Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/David Gerard, Neutralilty, Cyrius -- Archive

The following is an archive of the discussion regarding the request for arbitration case "User:David Gerard, User:Neutrality, and User:Cyrius". When Jimbo issued his judgment, he deleted the previous conversation. Although this conversation in available in the history, it is reconstructed here for convenience.

Please do not alter the contents of the archived conversation.

User:David Gerard, User:Neutrality, and User:Cyrius
Violation of Blocking policy policy by an administrator.
 * At 18:09, Mar 9, 2005 (UTC)David Gerard blocked User:The Recycling Troll (TRT) with an expiry of infinite, with the explanation, Reincarnation of hard-banned user 142. This user is hard-banned by Jimbo and should not be unblocked.


 * Subsequently, at 21:01, Mar 9, 2005 (UTC) User:Mark Richards unblocked The Recycling Troll, with the explanation, No evidence provided and procedure not followed.


 * Later, at 21:07, User:Neutrality reblocked TRT with an expiry of infinite, with the explanation, Sockpuppet/banned user


 * At 01:13 Mar 10, User:Rholton unblocked TRT, with the explanation, there is obvious lack of consensus for an indefinite block.


 * At 03:10 Mar 10, User:Cyrius blocked TRT wih an expiry time of indefinite, with the explanation of Apparent reincarnation of hard-banned user 142. and stalking.


 * With respect to bans, Blocking policy states When it becomes clear that a user account is a "reincarnation" of an existing banned user, the reincarnating account can likewise be blocked. ... Blocks of reincarnations almost always become controversial


 * Banning policy specifies further procedures for administrators to follow in the case of a suspected reincarnation. In summary, it says that the suspected user should be asked whether he is a reincarnation, and given the opportunity to establish that he is not.


 * Controversial blocks also specifies procedures for this situation. Among other steps, it requires that a notice be placed on the on the talk page of the affected user, with additional rationale, outlining the facts and the part of the blocking policy you feel applies. It also calls upon the blocking administrator to discuss the proposed block and the evidence for it on the IRC channel, the mailing list, or the Administrator noticeboard before doing so, and after implementing the ban to be willing to discuss the block with other Wikipedians. Such discussion usually takes place either on the blocked user's talk page, or the administrators' noticeboard.


 * Neither David Gerard, Neutrality, nor Cyrius followed the procedures called for in Banning policy and Controversial blocks. Specifically:
 * 1) It is not apparent that TRT was asked whether he is user 142, and given the opportunity to present evidence that he is not or to answer the evidence that he was an reincarnation of user 142.  He was also not given an opportunity to answer the allegation by Neutrality that his account was sock-puppet.
 * 2) No statement of the facts or the rationale were placed on the banned user's Talk page, by either David Gerard for the original permanent block, or Neutrality when he later reblocked.
 * 3) On the mailing list, David Gerard stated that the reason that he concluded that 142 and User:The Recycling Troll were the same was the use of certain "trademark phrases" in common.   He did not elaborate on what these phrases were.
 * 4) On the Administrator noticeboard, he was asked by Mrfixter what the "trademark phrases" were.   This was brushed aside with the statement Go read up, some of us have experience of this fuckhead and why he was hard-banned.   This was completely unresponsive to the request for information.
 * 5) Later on the Administrator noticeboard, Theresa Knott said on David Gerard's behalf, in answer to my appeal for the evidence: He's not dodging it [that is, the request for evidence -- BM]. The evidence is in the edit history of 142.   I don't know whether this reflects another comment elsewhere by David Gerard, which I was not privy to, or whether it represents a gloss on the answer to User:Mrfixter, but it also was not helpful.
 * 6) If indeed, there are "trademark phrases", it should be a very simple matter to state what these phrases were.   David Gerard's responses were evasive and unresponsive.
 * 7) In general, on the Administrator noticeboard, David Gerard has been unwilling to discuss the matter and to respond to questions, creating the overwhelming impression (in me at least) that his evidence for the notion that User:The Recycling Troll and 142 are the same is weak and would not withstand public scrutiny.   If it is strong, it seems high-handed and contemptuous of other editors for Gerard not to simply present it.
 * 8) Later on the Administrator noticeboard, User:Michael Snow, being familiar with the style of 142 and User:The Recycling Troll stated a number of reasons why he did not consider them to be the same person.
 * 9) User:Neutrality did not explain, nor provide any evidence, for his claim that The Recycling Troll was a sockpuppet.


 * I am aggrieved under Controversial blocks, which makes it clear that all Wikipedians have the right to know the reasons why other members are being banned, and to know the evidence against them.  I state for the record that I have no interest in whether TRT is banned or not, and this case does not concern whether or not he is a troll, or is ultimately banned, either for the reasons stated by David Gerard, or any other reasons.   My interest is ensuring that all administrators, who are named by the consensus of the community, conform themselves to the policies and procedures that have been established.  I have standing to bring this complaint on the grounds that all Wikipedia editors in good standing have a valid interest in having the policies and procedures that have been agreed by consensus followed by administrators.

[by BM, 00:10, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)]
 * Therefore, I request that the Arbitration Committee:
 * 1) reinstate User:The Recycling Troll for a sufficient length of time, and with access to at least his own User Talk page and this Arbitration Committee case (if accepted), so that he may have the opportunity to defend himself from the charge of being a reincarnation of 142, as required by policy;
 * 2) require that the respondents in the case be instructed to present the evidence for their charges in public in order to satisfy concerns of other Wikipedia editors, as required by both the Banning policy and Controversial blocks.
 * 3) make the determination based on the  presented evidence as to whether User:The Recycling Troll is indeed a reincarnation of 142, or a sock-puppet, and whether, therefore, he should be permanently re-banned; or reiterate publicly that User:The Recycling Troll may on his own initiative appeal the banning decision to the Arbitration Committee, as required by Banning policy.

I second all of the above. Refdoc 00:19, 4 Jan 2003 (UTC)

Question
While it may be necessary for the Arbitration Committee to decide whether the block of The Recycling Troll should be continued, I don't understand why David Gerard is specifically singled out here, considering that he only blocked this user once, he did not impose the block currently in place, several other admins have blocked this user, and no other forms of dispute resolution have been attempted with him. --Michael Snow 03:23, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * I did not include Snowspinner's block in the complaint because that was for seven days for a different reason. There is an RfC on that block, in which Snowspinner did give the reasons for the block, which are being debated in the RfC. There were many defects in Snowspinner's compliance with policies and procedures also, and Snowspinner may need to heed any admonitions from the Arbitration Committee on that score that result from this case.  I am not seeking sanctions against any of the administrators involved, so in that sense, I am not singling out David Gerard for sanction when other administrators were also involved.   That said, and considering Neutrality's failure to recuse himself, I am going to amend my request to include Neutrality. --BM 03:49, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * Certainly, the actions of all admins who are involved will likely be reviewed. In David's case, though, there seems to have been a particular agenda (for lack of a better word).  Not only did he silence this user's voice by imposing a ban, he also [banned the user from the mailing list further limiting the ability of this user to communicate regarding the accusations.  It very much seems like this Arbitrator attempted to pass summary judgement without providing sufficient evidence after multiple requests, while cutting off lines of effective communication.  -- [[User:Netoholic|Netoholic]] @ 03:53, 2005 Mar 10 (UTC)


 * Concerning the question of why I haven't tried other forms of dispute resolution: it isn't clear what other forms of dispute resolution I should try.  On the Administrators Noticeboard and in the RfC on Snowspinner's block, I asked David Gerard for the details about the "trademark phrases" that he claimed established 142 and The Recycling Troll as the same person.   So did other users.  He refused.  What other forms of dispute resolution should I follow?  --BM 03:58, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Regarding Neutrality's vote

 * Would you mind explaining what steps BM should take? RecyclingTroll cannot, of course, take any, because he's the victim of the block.Dr Zen 02:09, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * The decent thing to do would be to recuse, since you have been involved in blocking TRT --Mrfixter 02:53, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Is recusal voluntary, or are there any policies about it? I do think a recusal would be appropriate, since Neutrality blocked RT for the same behavior that DG blocked them for.Rad Racer 03:02, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Ah, I see the recusal policy now. It's fairly vague. Arbitration_policy Rad Racer 03:05, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I move that User:Neutrality recuse himself, on the grounds that he re-blocked The Recycling Troll after User:Mark Richards unblocked him. The same complaint that I lodged against David Gerard could have been lodged also against Neutrality, since he violated precisely the same policies. I did not include him in the case because there is no point. I am not seeking sanctions against Gerard or any other administrator. I am only requesting that the evidence be produced and that the Arbitration Committee review whether it was sufficient. However, Neutrality is not unbiased in this matter and should recuse himself. (As an aside, I assumed that he would, and it didn't occur to me that he wouldn't or else I would have requested it from the outset.) --BM 03:22, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Further to the above: I move to amend my Request to include User:Neutrality. --BM 03:49, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * Give me a break. In that case, Cyrius and I should be on the request as well. Snowspinner 03:53, Mar 10, 2005 (UTC)


 * I see that Cyrius has now reblocked TRT.  I will add him to the case, with leave.   I do not add Snowspinner, because that was a 1 week ban for a completely different reason, and I do not care to muddy the issues I am raising here, although there is some overlap.   If the ArbComm takes the case, and cares to comment on the behaviour of Snowspinner, which was objectionable for some of the same reasons, although not all, then I will leave that up them.  --BM 04:02, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * Could I urge BM to include Snowspinner (it's time he was desysopped -- he's gone power crazy) and Cyrius? Why should any admin feel they can abuse policy with impunity? Dr Zen 03:55, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Regarding Standing
Although I think this complaint is a load of crap, I have to admit concern about a standing-based rejection. Surely the sense that one has identified a problem is grounds enough to raise the complaint. Who else would raise the complaint? The Recycling Troll? Snowspinner 02:30, Mar 10, 2005 (UTC)
 * Would you mind explaining exactly what you mean by that? BM is an editor of Wikipedia, isn't he? He's not banned or anything? Dr Zen 03:24, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Dr Zen you really should assume good faith and read what snowspinner is saying before comment. What he is saying is blatently obvious, but I'll spell it out for you none the less. Snowspinner is saying that BM is perfectly entitled to make the complaint, and it shouldn't make any difference who does the complaining, it's the facts of the case that matter. Theresa Knott (ask the rotten) 16:30, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * My edit was moved! I commented on Raul's claim that BM had no standing, not on Snowspinner's comment. Dr Zen 04:37, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Concerning Mediation
Arbitrator Ambi has rejected the request on the grounds that "mediation seems much more appropriate". I do not see how this would be so, and it seems to me that Ambi is simply using this to side-step the issue. This is a case in which I am asking that David Gerard et al publicly present the evidence on which they relied in determining that TRT is the same person as banned user 142. I am not asking for any sanction, only that the Arbitration Committee restore the transparency to the banning process that policy requires. I have already asked David to do produce his evidence, and he did not. Others also asked. I am also asking that the Arbitration Committee review the evidence and publicly state whether, in their opinion, the evidence warranted the conclusions that Gerard, et al drew from it. Mediation is a private process, assuming the parties enter into it, and the effect would not be to make the actions of David et al transparent, as policy requires. The point is that the community should be able to see the evidence on which David relied so that it can form its own opinions as to whether he acted in a proper manner as an Administrator. At any time since yesterday, David could have made part of this case moot by presenting his evidence on the Administrator noticeboard, as the policy calls for. If the evidence had been such as to command universal agreement, then this entire case would have been moot because there would have been no need for the Arbitration Committee to give its opinion as to the adequacy of the evidence. He did not present the evidence. This is a case about whether administrators may permanently ban any user based on mere suspicion (or claimed suspicion), without any obligation to present their evidence and without any public review. This would be below even the standard to which public officials in most democracies are expected to conform, never mind a wiki. If the Arbitration Committee refuses this case then the message will be that the decisions of administrators (or at least, certain administrators, such as those who are Arbitrators) need not be justified or explained to anyone else, and are not subject to any review. That would be a major change in the "constitution" of the Wikipedia. --BM 13:20, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * I hate to clutter up an already weighty RfAr, but I concur with much of what BM says above. If the allegation is that several admins have failed to follow blocking policy, mediation seems to me an unworkable solution -- either they are compliant with policy or not, and no mediated agreement can change policy.  An RfC might be reasonable, if that is what the arbitrators are suggesting.  But I would say, as an ex-Arbitrator who knows how tough this job is, the AC would be wise to reconsider -- this is not a crackpot taking wild shots at arbitrators.  This is a legitimately presented case about two arbitrators who may have violated policy (and who have not, as yet, accepted any fault in the matter).  Whether or not they are at fault, it seems a serious case.  Had they unblocked TRT and said "we screwed up", I agree, arbitration isn't necessary (note: not saying they did screw up).  But in this case I think it is.  The community needs to be able to trust the AC to police itself fairly closely, and rejecting for issues like standing (I know we have accepted 3rd party requests before -- Michael Snow filed at least one, and there have been others) just doesn't look right.  It makes me a little worried, and I like and trust all of you!  So I urge you to reconsider. Jwrosenzweig 15:19, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * I would suggest that the difference in previous requests is that they dealt with longstanding recurring problems involving the same user(s). In this situation, the case with respect to any one user is based entirely on a single action that was not repeated (in fact, the only person to block The Recycling Troll repeatedly, Snowspinner, is explicitly omitted from the request). To the extent that any of them should be required to say "I screwed up", they've done that by not repeating the mistake. And despite the overblown rhetoric of the proponents in this case, we are talking about a mistake in interpretation of the evidence, not an abuse of power; these users blocked in good faith based on a valid reason in the blocking policy - reincarnations of banned users - they were simply mistaken about the application of that reason to this case. --Michael Snow 18:49, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Michael, the problem is that we don't know whether these blocks, which it now seems to be consensus were an error, were due to a "mistake in the interpretation of the evidence". If we knew that, most people would just put it down to "nobody's perfect; anyone can make a mistake" and move on.   However, because the respondents still refuse to produce the evidence upon which they relied, nobody knows whether it was a simple mistake. It could also have been willful disregard for the evidence.  If so, then it could not be so easily shrugged off.  Moreover, if it were a simple mistaken interpretation of evidence, something that anyone could do, then one has to wonder why the evidence has not been produced, so that we can all see that it was a natural mistake.  --BM 19:10, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

There is no place for mediation in this situation. There is no personal conflict here, but a matter of how bans and blocks should be implemented. Again, I second BM. The hard-banning might be entirely appropriate, but it appears its implementation was wide outside established policy and procedure. Refdoc 00:19, 4 Jan 2003 (UTC)

According to the Arbitration policy: Where a dispute has not gone through Mediation, the Arbitrators may refer the dispute to the Mediation Committee if it believes Mediation is likely to help. This suggests that to reject a case because it has not gone through mediation indicates a belief that mediation is likely to help. I request that User:Ambi describe how he/she believes mediation would help in this case. -Rholton 15:41, Mar 10, 2005 (UTC) I've unblocked him because micheal Snow is sure he isn't 142. If he comes back and starts stalking RickK again i will block him for that. Theresa Knott (ask the rotten) 16:23, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * Two things - there is a serious allegation that several admins failed to follow blocking policy here. If the case shouldn't be taken up here, it should be dealt with seriously in another forum. Covering this up because we're all buddies isn't going to help. Secondly, Theresa, many people (including admins) use the 'user contributions' button to periodically check the edits of other users. Are you seriously suggesting this is wrong? Are you suggesting that editing pages that Rick has edited is wrong? You're basically saying that annoying Rick is a blockable offense. Well, it's not. Rick annoys me. A lot. I don't block him for it, I get over it and move on. That's what we should be doing. Mark Richards 17:44, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Arbitrator's opinions (1/4/3/0)

 * Recuse, of course - David Gerard 00:20, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Recuse, not that I have been named as a respondent. Reject, try other steps in the dispute resolution process. Neutralitytalk 01:57, Mar 10, 2005 (UTC)
 * Reject. BM does not have standing to register this complaint. &rarr;Raul654 02:22, Mar 10, 2005 (UTC)
 * The identity of a disputant does not have an impact on the validity of a case. -- Grunt 🇪🇺 15:37, 2005 Mar 10 (UTC)
 * Quite the contrary - we rejected Xed's case against Jimbo on the basis that he did not have standing to make a complaint WRT Secretlondon's treatment. &rarr;Raul654 17:56, Mar 10, 2005 (UTC)
 * Accept Fred Bauder 02:42, Mar 10, 2005 (UTC)
 * Reject. Mediation seems much more appropriate in this instance. Ambi 11:21, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Reject. This is a dispute about the viability of a block, which is not something we really need to deal with. If we can't reach a consensus as to whether or not the account should be blocked, come back and talk to us. -- Grunt 🇪🇺 15:34, 2005 Mar 10 (UTC)
 * Please reread the request. This is not about the viability of a block.  I specifically stated that I have no interest in whether TRT is blocked or unblocked, whether he is a troll or not, etc.  This is a case about whether administrators, two of them Arbitrators, abused their powers as administrators and followed policy both before and after the block.  Even if the issue as to whether TRT should be blocked were resolved by community consensus, the issue as to whether the original blocks by David Gerard, et al, were based on proper evidence would still stand.   Are you saying that if the effects of administrator abuse are "sorted out" in the end by community consensus, that the original abuse of powers and non-conformity with policy becomes a non-issue?  That administrator abuse is not something that the Arbitration Committee "needs" to deal with.  I urge you to consider the implications of that position and to reconsider.   --BM 15:55, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * I thought if consensus can't be reached about a block, the policy requires the block to be removed. Controversial blocks: If no consensus has emerged after several respected Wikipedians have reviewed the matter, the user should be left unblocked. The Recycling Troll has been blocked and unblocked by prominent admins several times in the last few days. Rad Racer 18:29, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Recuse but I urge others to reject. If we accept a case involving arbitrators then no matter what we decide we will be accused of bias. This complaint should go above our heads directly to Jimbo. Theresa Knott (ask the rotten) 16:10, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Reject. A single block that is at worst "questionable" but not a result of edit wars or other misuse of admin powers in a personal dispute is far below the level of being worth considering, and should be resolved through other mechanisms. --Delirium 18:09, Mar 10, 2005 (UTC)
 * This reason for rejection would be logical if I were asking for a sanction.  Then one could say that even if the behaviour was incorrect, it was still only an isolated case not rising to the level of a sanction.   However, I am not asking for a sanction.   I am asking for David Gerard et al to be required to disclose the evidence that justified their block (in their minds) so that the community can judge for itself whether or not the actions of its adminstrators (and Arbitrators) were reasonable, and so that the transparency of blocking decisions be maintained -- that blocks not be based on secret evidence. Their failure to produce this evidence, as required by policy, continues to this moment.   If the Arbitration Committee does not oblige them to produce it, the community will never know whether its administrators, two of whom are elected Arbitrators, acted reasonably, or overstepped their authority and banned another user without sufficient evidence.  It is important that the community know that, and the policies say that they are supposed to know it.    In this situation, if we cannot turn to the Arbitration Committee to ensure transparency in admin decisions, where do we turn?   Please reconsider your rejection. --BM 18:30, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Comments
''If we accept a case involving arbitrators then no matter what we decide we will be accused of bias. This complaint should go above our heads directly to Jimbo. Theresa Knott''
 * An interesting idea, though there would still need to be some forum for presenting evidence, correct? Also, are you suggesting that any case involving any member of the arbitration committee would be given to Jimbo for judgment? Or is this case in some way special? -Rholton 16:25, Mar 10, 2005 (UTC)
 * Jimbo's talk page would be the place to start. And yes I suppose I am suggesting that when an arbitrator is specifically accused of having done wrong by a legit complainant (not a timewaster or someone trying to stir up trouble or troll etc) then we should kick the case up to a higher authorityTheresa Knott (ask the rotten) 16:34, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * I must admit that I have some sympathy for Theresa's point, if it is appropriate for me to say so. The Arbitrators really can't "win" with a case like this.  If they reject it, it looks like cabalism.   Ditto, if they accept it and find in favor of the respondents.   The only way the Arbitrators who are not respondents really come out looking OK in this situation is if they accept the case and find against the respondents. I was aware of this when I submitted it, but decided to go ahead anyway, since I didn't see other options.  This is one reason why I tried to make the case very easy for the Arbitrators to take by not asking for any sanctions.   The situation is still not quite fair to the respondents, although it is a situation of their own making.  If the Arbitration Committee wishes to refer this matter to Jimbo, I would be quite satisfied with that resolution.   Of course, the other resolution would be simply for David et al voluntarily to produce the evidence that they had for their blocks.  The policy is really quite clear that they are supposed to provide this.  This would get the other Arbitrators out of the spot they are in, and I don't really understand why the respondents have not done it yet -- unless there isn't any evidence, or it so weak as to be embarassing.  --BM 17:03, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)