Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/Harassment (Worldtraveller, InShaneee, etc)

User:Worldtraveller has been harrassing me nonstop for months now, and has ramped up his attacks today with the addition of threats of further harrassment. Can someone please look into this? --InShaneee 22:06, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
 * context: Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive70 . Here's an angry user feeling he was wronged. But hey, it's a 24h block from two months ago. The block was debated for longer than its duration back then, people objected it, but nobody seems to have reverted it. Have you asked  Worldtraveller to stop posting to your talkpage? If you did, and if he feels he still wants to pursue the issue, you should kindly ask him to open an admin conduct RfC or look for arbitration. dab (𒁳) 22:30, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I've actually apologized to him (should still be on his talk page) for my error in judgement. He's actually already opened an RfC on me (which was deleted for lack of certification within the required time limit). I'm really not looking for consequences against him, I'd just like to be able to edit in peace here. --InShaneee 22:35, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I've simply been looking for meaningful dialogue. InShaneee has responded directly to my many questions exactly once.  But he's found the time and energy to accuse me of ridiculous things like harassment and personal attacks on plenty of other forums.  Frankly I think an administrator who first of all either didn't understand or decided to ignore the blocking policy (I've been trying to find out which), and then persistently ignores inquiries regarding his contra-policy block, should not be an administrator at all.  If InShaneee seriously thinks that being held accountable for administrative actions is threatening, then that's another reason why he is a very poor administrator.  Why did he ignore my questions on his talk page weeks and weeks ago?  Why is he not prepared to discuss his administrative actions?  Worldtraveller 22:50, 1 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Why don't we let bygones be bygones? Certainly, we want all editors (not just admins) to be accountable for what they do.  But, bringing up issues from the past may not be very helpful. Friday (talk) 22:53, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Friday, I totally disagree about the bygones in this case. Utterly. It's important to be ready to criticize admin actions, and it's hardly WT's fault that time has gone by while Inshaneee has stonewalled. Is that the way to get away with inappropriate admin actions now? InShaneee, WT's actions don't IMO constitute harassment at all. For myself I would actually prefer be forewarned if somebody was going to propose my deadminship, rather than have it descend from a clear sky, but YMMV. If you had been more willing to reply, which I don't see how an admin can justify not doing, WT would hardly have nagged—"harassed"—you to reply. WT has reasonable cause for what he's doing. I'm glad to see, however, that you're not accusing WT of personal attacks for criticizing your admin actions. And before somebody does start talking about personal attacks and warning WT on his page (as several people did last time WT used the phrase "terrible administrator"), I'd like to stress that there's nothing personal about criticizing somebody's use of admin tools, even in strong terms. Certainly not if they're willing to back up the criticism with facts, as WT has amply done. Admins may be freely criticized for their admin actions.  Bishonen | talk 23:02, 1 March 2007 (UTC).
 * I think HighinBC already responded to that better than I could. I know you're not a fan of mine, Bish, and have called for my DeSysOping more than once, but the tone here, as well as the manner in which this 'criticism' is being conducted, is what I take offense with. --InShaneee 23:13, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
 * What? Me? I thought you and I got on like a house on fire, the times we've worked together (and that made me feel really bad about posting the above, but I thought it the right thing to do). Me call for your de-sysopping? You must be thinking of someone else. Bishonen | talk 23:20, 1 March 2007 (UTC).
 * ...Shoot, I may be. I apologize. I've got about a good a memory for Usernames as I do for...whatever it was I was about to compare that to. My mistake :). I reiterate, though, my problem with his tone and manner. I apologized to him because I fully accept that I was in the wrong with him, but I don't know how else I can go about resolving this than that, especially considering the length of time since this happened. --InShaneee 23:28, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

(deindenting) InShaneee, what exactly is your problem with my tone? And how did my tone prevent you taking part in the discussion of your block that several of your fellow administrators took part in here? The problem I have with you is that you persistently and rudely ignore questions about your use of administrative tools. What I asked for, the day after I got blocked, was an explanation from you of how your block squared with policy. What I got, six weeks later, was a vague reply which gave no evidence that you understood blocking policy, or knew that your actions fell way outside it. Your failure to discuss things with your fellow administrators when you were criticised was inexcusable, and your repeated ignoring of my questions on your talk page is extremely poor conduct for an administrator.

And by the way, HighinBC basically entirely misunderstood the situation and what I was saying. Worldtraveller 23:39, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Seriously, if six weeks (sounds like more) has already passed, you need to forget about it. If you want to contest his block of over a month or so ago then go to RFAr and send them a case worth looking at than complaining at AN/I. — Moe  23:46, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't know if you've actually read the start of this thread; I didn't start this discussion. Worldtraveller 23:55, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
 * It doesn't to me —  Moe  03:28, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Your post doesn't make sense. You seemed to be saying I shouldn't have raised this issue here, when I didn't.  If you read the first post in the thread, you'll see that.  Worldtraveller 11:56, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is not a battleground. There was a disagreement about a block. InShaneee apologized. Frankly, that should be the end of the story. Apology not accepted? Ok, if really necessary an RFC could be filed... which happened and then failed due to lack of endorsement. Worldtraveller, you say you didn't start this thread... but that obviously is not the issue. You did write this. You continue to pick at this incident long after the fact. Would it be nice if InShaneee had given an explanation and/or apology that you could accept and move on from? Sure... but he isn't required to do that. Sometimes people won't accept any explanation. Giving an apology and saying 'my bad' ought to have been enough. Explaining how the mistake was made ought to have been enough. Continuing to pursue the matter for more than a month despite that is harassment. Calling someone a terrible administrator for not wanting to talk to you is harassment. Saying you will do everything you can to get someone de-sysoped is harassment. You have asked for more explanation than the paragraph InShaneee provided. He has declined to give it. You are free to consider this rude and even to make the case to others that it is rude... once. However, you are not free to continue harping on and threatening him about it day in and day out for a month. Threats, insults, continual reference to a past incident, turning Wikipedia into a battleground... it's obvious harassment and it needs to stop. Note, I haven't looked into the original block... it sounds like an overly aggressive application of BLP, which happens to be something I have been arguing against vigorously... but it isn't relevant. No matter how bad the initial action may (or may not) have been, we have procedures for dealing with disagreements that do not involve harassing, insulting, or threatening the person. Follow those procedures or you will be blocked. --CBD 13:16, 2 March 2007 (UTC)


 * It would certainly help if you had looked into the original block, before commenting on the fallout from it. It had nothing to do with WP:BLP.  I can hardly believe you are threatening me with blocking for trying fruitlessly to simply start a dialogue.  Worldtraveller 15:58, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Yet again, InShaneee seems to be ignoring the questions about his conduct. If trying to get answers about what appears to be violations of policy is harassment, then I will keep on harassing. The only reason I have continued pursuing this "long after the fact" is that InShaneee completely refused to discuss it at all for six weeks. That's shocking for an administrator, and I am not prepared to let misuse of administrative tools be glossed over like that. InShaneee owes everyone an explanation, not just me, and his refusal to listen to criticism is evidence that he's really not a very good administrator at all. Worldtraveller 09:38, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
 * You're beating a dead horse, you can quit with your harrassment anytime you like. — Moe  17:01, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Is that really supposed to be helpful input? Worldtraveller 17:14, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
 * If you don't get blocked and you stop persisting that InShaneee be desysopped, than I have done what the above statement was supposed to do. — Moe  17:18, 3 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Perhaps that advice is helpful. High InBC (Need help? Ask me) 17:17, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

And now CBD has blocked Worldtraveller for 24 hours for "Continued harassment of another user despite strong warnings. We have procedures for resolving disputes. Harassment and threats aren't part of them." And then the block was extended, by HighInBC because Worldtraveller protested at the first block.

I see no harassment or threats. What I see is a seriously annoyed user being ignored by an admin who blocked him. The half-hearted "apology" that was offered is clearly not sufficient as an explanation - certainly not sufficient for Worldtraveller. (I was looking for his original complaint on Inshanee's talk page or its archive, and see that they were removed with the comment "rv troll" . A great example of the failure to establish the dialogue that Worldtraveller has been seeking.)

Here we have an almost perfect example of how not to behave as an admin - repeatedly revert an anon without discussing, then block the anon, then refuse to discuss. Apparently, if you refuse to discuss for long enough, you get away with it. -- ALoan (Talk) 11:07, 4 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I am very much afraid that Worldtraveller has now gotten exactly what he was seeking. Over two months ago he stated his intent to leave Wikipedia and, like so many before him, found that he couldn't force himself to stay away.  Instead, an editor who was once almost universally lauded for his civility and his ability to work on controversial articles without revert-warring seems to have decided to instigate two separate revert wars, insult multiple editors (including myself) and quite deliberately set out to harass an admin.  Why did he  behave in such an uncharacteristic way?  Could it be that having found himself unable to jump, he sought to antagonize the community into giving him a push?  Some people seem to prefer to leave Wikipedia as a martyr rather than as a quitter.  — MediaMangler 12:04, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Worldtraveller blocked? Can't believe it.

In what sense does (this this or this) constitute harassment? Bloody hell. edward (buckner) 12:46, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Amazing. Why is an editor with hundreds of fine articles behind him, a fine stylist and clear thinker to boot, being blocked for some harmless (and apparently well deserved) comments about someone who spends most of his time writing trivial crap like this. There really is something very wrong here. Is this some kind of revenge for his (entirely constructive and accurate in my view) criticisms of Wikipedia? edward (buckner) 13:04, 4 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I have to agree with the opinion that this block is outrageously unjustified. WorldTraveller should probably have dropped the issue and gone on with something else, but that's not a blockable offence; I can see no sign of the supposed harrassment and threats &mdash; could someone provide diffs? --Mel Etitis  ( Talk ) 13:17, 4 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure he should have dropped the issue and gone on with something else. You can follow the original thread on  a copy I made here.  The issue over the original block in January is that an administrator abused his position, contravened policy, and gave a dishonest reason for a block designed to win the upper hand in a content dispute.  WT then got irritated by the fact that an admin who clearly knew his actions are being questioned refused to offer any kind of explanation, or to discuss.  The second block was simply for so-called 'harrassment' (see below). edward (buckner) 14:57, 4 March 2007 (UTC)


 * ALoan said "And then the block was extended, by HighInBC because Worldtraveller protested at the first block." Please be more accurate, it was for calling me and a few other admins fuckwits while asking to be unblocked that I gave extended the block. That is standard when people are abusive while asking to be unblocked. He is welcome back afterwards. High InBC (Need help? Ask me) 14:29, 4 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Personal attack removed. High InBC (Need help? Ask me) 15:10, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
 * You might want to consider that disparaging the contributions of another user, calling people fuckwits, and otherwise following Worldtraveller in ignoring Wikipedia's standards of civil behaviour only hurts your position. As it has his. --CBD 15:07, 4 March 2007 (UTC)


 * The original block seemed justified to me, only 24 hours after a month of not letting it drop. I don't think it is appropriate to make demands of another editor day after day for that long, nobody owes you a response. If that block is overtured, I ask that the 24 hours extension for personal attack stays, I have personally warned him in the past about insults, and so have others. High InBC (Need help? Ask me) 14:32, 4 March 2007 (UTC)


 * In what sense 'a month of not letting it drop'. Given the concern was a matter of principle and entirely justified, and given that 'Inshanee' refused to discuss the matter and was generally high-handed about it, why should he not continue.  Here, for the record, are the postings that WT made to Inshane's talk page:

edward (buckner) 14:57, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 3 March 2007
 * 3 March 2007
 * 3 March 2007
 * 28 February 2007
 * 23 February 2007
 * 19 February 2007
 * 14 February 2007 (ignore first section – another user)
 * 13 February 2007


 * People have said that there is no evidence of threats or harassment here. I consider, "Whatever I can do to get your administrative tools taken away from you, I will do.", to be an incontrovertible example of both. Tell me I'm wrong. Worldtraveller has repeatedly been told to follow dispute resolution procedures. Insulting people is not part of dispute resolution. Declaring a mission to get someone de-sysoped is not part of dispute resolution. Continuing to badger someone on their talk page for a month after they have apologized and asked to be left alone is not part of dispute resolution. The relative merits of the contributions of 'user A' vs 'user B' are irrelevant to whether there is harassment or not. The relative merits of the initial complaint vs the apology and explanation to it are irrelevant to whether there is harassment or not. All that is relevant is whether Worldtraveller has continued to pursue a campaign of insulting and badgering InShaneee rather than following dispute resolution procedures. He has. He was repeatedly warned not to do so. He ignored those warnings and continued . Ergo, he was blocked.
 * I'm all for confronting mistakes and/or bad acts by admins, but we have procedures for doing so that don't include hounding them after they have apologized and expressed a desire to be left alone. If Worldtraveller can't accept the explanation he got from InShaneee his next step would be to request mediation, RFC, or RFAr... not continue to badger InShaneee indefinitely. --CBD 14:59, 4 March 2007 (UTC)


 * (ec)The confusion seems to result from the belief the anybody deserves and answer from another, and has the right to demand it day after day even though he has been told it is disruptive. The fact is anyone has the right to ignore another user, and nobody is obligated to respond to the demands of another. In this diff he declares his intent to continue harassing, I am satisfied with the preventative nature of this block. High InBC (Need help? Ask me) 15:01, 4 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Bollocks. Given the issue, he should have got some sort of reply.  Read the postings.  edward (buckner) 15:08, 4 March 2007 (UTC)


 * He was told the correct action was to file an RFC or RFAR, but he ignored that advice and continued harassing. Dbuckner please be civil. High InBC (Need help? Ask me) 15:11, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Where was he told this? edward (buckner) 15:14, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
 * In this very thread. High InBC (Need help? Ask me) 15:16, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
 * But this very thread started on 1 March, did it not? And one of the comments that supposedly constituted 'harrassment' was made by WT on this thread.  And btw please don't leave v. unpleasant and harrassing message on my talk page, thank you very much.  Unbelievable.  edward (buckner) 15:20, 4 March 2007 (UTC)


 * No, if you insult other editors I will go to your talk page and leave a no personal attack warning. High InBC (Need help? Ask me) 15:21, 4 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Don't do it. Read carefully.  I said the editors in question seem to be behaving like f--wits.  As indeed they do.  Incredibly so.  edward (buckner) 15:25, 4 March 2007 (UTC)


 * That is still a personal attack. You cannot just stick "seems to me" onto an insult and sling away, that does not justify abusive language. I would not try to dance on the line of personal attacks. High InBC (Need help? Ask me) 15:28, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Arbitrary section break
Let's suppose for a moment that I was wrong. People can disagree on when something crosses the line into 'harassment'. What if repeatedly badgering someone about a past incident when they have indicated a desire to be left alone is NOT harassment? Even were that the case, I had clearly said that I believed it was... and that if WT continued doing it rather than following WP:DR he would be blocked. And thus, when he then said that if this was harassment, "then I will keep on harassing", he knew he was going to get blocked. A reasonable response to my statement that further harassment of this sort would result in a block would be to explain why refusing to follow dispute resolution procedures and instead continue hounding the target for answers is NOT harassment. Worldtraveller didn't do that (go figure). He said he was going to continue doing the things he knew I considered to be harassment. Even assuming I'm wrong about that, Worldtraveller clearly was being deliberately disruptive and doing precisely what he knew would result in himself being blocked. The subsequent 'shock' about this is thus highly disingenuous. Worldtraveller is certainly capable of 'doing the math' on 'if you continue to harass you will be blocked' + "I will keep on harassing" = block. So even if he wasn't, by some definition, harassing InShaneee Worldtraveller's behaviour was still a very bad idea. Rather than discuss the matter reasonably he insisted on doing the thing he had to know would get him blocked. And then using that inevitably as an excuse for 'shock', 'disgust', and personal attacks. However, I don't believe I was at all wrong about this being harassment. WT's inability to explain why he won't go to DR, his declaration of a vendetta to get InShaneee de-sysoped rather than to address the problem, and his deliberately provocative actions and 'outrage' at the inevitable block seem proof enough of bad action on his part. --CBD 15:42, 4 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Basically if the community tells you something is disruptive, and you keep doing it, then you are disrupting the community. It was only a 24 hour block, and I think that it was done to prevent disruption. High InBC (Need help? Ask me) 15:50, 4 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I've read the entire thread on this, including all the "harassing" posts to InShanee's talk page and it's making me feel quite ill. WT has every right to request a response from any user, and is absolutely justified in expecting an admin to respond to him about that admin's actions (that affected him).  This is NOT harassment, nor disruptive, and is in fact the appropriate course of action recommended at WP:DR.  IMO, CBD's warning was absurd and deserved to be ignored.  CBD's analysis of this (above) that WT was effectively asking to be blocked is also ridiculous.  Continuing doing the things he knew I considered to be harassment  doesn't mean "please block me", but "you're wrong, this is not harassment".   Rather than wheel war about this, I ask CBD to please reconsider this block.  I'd tend to forgive the very heated comment resulting in the extension of the block as well. -- Rick Block (talk) 16:48, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
 * You are correct that WT "has every right to request a response from any user, and is absolutely justified in expecting an admin to respond to him"... but that is all totally irrelevant, because it already happened. WT asked. InShaneee responded. Indeed, InShaneee said he was mistaken, apologized, and explained where he went wrong. I hope that everyone agrees that somewhere between asking once for an explanation and some bizarre extreme of responding to every comment the person makes with demands for a response (even after one is given), threats, insults, et cetera such communication passes from 'reasonable expectation' to 'blatant harassment'. Obviously, this situation falls somewhere between those two frames of reference. I believed that it had clearly crossed over into harassment and said so. Several other people agreed. Frankly, I find the it incomprehensible that people would claim things like, "You're clearly just a witless moron. How you became an admin I cannot begin to understand" and "Whatever I can do to get your administrative tools taken away from you, I will do", are NOT harassment. As I've said, opinions on where the line is drawn apparently differ... but alot of reasonable people agree with my view that WT crossed it a good ways back. I warned him to stop or be blocked, he refused with a clear intent to continue escalating towards that bizarre extreme, so he is blocked. As to the question of unblocking... it has become irrelevant. WT scrambled his own password. Whether the block were removed now or extended to indefinite there would be no difference... he can't log in to that account any more. Worldtraveller made his own bed... every step of the way and very deliberately. --CBD 17:48, 4 March 2007 (UTC)


 * And what do you think about the 24 hours I added for personal attacks? Do you also think that behavior is acceptable? I would like to point of that even a reasonable request can be harassment if you make it enough times. High InBC (Need help? Ask me) 17:08, 4 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Worldtraveller has already decided to leave, even though I do hope he comes back. His essay, WP:FAIL was very thought-provoking and it's a shame that he is leaving.  However, let sleeping dogs lie for the meantime.  I don't see the point of this continued discussion as, after reading all this, both sides did not act especially civil so nobody should be pointing fingers. MetsFan76 17:16, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

This is outrageous. Yet another established user blocked for defiance. I have been arguing on this board for a long time for the propriety of having patience with a user under a block; putting up with what they say; turning a blind eye even to attacks from them; even from pure vandals. Everybody seems to agree when I say stuff like that; and yet nobody seems ready to unblock such an egregious block of an established user—a very good user—as Worldtraveller? In view of the comments above, showing that there is nothing approaching consensus, or approval, for any of these blocks—the original, or the extension—I'm going to unblock. I would ask ask the original blockers to do it; but I see they have already ignored such requests, so I'll just do it myself. Bishonen | talk 17:45, 4 March 2007 (UTC).
 * PS; Ah, I see Geogre already did. Bishonen | talk 17:50, 4 March 2007 (UTC).


 * Bishonen, it's admins such as yourself that give me faith in Wikipedia. It is very encouraging to see someone stand up for what is right. CBD, you say it's irrelevant now that WT was blocked.  That is unfortunate as he was an excellent editor and while he may have been somewhat uncivil, it is clear that he is not all to blame for this fiasco. MetsFan76 17:54, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
 * You apparently missed the part about where he scrambled his password and can't log in whether blocked or not. As to my block being unjustified. No, no it wasn't. You call someone a "witless moron", threaten them, continue to harangue them after being asked to stop... normally you get blocked on the spot. Instead, I just warned him that I would block if he didn't stop and pointed him towards DR... he responded with a declaration that he would "keep on harassing", carried out that declaration, and I blocked as I had said I would. I find people excusing his egregiously bad behaviour as sickening as some have declared my block of him for it to be. If we are to allow users to openly declare and carry out campaigns of harassment against each other collaboration is dead. WT had made such declarations. He had to be told that it was not allowed and then blocked when he refused to heed that warning. --CBD 18:00, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
 * First off, I didn't "miss" anything. I have been following this since WT wrote WP:FAIL.  He has been hounded by other editors who disagreed with him since.  Enough so that he finally snapped.  Also, I am not "excusing" his behavior.  I found it to be in poor taste, however, I don't necessarily blame him.  Furthermore, WT has left Wikipedia.  He has dropped the issue.  Isn't it time that you follow his example?  If it is "irrelevant," then act like it is so.  Sometimes the best thing to say is nothing at all. MetsFan76 18:04, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually, I was responding to Bishonen... his rush to unblock 'missed' the fact that doing so was irrelevant since WT can't use that account now anyway. As to the rest, if you agree that his behaviour was "in poor taste"... what's the problem? I asked him to stop behaving badly. He refused. I blocked him. Should I have allowed him to continue behaving badly? Forever? At what point DO we block for bad behaviour? I thought that "witless moron" and the rest of it was a pretty good point at which to say, 'stop or else'. Should I have waited for death threats? Finally, on 'dropping the issue'... neither WT nor various others here have 'dropped' their objection to the block. They've said various things about it which seem to me clearly false (like, WT wasn't attacking / did not make threats / et cetera)... I'm correcting those mis-statements and explaining my position. If people want to move on that's fine with me, but it certainly does not seem to be the case. Thus far, people have seemed to want to claim that WT did nothing wrong. And that just isn't true. --CBD 18:24, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Unblocks
I unblocked. I did so because HighinBC was very much engaged in a polemic over the issue, and I felt that it was incorrect for him to block. Additionally, I felt that there was a preponderence of opinion here that a block, especially given the controversy, would be antagonistic. That's why I unblocked. It just seemed to be a hasty and incorrect action to perform a block. The angrier you are, the less you should reach for the button. Geogre 17:56, 4 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I certainly was not, what are you talking about? High InBC (Need help? Ask me) 17:58, 4 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I increased the block for personal attacks "fuckwits like CBDunkerson, HighinBC and InShaneee", not sure what polemics you are referring to, but that block was very justified, and I think your unblock is inappropriate. Even if you undid the first 24 hours for harassment the 24 hours I gave for personal attacks is clearly justified. High InBC (Need help? Ask me) 18:05, 4 March 2007 (UTC)


 * It seems clear to me that people are acting without having all the facts. Geogre and Bishonen rushing to unblock... because they are apparently unaware of the fact that Worldtraveller scrambled his own password and can't log in whether unblocked or not. Geogre making false claims in his unblock summary about 'involved admins' not making judgments... I wasn't involved until I made my judgment. Claims that there is no cause for block here despite statements like "witless moron", "fuckwits", and "Whatever I can do to get your administrative tools taken away from you, I will do" coming from WT. You're wrong here. He was blatantly violating civility policy and refusing to stop or pursue a less disruptive means of resolving the dispute. --CBD 18:14, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
 * If it's clear to you that I offered to unblock without being aware that WT had scrambled his password, you're in a fog. Please consider what a block is, and what it does. How it affects users. It's not a mere enforced wikibreak, it's a slap in the face. It's a shock. It's extremely humiliating for established, productive users. It's permanent dirt in your log. Unblocking is a gesture worth making regardless of whether the person can log in or not. Please give your imagination a little more exercise, CBD. Bishonen | talk 18:50, 4 March 2007 (UTC).


 * But there was the definite appearance of f---wittedness. In England, at least, that's a gentle rebuke for dim-witted behaviour or cluelessness.  Look what these guys did.  WT is one of the best editors in the Wiki.  I think he gets in the top ten for featured articles.  We should be doing everything we can to encourage editors like this to stay.  By contrast, the one called Inshane specialises in inane puerile drivel    of this sort, and contributes nothing at all to Wikipedia.  And he engages in this highly arbitrary action against a greatly respected editor, who naturally reacts rather badly.  He leaves about messages over a 1 month period, generally courteous and reasonable-minded, and the one called Shane rudely refuses to reply.  After leaving two more messages, he gets blocked.  Now that's really, well, I won't say the word.  edward (buckner) 18:37, 4 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I am trying to take a wikibreak now, I have interrupted it to deal with this accusation of sorts. I will look in on this later, but I will leave you folks with the assurances that my limited dealings with this person weeks ago have no bearing on the personal attack block I did, and I think it is a out of line to undo a block that was given for clear violation of the WP:NPA policy. High InBC (Need help? Ask me) 18:18, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
 * WP:NPA has no penalties. There is no such thing as "a personal attack block". If there was, it goes without saying that it would be inappropriate to block for an attack against yourself ("fuckwits like CBDunkerson, HighinBC and InShaneee"). This is a bad day for trigger-happy admins. Bishonen | talk 18:50, 4 March 2007 (UTC).
 * Are you saying that a user who has had several warnings about civility and personal attacks cannot be blocked for it? That is nonsense, this user was warned over and over to stop personal attacks, it is a blockable offense to ignore policy after several warnings. Do you really think that my name being included in the insult clouded my judgment so much that I saw an insult where there was none? That is a clear insult. The block was justified, it was not due to any sort of bias, and I resent the implication. NPA has no proscribed penalties, but it is subject to blocking. High InBC (Need help? Ask me) 18:57, 4 March 2007 (UTC)


 * [After edit conflicts]
 * I have yet to see the diffs that show that WT was involved in harrassment; all that has been shown is that, having been the subject of an unfair and unjustified block, he pursued the question with the blocking admin, hoping for justice. Unfortunately he found that the blocking admin continued to behave badly by refusing to respond to his requests for explanation, and that certain other admins have no more notion of justice than does a pile of bricks.  He lost his temper in the face of that (being human), and said things that doubtless he shouldn't have, however true they were.  In other words he was hounded into making a mistake, and was then blocked for it by the people who were hounding him.  How very edifying. --Mel Etitis  ( Talk ) 18:25, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Yay, tell it like it is, Mel. edward (buckner) 18:38, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Mel, that's a grossly untrue representation of the situation:
 * "said things that doubtless he shouldn't have, however true they were" - So you are endorsing as true his claim that InShaneee is a "witless moron"? If so, at this time I need to warn you about our WP:NPA policy.
 * "I have yet to see the diffs that show that WT was involved in harrassment" - If you don't consider the numerous diffs supplied to be proof then we differ on the meaning of harassment... but then you apparently think the "witless moron" comment was ok.
 * "Unfortunately he found that the blocking admin continued to behave badly by refusing to respond to his requests for explanation" - A false accusation. InShanee DID respond.
 * "In other words he was hounded into making a mistake, and was then blocked for it by the people who were hounding him." - He was blocked by me. My 'hounding' of him consisted of a single message telling him to stop harassing InShaneee and follow DR or he would be blocked. I did not hound him. Your implication that I both orchestrated (through continual hounding) and executed his block is a completely unjustified accusation.
 * What I'm seeing is alot of people who like Worldtraveller coming to his defense, but ignoring (or just not looking into) the fact that what he was doing WAS wrong. Unless you all really are in favor of calling people "witless moron" and publicly declaring vendettas. I mean, COME ON. He outright said that he was going to do everything in his power to get InShaneee. That's harassment. By any definition of the word. There is a point at which we have to say, "Stop". I believe he crossed it. And when I DID say "Stop", he refused. --CBD 18:46, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Honestly, if I am acting like a moron, I would want someone to tell me. That's the only way I will learn from my mistakes and grow as an editor.  Is calling someone a "witless moron" harsh?  Sure.  I would have said it differently but if WT thought InShaneee was acting poorly, he had every right to tell him so.  He just chose his words wrong. MetsFan76 19:05, 4 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Disagreeing with your actions and calling you names are different. That is why we even have guidelines on civility and personal attacks. If I felt that you acting in a moronic fashion, the proper route is for me to tell you that I didn't agree with your course...it is not to call you a witless moron. IrishGuy talk 19:08, 4 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Unless I'm mistaken, isn't that what I just said? MetsFan76 19:10, 4 March 2007 (UTC)


 * If that is what you were saying, then I must have interpreted it incorrectly. My apoligies. To me, it seemed as if you were excusing his actions by saying that at most he chose his words poorly. I think it was an outright personal attack and I'm not sure why so many others are excusing it. IrishGuy talk 19:12, 4 March 2007 (UTC)


 * No worries. That's what I was saying.  My only issue is that people are only looking at WT actions.  Personally, the entire issue is done now as WT, unfortunately, left.  The problem now is that HighinBC and CBD are continuing to debate this.  If it's over, then let it go.  MetsFan76 19:15, 4 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree. This is kicking a dead horse. IrishGuy talk 19:16, 4 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Sorry, folks. I went to lunch.  I wasn't trying to fail to respond to a question .  Ok, going through the thread above, I felt that HighinBC was getting very agitated about the issue.  To me, that made him interested.  I regard blocks as best done rarely and done by the disinterested.  I understand how hard that can be.  After all, having an opinion should be allowed.  Obviously, I have my own.  As for what that opinion is, it's that we simply should not block for NPA except, as the policy says, "extreme cases."  Continually asking a question isn't an extreme case, and the question wasn't asked continually.  Being high tempered when treated high handedly is also not an occasion for a block.  I've had Ideogram, for example, pester me -- in my view -- for a long time, and I've had people come to my user talk page to tell me that they would do all they could to get me demoted.  I did not block, and I am not a paragon of virtue.  Rather, I combined my view with what I took as the majority view here and added those to the fact that I considered HighinBC too involved to perform the unblock.  No meanness intended.  Geogre 20:16, 4 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I am baffled as to what irritation, or even involvement you are talking about. My involvement with this user is limited to simply warnings that his actions could very well lead to a block. I have no personal investment in whatever the debate about that month old block is. I don't even know what all that is about. I saw a user being warned not to be disruptive and threatening to continue, another admin blocked, I endorsed that block. To say I am to involved in a situation because I gave warnings is ridiculous. My block for personal attacks followed several warnings spanning weeks.


 * I don't mind being on the wrong side of consensus with an unblock review, so be it. Maybe the block for harassment was unjustified, maybe it was not. But my 24 hours block for personal attacks is an open and shut case, I ask that you return it by setting the block time to 19:35, March 4, 2007, 24 hours after the original block. I would do it myself, but that would be wheel warring. If you don't want to do this, then please be considerably more specific about my conflict of interest, or over involvement, or whatever it is that you think invalidated my block. Diffs would be nice. High InBC (Need help? Ask me) 20:32, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Timeline
As a public service, here's a rough timeline of events. For people unfamiliar with the case to better judge the merits of the various claims of who failed to do what when. May be incomplete, I haven't followed the events too closely myself.


 * 1st RfC about InShaneee filed, independent issue: 1 November
 * First attempted closure of RfC: 29 December
 * Contentious block of Worldtraveller by InShaneee 2 January
 * First complaint by Worldtraveller on ANI: 3 January
 * InShaneee's only immediate response after being criticised by several admins on the noticeboard: "governing the lesser Wikipedians"
 * Second attempt at closing first RfC: 10 January
 * Attempt at discussion by Worldtraveller on InShaneee's talk. Meeting with silence. Repeated attempts over several weeks, with WT becoming increasingly aggressive at InShaneee's failure to respond, finally leading to downright insults. Escalating from 3 January to 12 February
 * Renewed attempt at closing first RfC: 12 February
 * 2nd RfC filed by Worldtraveller: 14 February
 * InShaneee apologising to WT: 19 February. WT not satisfied with the apology, keeps criticising InShaneee harshly
 * First complaint by InShaneee on ANI: 19 February
 * Second complaint by InShaneee on AN: 1 March

Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:49, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the summary. As it happens, I saw that debate at the time but didn't pay attention to who the parties were and didn't realize it was connected. My brief synopsis would be; InShaneee was wrong two months ago, Worldtraveller is wrong now. Seriously, a two month (not one as I thought) vendetta? Not harassment? How can anyone seriously claim that continual haranguing of another user for two months is something we should encourage. We have dispute resolution procedures precisely to prevent that sort of long term inter-personal conflict. --CBD 19:22, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Time shouldn't be a factor here. What's wrong is wrong.  There's no statute of limitations here.  InShaneee was wrong then, WT is wrong now.  Whatever the case, in the past two months, they both acted poorly. MetsFan76 19:25, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree, except of course that the longer harassment goes on the bigger a problem it is. You say Worldtraveller acted poorly. I said that yesterday and told him to stop. He refused so I blocked him. Unless you think I should have allowed him to continue acting poorly, at this point I'm not really sure what it is about my action that you dispute. --CBD 19:46, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
 * My problem with your actions is that you are basically the only now making an issue about this. The horse is dead, stop kicking it. MetsFan76 19:48, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Let me get this straight - he was originally blocked for "harassment" because he kept trying to enter into a dialogue about the InShaneee's block in January, rather than either letting it go or escalating the dispute resolution? And then his block was doubled because (a) he was called someone a "witless moron" over a month ago (and 3 weeks after he first asked for an explanation) and (b) he lashed out when smacked with the first block? I am so cross I can barely type. -- ALoan (Talk) 21:01, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Hitting our selves on the head with a hammer
Worldtraveller did nothing to merit a block - he was demanding accountability of an admin who blew him off for weeks. His actions are a good thing. Admins have a duty to answer for themselves when they make blocks in error. Is this is obvious to everyone, or do we need another 1000 words of official policy.

Blocking our best editors for questionable reasons is rather like hitting ourselves on the head with a hammer to cure a headache. --Duk 19:21, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Ohhh... "His actions were a good thing". Of course... we should call everyone "witless moron" and "fuckwit". Because that'll be beneficial to the encyclopedia. How could I have missed it? :]
 * Seeking accountability is a good thing... if done through the proper dispute resolution procedures. Worldtraveller was urged to do so. He refused and insisted on attacks, threats, and harassment instead. That was not a good thing and it absolutely was deserving of a block. Yes, InShaneee's block was wrong. However, that does not give Worldtraveller license to behave as badly as he likes for as long as he likes. Wikipedia will be better off when people realize that BOTH 'executive' and 'personal' accountability are important. --CBD 19:37, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
 * CBD, do you think you are acting civil right now? The people who this really affects (WT and InShaneee) have not said a word for quite some time (unless I missed something).  Why don't you just drop it?  There is no need for you to defend your actions. MetsFan76 19:40, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
 * There isn't? Oh, my mistake. I thought people were calling me a "fuckwit", "twit", "ignoramus", who made an "outrageously unjustified", "absurd", "ridiculous", "trigger-happy" block. Good to know that there is 'no need to defend my actions'. I'd somehow gotten a different impression. :]
 * Perhaps some of these other people could stop calling me names and insulting me to help show how this is a dropped matter that I don't need to clarify my position on? Because... you know if I don't respond apparently that would make me a "terrible administrator" and a "witless moron". --CBD 19:54, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
 * "Sticks and stones......" MetsFan76 19:56, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

And now HighInBC has blocked one of the people defending WT... This is getting sillier and sillier, more and more hysterical &mdash; and less and less pleasant. --Mel Etitis ( Talk ) 23:07, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Block of User:Dbuckner
I see that HighInBC has now also blocked Dbuckner for 24 hours for personal attacks made in the above thread and continuing on Dbuckner's userpage. The user has argued against the block but has not posted an unblock request to date, and has instead e-mailed the blocking administrator. I find much of the language of Dbuckner's comments to be highly unnecessary, but am troubled by the concept of blocking a serious content contributor based in part on comments made in response to an administrator's comments on the user's own userpage. I post the matter here for comment. Newyorkbrad 23:01, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I see HighInBC has opened a separate thread at the bottom of this page. I'll copy this there so discussion can be in one place. Newyorkbrad 23:04, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Emailing the blocking admin is the *suggested procedure*, not that it actually ever works. We should be *free* to criticize admins use of their tools without getting blocked. Wjhonson 18:17, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

The point
In all this back and forth, the original question has got lost. What started all this was InShaneee, whether through stupidity or malice, ignoring policy and then refusing to be held accountable for his behaviour. I presume that CBDunkerson and HighinBC think that's fine. I'm sure anyone with an ounce of sense knows it's not fine. Why did he lie in his original block summary? Why did he fail to comment when his actions were criticised? Why did he fail to engage in any direct dialogue with his alleged 'harasser'? Why did he complain about his 'harassment' here instead of engaging in dialogue with his alleged 'harasser'? Is he pleased with himself about the way this has turned out? Has his behaviour met the standards expected of an administrator? 81.179.115.188 21:28, 5 March 2007 (UTC)


 * You are largely correct, 81, but, since Inshanee has said that he's going to take a break from blocking people, the hone has gone off the point somewhat. Unless there is an RFAR to follow, I'm not sure what more can be done.  If an RFAR does follow, there will be time to force the matters into the light.  Geogre 22:02, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I recommend an RFAR, 81. RFC's are useless timesinks when it comes to questioning someone's use of the tools. Just my opinion. Bishonen | talk 22:14, 5 March 2007 (UTC).


 * I have been considering opening an RFAR myself over this whole sordid mess. -- ALoan (Talk) 00:13, 6 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I just noticed that InShaneee has in the past unblocked himself after having been blocked for 3RR - a huge breach of WP:BP: . I think he doesn't believe that policy applies to him.  RfAr seems like the way to go.  WP:VP specifically notes that people have lost their adminship for unblocking themselves.  81.179.115.188 08:38, 7 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Moriori himself attempted to reverse the block you cite, since he acknowledged that 3RR was not violated. He unblocked InShanee (one less e in the name) by mistake.  Furthermore, Moriori was involved in an edit dispute with InShaneee, so he really shouldn't have blocked him at all.  — MediaMangler 09:23, 7 March 2007 (UTC)


 * So does WP:BP (Sysops are technically able to unblock themselves...but should absolutely not do so unless they were autoblocked as a result of a block on some other user) somehow fail to apply? 81.179.115.188 09:55, 7 March 2007 (UTC)


 * No opinion on the greater issue of whether further proceedings about InShaneee are appropriate; just a note on that self-unblock: You didn't get the point. It looks bad on the surface, but it was an absolutely legitimate IAR application. The other admin had clearly meant to unblock InShaneee, but due to a misspelling had unblocked a different account instead. InShaneee, instead of going through another {unblock} request, took the matter in his own hand and corrected this obvious technical mistake, saving everybody time and work. Everybody was then duly notified and everybody could see that it was all following the intentions of the unblocker. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:15, 7 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Had I been in that situation I would certainly have simply made another unblock request. I do not think there is much ambiguity about 'absolutely not'.  81.179.115.188 00:03, 8 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Ridiculous... you all want to bring out the pitchforks and hang someone for a single mistaken block that was, in fact, apologized for? I would dearly love to see this brought to ArbCom; I think this gang-bullying needs to be exposed. - Merzbow 19:15, 6 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I have listed this case at Requests_for_arbitration. 81.179.115.188 00:03, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Arbitration case opened
An Arbitration case has been opened at Requests for arbitration/InShaneee. Please add any evidence you may wish the arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Requests for arbitration/InShaneee/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Requests for arbitration/InShaneee/Workshop. Bishonen | talk 00:57, 10 March 2007 (UTC).