Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Block of Richard Arthur Norton (1958- )

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).

Note: This RFC does not involve a "dispute with a sysop" but rather is a discussion of concerns regarding a particular event and the process drift and precedent issues it raises. Accordingly, the "certification" process which was designed to remove baseless criticism of administrators does not apply. (--The Uninvited Co., Inc.)

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.


 * (No particular user is named as the "target" of this RFC. It was the actions of, however, that are illustrative of the more general and community-wide problem for which comments are sought)

Statement of the dispute
''This is a summary written by users who dispute this sysop's conduct. Users who edit or endorse this summary should not edit the other summaries.''

A logged-in user, was blocked by  due to high-volume page moves. While there is widespread agreement that a block was warranted, this RFC seeks community discussion of the duration and mechanics of the block.

Description
Add summary here, but you must use the section below to certify or endorse it.

("Norton") performed a large number of page moves to normalize use of middle names vis-a-vis middle initials in biographical articles. The moves were performed manually, unassisted by a bot, but were done on a bulk basis with little if any discussion or review of each individual move. Several users asked Norton to refrain from such moves and yet he continued despite these requests. After moving approximately 800 pages, he was blocked by ("Zscout") who did so based on a request from  and some brief discussion at WP:AN/I (most current version at the time of the block:.

While acknowledging that the moves were (a) done without consensus, (b) lacked clear policy basis, and (c) were made on a scale where a block was justified, discussion of the mechanics of the block and its duration are warranted.

Powers misused
No claim is made that this rises to "misuse" but rather is a claim that the spirit and letter of blocking policy were not followed. In particular:


 * 1) The block message stated that the reason for the block was move vandalism   WP:VAND states that vandalism is a "deliberate attempt to reduce the quality of the encyclopedia."  Though problematic, the moves are not vandalism by our definition for two reasons.  First, though the moves were misguided, there is no evidence to suggest that they were made otherwise than in good faith.  Second, the moves reflect a mere content dispute, albeit one applied to article titles rather than the body text -- even had they been performed in bad faith, the moves were not vandalism.  Conflating vandalism with content disputes takes away a bright-line distinction in policy that is of ongoing importance to Wikipedia.
 * 2) WP:BLOCK provides guidance on the duration of blocks.  Initial blocks for vandalism, the stated rationale for the block, are limited to 24 hours: "such blocks should initially last 24 hours, and should increase gradually upon resumption of vandalism; eventually repeat violators may be blocked indefinitely, but such blocks should be issued with discretion."  As such, the indefinite duration was uncalled for and lacked policy basis.
 * 3) WP:BLOCK states:  "Users should be notified of blocks on their talk pages," and also in the section on controversial blocks, "Place a notice of the block on the talk page of the affected user, with additional rationale, outlining the facts and the part of the blocking policy you feel applies."  No such notification was made.
 * 4) Zscout stated: "You did over 800 page moves, and have been asked to stop doing it, and reverted other page moves done with consensus. I have nothing to discuss with you."    Such a posture is inconsistent with the Wikipedia community's long-standing tradition of an egalitarian willingness to discuss matters, and is in particular at odds with WP:BLOCK, which states with regard to controversial blocks, "Be willing to discuss the block with other Wikipedians."
 * 5) Zscout protected Norton's talk page  despite the fact that there were no personal attacks or vandalism on that page.  Indeed, Norton's response to being blocked is remarkably restrained .  WP:PPOL provides, "if a user abuses [the ability to edit their talk page while blocked], and continues with vandalism or disruption such as excessive personal attacks on his own User Talk page, the page can be protected from editing."

I wish to make it clear that I can appreciate that many users have found Norton vexatious. I also wish to make it clear that I seek no censure of any kind for Zscout, who I believe was acting in good faith. However, I would be dismayed to see such treatment of good-faith contributors, even vexatious ones, become commonplace, and I seek community affirmation that this instance does not set precedent and the procedures in WP:BLOCK still apply.

Applicable policies

 * Blocking policy
 * Page protection policy

Evidence of trying and failing to resolve the dispute
(provide diffs and links)
 * None; as stated above, this is a request for comments regarding the process drift and precedent these actions reflect rather than a dispute per se.

Users certifying the basis for this dispute
(sign with ~ ) (does not apply)

Other users who endorse this statement
(sign with ~ )
 * The Uninvited Co., Inc. 20:10, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
 * User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 20:20, 27 July 2006 (UTC) (I waive any requires for required signatures )

Response
''This is a summary written by the sysop whose actions are disputed, or by other users who think that the dispute is unjustified and that the sysop's actions did not violate policy. 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 by Bunchofgrapes
I'm concerned about the precedent this RfC is attempting to set regarding "targetless" or "conflictless" RfCs. Despite the several protestations that "there is no conflict" and "no particular user is named as the 'target' of this RFC", the points listed under "Misuse" clearly are aimed at Zscout. I don't believe a sufficient case has been made to exempt this RfC from the usual listing requirements.

Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~ ):
 * 1) &mdash;Bunchofgrapes  (talk) 20:22, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Never mind; I guess it's consensual. &mdash;Bunchofgrapes (talk) 20:24, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Outside view by TenOfAllTrades
Briefly, Richard Arthur Norton (1858-) (herein referred to as RAN) was engaged in massive page renamings without prior discussion. As an editor who has been registered on Wikipedia since December of 2004 an accumulated more than four thousand edits, RAN has had ample time to absorb Wikipedia process, procedure, and culture.

RAN was blocked, indefinitely, by Zscout370 after RAN made over 800 page moves, and stated his intention to continue moving pages despite requests from several different editors to hold off and discuss.

Comments on points by Uninvited Company:


 * 1) I agree that RAN's actions weren't vandalism.  His intent was probably good, and the onus would be on us if we wished to abandon that assumption.  Zscout erred in using 'Vandalism' as the block summary.  Nevertheless, RAN's actions were certainly disruptive.  Undoing his page moves used up the time of several editors, and RAN stated that he would continue to move pages without discussion or consensus.  While not vandalism, RAN's moves certainly fit under the more general 'Disruption' clause of the blocking policy.
 * 2) While Zscout misstated the reason for the block, and I believe there is general agreement on that point.  Therefore it would be silly for us to apply the guidelines and practices associated with 'vandalism' to behaviour that clearly was not.
 * 3) Zscout failed to notify RAN that the block had been issued.  Zscout should be commended to notifying admins on WP:AN/I in a timely manner, however.  RAN should also not be surprised, he had received explicit warnings (from Zoe) that he would be blocked if he didn't agree to stop the moves.
 * 4) Zscout should have been more responsive.  However, RAN had already been engaging in incivil, obstinate argument over the block.  The remarks that Zscout were replying to suggested that Zscout was creating a 'dictatorship', so I can understand that he might not have been in the most receptive mood.  Zscout seemed to be quite willing to discuss the block with other Wikipedians (given that he reported it on WP:AN/I), but he probably expected a certain minimum standard of civility.
 * 5) I'm not sure why Zscout chose to protect the talk page.

So, lessons learned:
 * Clarity and precision in the block log summaries are essential, and valued much more than brevity.
 * Notifying blocked users of a block (including reasoning) is important, even when that user ought to know why.
 * Protection of a blocked user's talk page is a last resort only. Protection should be employed only when there are severe personal attacks, etc. or abuse of the unblock template.

I have limited sympathy for what Uninvited Company describes as 'vexatious' editors. We have policies on civility and consensus for a reason. Editors who choose to skate the edge of those policies and engage in wikilaywering should not be surprised to find themselves on short leashes. Those editors make working here challenging, uncomfortable, and even unpleasant for others. This is a voluntary and collaborative enterprise, and participants who have trouble working with others need to be persuaded to modify their behaviour&mdash;or leave.

On a philosophical note, there is a distinction between an indefinite block and a permanent one. The latter are issued to editors who are irretrievably lost, considered irredeemable, and who have exhausted the patience of the community. The former are issued when there is a serious problem which must be addressed before an editor can or should be allowed to continue to edit. It is inconvenient that both have to implemented the same way for technical reasons, as this can sometimes obscure the reasoning and intent behind them. I assume and hope that Zscout's indefinite block was not meant to be permanent&mdash;rather, it was to convey to RAN that making hundreds of page moves without consensus couldn't be tolerated, and that he wouldn't be allowed to edit until he understood that concept. (Which, incidentally, is how things worked out.)

TenOfAllTrades(talk) 01:05, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~ ):
 * Powers 13:59, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
 * User:Phr except RAN's birth year was 1958 and (not 1858 per first sentence of ToaT's statement). Phr (talk) 06:14, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
 * JoshuaZ 03:11, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

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