Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Banno

In order to remain listed at Requests for comment, at least two people need to show that they tried to resolve a dispute with this sysop and have failed. This must involve the same dispute, not different disputes. The persons complaining must provide evidence of their efforts, and each of them must certify it by signing this page with ~. If this does not happen within 48 hours of the creation of this dispute page (which was: {insert UTC timestamp with }), the page will be deleted. The current date and time is:, 29 July 2024 (UTC).

Please note : This template is for listing disputes about actions that are limited to administrators only, specifically these actions:


 * protecting and unprotecting pages
 * deleting and undeleting pages
 * blocking and unblocking users

For all other matters (such as edit wars and page moves), please use the template at Requests for comment/Example user.


 * (Banno | talk | contributions)

Statement of the dispute
Banno has inappropriately used his blocking tools to block ornis for 12-hours because ornis had reinserted archived material from Talk:Creation science that was done here. The initial problem arose because Fatalis had decided on his own to completely archive the whole discussion for this contentious article. Ongoing discussions were archived, which was problematic, considering that many of those discussions were critical to determining a consensus for the article. Banno, in rearchiving the discussions, clearly did not examine all of the facts of the archiving issue, blocked ornis without considering said facts after issuing a spurious warning, and was himself involved in the dispute, hence his block was in volation of WP:COI and was baseless. While user:Spartaz supported his block, it was removed by user:FeloniousMonk, who noted that "Any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia, even if misguided or ill-considered, is not vandalism. Apparent bad-faith edits that do not make their bad-faith nature inarguably explicit are not considered vandalism at Wikipedia." His primary defence was to quote (well after issuing the block), "excessive lengthening", which was pointed out to him to be an improper use of policy. In addition, when several editors, including several Admins, asked him to reconsider, his responses were less than helpful and displayed an intransigence not expected from Administrators.

Desired outcome
This administrator should be prevented from using his or her admin tools for some short period of time.

Powers misused

 * Blocking (log):
 * User:ConfuciusOrnis

Applicable policies

 * Blocking policy
 * Banno participated in the conflict at Talk:Creation science; therefore, should have requested another admin to consider the block.
 * There was no edit taken by ornis that warranted a block. In fact, the admin could have been more helpful in reverting the massive disruption caused by Fatalis.

Evidence of trying and failing to resolve the dispute
(provide diffs and links)
 * Requests to reconsider block
 * Response
 * Warning that was followed
 * Warning that did not indicate understanding of the situation
 * Once again not understanding why we are complaining
 * Reverting a legitimate move of conversation to user talk page
 * Discussing reversion
 * Archiving discussion even after several editors asked that it not happen here and here.

Users certifying the basis for this dispute
(sign with ~ )
 * Orangemarlin 19:46, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
 * &#0149;Jim 62 sch&#0149; 20:00, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Filll 21:42, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
 * ornis 02:21, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Guettarda 14:10, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
 * FeloniousMonk 14:30, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Other users who endorse this statement
(sign with ~ )
 * Avbtalk 21:06, 8 July 2007 (UTC) (regarding the desired outcome: ideally, this RfC should help Banno understand what went wrong here so that they can play a more conciliatory role in similar situations in the future.)
 * Per AvB. Blocking over archival issues is at best petty. Blocking when one is involved in a clearly controversial archival is both against WP:BLOCK and needlessly inflammatory. JoshuaZ 04:03, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Addhoc 09:09, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Response
This is a vindictive action taken by users not directly involved in the issue, but who seem intent on exacerbating a problem that has been resolved.

I came across this by accident. I had not been informed by either of the disputants that this action had been taken - a breach of rather basic protocol. I am unfortunately attending a conference over the next few days, and will be unable to provide much by way of reply. On My talk page the reader will find a summary of the actions of mine that led to this. You will also find that the issue of my blocking CO was resolved by my taking it to Administrators' noticeboard, that I have apologised and that OC has accepted the apology, and that bar his being goaded into joining in to this malicious action, he considers the issue to be "water under the bridge".

This action should be summarily dismissed. Banno 20:30, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

To the specific claims:

1. Banno participated in the conflict at Talk:Creation science; therefore, should have requested another admin to consider the block.
 * Could the disputants provide difs so that I can see exactly what conflict they are talking about? Banno 20:56, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

2. There was no edit taken by ornis that warranted a block. In fact, the admin could have been more helpful in reverting the massive disruption caused by Fatalis.
 * I did indeed reverse the disruption caused by Fatalis' move and the subsequent cut-and-paste undo. I performed a cut-and-paste repair on the page, as is evident from the logs. I then archived the page correctly. I have admitted being too hasty in blocking CO. It is apparent that his editing, although disruptive, was more likely to be the result of ignorance of the archiving process than deliberate malice. I have made suitable reparations, which have been accepted by CO. Banno 20:56, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

It should further be noted that neither disputant has taken any action to resolve this dispute, apart from inflammatory, rude and vindictive comments on talk pages,  and this action itself. Banno 20:59, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~ ):
 * 1) Fatalis talk 21:38, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) Postmodern Beatnik 17:02, 12 July 2007 (UTC) - I would like to note that it was a toss-up for me as to whether I should endorse this summary or the outside view directly below. However, I concur with Banno that this RfC is vindictive and that his version of the facts is sound.  The disputants were certainly rude to Banno on his talk page and would not give him even the tiniest benefit of the doubt.  Mistakes were made, but it would all be water under the bridge if not for the disputants&mdash;not Banno.

Further comment
I am writing this with some reticence, since the issue seems to have quietened down, and any comment of mine seems to evoke partisan comment by a small group of editors. But there are several things in the account given in the statement of the dispute that should be noted.

Finally, I am thankful to all those who have given an outside opinion. I accept that Ornis acted in good faith - indeed, I had publicly accepted this before the RfC was commenced. I cannot see what more could be achieved by this RfC, so let's have an end to it. I would be happy to consider any reasonable further amends that Ornis himself might seek. Banno 23:10, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) It is claimed that Fatalis archived "discussions were critical to determining a consensus for the article". Fatalis acted apparently in good faith, but on bad advice. The article certainly needed archiving. But apparently on advise received, Fatalis chose to archive using move instead of cut-an-paste. That the whole archive and history was removed was a result of the archiving method Fatalis chose, not of malice on Fatalis' part. The method chosen was inappropriate for controversial topics. (It is worth noting that archive seven was also created using a move).
 * 2) It was clear at this stage that the editors do not have a grasp of the need for and process of archiving. The problem was exacerbated by several misguided attempts to re-insert the archived material using cut-and-paste. An admin was needed in order to do a cut-and-paste repair. This I did, reverting Fatalis' error. Yet the complainants state above that "the admin could have been more helpful in reverting the massive disruption caused by Fatali". I did revert that disruption.
 * 3) * It should be noted that I did ask, both on the article talk page and on user talk pages, that any material that was archived but still current be returned to the article. It should also be noted that a large block of material, consisting of the discussion from the previous week, had been deleted by Ornis. And it should be noted that the material that Ornis returned has subsequently been deleted, leaving the archive much as I left it. This puts the lie to the claim that "many of those discussions were critical to determining a consensus for the article".
 * 4) Ornis' re-insertion of the entire body of the archive was certainly disruptive. It had the result that there were two pages, the talk page and the archive, both at about 140k, containing identical material. The only point of contention is whether this edit was done in good faith. I had warned Ornis twice on his talk page that the re-insertion was inappropriate; but he insisted on repeating the disruption. At the time I thought this was done out of malice, and hence a bad-faith edit, and so vandalism. I now accept that it was done out of ignorance, and have apologised.
 * 5) * The complainants have not provided diffs to the supposed dispute in which I was involved. I assume they are referring to my removal of the re-inserted material. It is claimed that I "participated in the conflict", which quite perplexes me; it is a merely technical matter that pages should be archived, and that it is disruptive to have large blocks of repetitive text. Yet the accusers talk as if I were furthering some personal objective in carrying out such straight-forward administrative duties. Again, I think this points to ignorance rather than malice on their part. I was not involved in an editing dispute with Ornis.
 * 6) This apology was of course accepted before the complainants, who originally did not include Ornis, commenced this RfC. This RfC therefore only serves to exacerbate the situation.
 * 7) The items listed in Evidence of trying and failing to resolve the dispute are revealing, in that they show how little was done by the disputants apart from rude comments on my talk page. It was I, not they, who took the issue to  Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard, and I who in good faith suggested that they bring the issue here if they think there is more that needs to be resolved. They did not consult any third parties, nor post to Wikiquette alerts, nor seek mediation. Their actions have served only to exacerbate the situation.
 * 8) It should be noted that the desired outcome is also ill-conceived, since an RfC cannot on precedent  result in "an administrator being prevented from using his admin tools".
 * 9) The role of the admin FeloniousMonk is in need of special attention. It is disappointing  that he has seen fit to sign this RfC. I have accepted his view that Ornis' edit was in good faith. It is a shame that he has not chosen a more conciliatory role. An admin should have been aware of the issues I have raised here.

Outside view of Firsfron of Ronchester
''This is a summary written by users not directly involved with the dispute but who would like to add an outside view of the dispute. Users who edit or endorse this summary should not edit the other summaries.''

It was unfortunate that Banno blocked a long-time good-faith editor with whom he was involved in an edit dispute. However, the block length was quite short (not long enough to prevent Ornis from editing even the following day) and he has apologized to Ornis, which is more than some admins will do; some admins never admit they could be wrong. This was only Banno's fourth block of a logged-in user ever. I'm certain he will use the tool more responsibly in the future, and I hope everyone involved can put this dispute behind them.

Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~ ):
 * 1)  Firsfron of Ronchester  05:17, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) Anarchia 08:02, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
 * 3) dave souza, talk 09:49, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
 * 4) Bad block, hopefully a learning experience, but hardly grounds for desysopping, even temporarily, so long as a pattern does not emerge. MastCell Talk 17:52, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
 * 5) -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 18:40, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
 * 6) I do also feel that this issue has been solved now and that continuing this RfC is unnecessary.  Sala Skan  01:21, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
 * 7) KillerChihuahua?!? 12:58, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Outside view
''This is a summary written by users not directly involved with the dispute but who would like to add an outside view of the dispute. Users who edit or endorse this summary should not edit the other summaries.''

{Add summary here, but you must use the endorsement section below to sign.}

Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~ ):

Outside view
''This is a summary written by users not directly involved with the dispute but who would like to add an outside view of the dispute. Users who edit or endorse this summary should not edit the other summaries.''

{Add summary here, but you must use the endorsement section below to sign.}

Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~ ):

Discussion
All signed comments and talk not related to a vote or endorsement, should be directed to this page's discussion page.