page was protected. El_C 11:17, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Cheered him on? Thats ridiculous. Heres the diff:. I do not encourage anybody to be incivil. Ever. I also cant silently agree to abuse of authority to escalate a minor issue into a full scale disaster.--Alexia Death the Grey (talk) 13:05, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

(ec) Re: Neutralhomer. The Hitler thing may bounce off. Experienced admins are supposed to have thick skin. This is not the main matter.

The main matter is as follows. As a result of the atrocious climate due to the conduct of some users exemplified well in this incident, followed by the ArbCom's sloppiness, a star user, an author of more FA's and GA's than all of the WP:ANI "contributors" combined was forced to abandon Wikipedia and stopped responding to inquiries. My attempt to cheer him up (not even sure when he would get it) and encourage his return, provoked another series of trolling. The triumphant nonsense of joy over the success in hounding off the opponent who produced more golden content here than those fellows and their friends ever will was nothing but harassment. Any admin who cares about Wikipedia's is bound to protect its best contributors. I would even put it stronger. Creating and maintaining comfortable conditions for the content writers should be the first and foremost duty of the admincorps.

When El_C was doing just that, he faced becoming a target himself. I think he can handle it. But that other admins for whatever reasons chose to encourage disruptions to settle their scores with El_C is alarming. El_C can and should handle being called names. But if he cares about the project, and he does, he should take an action when he sees such disruption and harassment of its best editors. --Irpen 03:57, 9 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I hear and agree with everything you just said. I just figured that after some 24 hours and people getting confused maybe it was time to walk away for a couple.  I do hope, though, that the editor who "forced to abandon Wikipedia" does come back.  We have lost ALOT of very good editors and writers here on Wikipedia and it makes me sad when another one goes. -  NeutralHomer  T:C 04:17, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I do also hope Sander returns. He is a good contributor who when pushed let his emotion get the best of him.I believe firmly that ANYTHING, even rules enforcement can be done without hostility and knowing how to to do that is in my mind critical to a good admin. If one is too personally upset to do that that one should stay away and let others pick it up. If they don't then one was most likely overreacting anyway and things will solve them naturally. --Alexia Death the Grey (talk) 12:54, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Has anyone ever considered term limits for admins? I am NOT pointing to anyone above, but it seems like many admins just get worse and worse as time goes on, and the concerns of the minority group who opposed their arbcom candidacy come true. On a related note, will Jim Wales ever retire? T (talk) 09:00, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Exasperating. El_C 11:16, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Irpen, I am surprised that you are advocating taking this to Arbcom, since the last case you started resulted in Petri Krohn being given a one year ban. Martintg (talk) 11:20, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Consensus?
Will there be a consensus in the matter? Or will this just be left hanging in the air because neutral people are too scared of the matter leaving a mark on their reputation to speak up?--Alexia Death the Grey (talk) 07:05, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Enforcement block?
I don't understand how the block applied by El_C could be considered an enforcement block, since the ArbCom ruling requires that notice must be given first, before any future conduct can be subject to enforcement blocking. The intent of this ruling is to give the editor one chance to pull back before applying an enforcement block. El_C never gave them that opportunity. This is not wiki-lawyering, just plain common sense, since the aim is to encourage productive editors, not drive them away, as has apparently happened with Sander Säde, a very productive editor, leaving the project as a result of this.

My reading of the sequence of events is that El_C acted precipitously and applied general admin block. I can't see how Thatcher131 can claim that proper notice was given, since that notice was given after the block was applied. It seems to me that Thatcher131 applied this notice User_talk:Sander_Säde, without even understanding or comprehending the meaning of it. In the interests of fair play, both Sander Säde and Alexia Death should be removed from the Requests_for_arbitration/Digwuren. Martintg (talk) 11:05, 10 December 2007 (UTC)