Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Orderinchaos

In order to remain listed at Requests for comment/User conduct, 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.



Statement of the dispute
''This is a summary written by users who are concerned by this administrator's conduct. Users signing other sections ("Response" or "Outside views") should not edit the "Statement of the dispute" section.''

At the WP:BLP article Nick Xenophon, I removed unsourced material. After this was reverted by another user,, I warned him and removed the unsourced info again. When Timeshift9 added back the unsourced info a 2nd time, he was blocked by admin NuclearWarfare for violation of WP:BLP.
 * Orderinchaos has violated BLP and unblocked a user involving same policy violation

then undid this block, with no prior discussion with the blocking admin. In addition, himself added back the wholly unsourced info to the WP:BLP article. The matter was brought to BLP, and several administrators pointed out that Orderinchaos was wrong to unblock with no discussion, and that the act of re-adding unsourced info to a WP:BLP article is also highly inappropriate, especially for an admin.

Orderinchaos defended his actions, and considers them appropriate.

Cirt (talk) 05:35, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Desired outcome
''This is a summary written by users who have initiated the request for comment. It should spell out exactly what the changes they'd like to see in the user, or what questions of behavior should be the focus.''

Assess the need for a move to desysop Orderinchaos with regard to violation of WP:BLP. It is possible that lesser measures, including sanctions and warnings, would also be appropriate. Cirt (talk) 05:35, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: I have struck out the "desysop" part. I agree that would be unnecessary. However it is certainly appropriate to request Orderinchaos give a better acknowledgement than this, with regard to stating it is inappropriate to unblock a user that was blocked on a WP:BLP violation with no prior discussion of the possible unblock, and to acknowledge that his own re-adding of the unsourced info to a WP:BLP was inappropriate. Cirt (talk) 06:34, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
 * With this comment by Orderinchaos, the desired outcome has been achieved. I will close this RFC. Cirt (talk) 06:41, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Description
''{Add summary here, but you must use the section below to certify or endorse it. Users who edit or endorse this summary should not edit the other summaries, other than to endorse them.}''

Cirt (talk) 05:35, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Sequence of events
 * 1) I removed unsourced info from a BLP
 * 2) I moved it to the talk page
 * 3) reverts, adding the unsourced info back to the BLP
 * 4) I warn him, citing BLP and BURDEN, not to add unsourced info to BLPs
 * 5) I revert him, removing the unsourced info from the BLP, citing WP:BLP and WP:BURDEN
 * 6) Timeshift9 adds the unsourced info back into the BLP a 2nd time
 * 7) blocks Timeshift9 for one week
 * 8) NuclearWarfare removes the unsourced info from the BLP
 * 9) unblocks Timeshift9
 * 10) Orderinchaos reverts NuclearWarfare (who had removed the unsourced info again), and adds the unsourced info back to the article BLP
 * 11) I brought the matter to ANI
 * 12) At ANI, Orderinchaos chose to defend his actions and the unsourced info, and considered the issue not a BLP issue but what he called a "content dispute"

Powers misused

 * Blocking (log):
 * Adding back same info user was blocked for re-adding to the WP:BLP, in conjunction with unblocking that user.
 * Comment: It is not appropriate for an admin to fully protect a page, and then revert to his preferred version. It is also not appropriate for an admin to use their tools to unblock a user, and then get involved at an article, to add unsourced info back to a WP:BLP - the same act in question by the blocked user. Cirt (talk) 06:28, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment: It is not appropriate for an admin to fully protect a page, and then revert to his preferred version. It is also not appropriate for an admin to use their tools to unblock a user, and then get involved at an article, to add unsourced info back to a WP:BLP - the same act in question by the blocked user. Cirt (talk) 06:28, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Applicable policies

 * Blocking policy
 * No discussion whatsoever of unblock with blocking admin, or anyone else, prior to unblocking a user who was blocked on a WP:BLP violation.


 * Biographies of living persons policy
 * Admin added unsourced info back into a WP:BLP article, directly after unblocking user in question for doing same.

Evidence of trying and failing to resolve the dispute
(Provide diffs. Links to entire articles aren't helpful unless the editor created the entire article. Edit histories also aren't helpful as they change as new edits are performed.)
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 

Users certifying the basis for this dispute
{Users who tried and failed to resolve the dispute}


 * Cirt (talk) 05:35, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Coffee //  have a cup  //  ark  // 05:41, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

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.''

General response
I think the basis for the RfC is invalid in that the matter is already resolved - the AN/I has from what I can see established neither a consensus for nor against the block, NW has acknowledged a week was a bit too much, I've acknowledged I acted too quickly and should have taken a different course of action (see below). Additionally, I am not in the habit of making bad decisions - I think this is the first time I've unblocked somebody in a year or so, and my vandalblocks have always been in relation to obvious cases. The evidence of "trying and failing to resolve the dispute" is also invalid, as I stated upfront that I wanted the community to review my actions, and after they were reviewed, I had accepted their opinion, so it had in fact been resolved. 

Overview of circumstances
What happened this morning, in my view, was the clash of several policies. It is a BLP, so BLP policy applies. The fact that the content is mildly positive about the subject while still being neutral and factual does not excuse the fact it had remained unsourced since 2006, a time at which policies were quite different to today. However, it had not been challenged until this morning and was not on many watchlists - Australian politics, a WikiProject which I have been associated with since late 2006, has over 6,000 articles in its remit and expanding to fill areas with little or no coverage has been a priority for many editors, including myself. General editing policy would normally suggest the following course of action - mark the material, state on the talk page it is unreferenced and it will be removed if not sourced, then come back and remove it if nothing has happened.

When I arrived on the scene late this morning Australian time, I found a situation where an editor had in effect edit-warred an entire section out of an article and someone else had been blocked for a week - a rather harsh block considering the nature of the material, its existence in the article since 2006 without contest, and a failure to appropriately warn the user involved, as well as a complete lack of recent offences of a similar kind going from the editor's contributions. Cirt then basically gloated on the talk page of the article 5 minutes after the block.

I saw this as an entirely unreasonable situation, basically one where policies were being misused to prosecute a content dispute, so I sought to correct it by unblocking, notifying the blocking admin I had unblocked and would take it to AN/I, and then initiating an AN/I with a summary of the events that had occurred leaving it to the community to decide an appropriate response to the situation (in doing so, removing myself from further involvement in the decision). My methods were, I concede, a little wonky. In retrospect, I would have left him blocked, and appealed to NW and, if necessary, AN/I to get the block reviewed. I put my haste in this regard down to momentary hot-headedness, and have accepted fair-minded criticism of said haste on AN/I.

Observations
It is worth noting that the target article is an Australian independent politician who yesterday gave a very strongly worded speech in Parliament regarding Scientology. It has been all over the press this morning.

Whatever dispute I had with NuclearWarfare ended when I posted the AN/I and I am happy with his response there.

Specific response to Cirt's updated request
Orderinchaos 06:40, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) I acknowledge I should have left Timeshift blocked, and contacted NuclearWarfare. Had we failed to resolve it, I would then have taken it to AN/I.
 * 2) I should have sourced the material before re-adding (which I've since done).
 * 3) I owe Cirt an apology for listening to whispers regarding the Sc. stuff. It seems in doing so I came to a false conclusion about possible motivations.

Users who endorse this summary:
 * 1) Orderinchaos 06:09, 18 November 2009 (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:

Outside view by The_ed17
Both Orderinchaos and NuclearWarfare (a week-long block was too much) screwed up and deserve trouts, but a single stupid action with admin tools doesn't warrant an RfC and a desysop. Obviously OIC will learn from his mistake and I think he will not repeat it. — Ed   (talk  •  majestic titan)  05:49, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Users who endorse this summary:
 * 1) — Ed   (talk  •  majestic titan)  05:49, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
 * 2) SarekOfVulcan (talk) 05:55, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
 * 3) The block wasn't problematic, though the length of time might perhaps have been shorter in the circumstances. The unblocking should certainly have been preceded by discussion with the blocking admin, who may well have agreed to unblock or reduce the length themselves. I tried this myself, but events moved too fast for it to be considered. Either way, desysopping seems way too extreme for a single good-faith but questionable action. Euryalus (talk) 06:12, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
 * 4) I don't know if I'm allowed to sign outside views on an RfC about me, but I agree both with this and Euryalus's comments above. Orderinchaos 06:18, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Please note: I struck out the "desysop" part, and made my request a bit clearer, . Cirt (talk) 06:36, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) Racepacket (talk) 18:32, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Outside view by Hesperian
BLP is a very important policy, but even BLP is subject to being followed in its spirit rather than in its letter. The letter of the BLP policy may support the practice of dishing out long blocks to established good-faith editors who restore unsourced, uncontroversial, factual, on-the-public-record information; but the spirit of it certainly does not. The original block was beyond the pale, and Orderinchaos can hardly be blamed for overturning it. Hesperian 06:07, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Users who endorse this summary:
 * 1) Hesperian 06:11, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
 * 2) As above. Orderinchaos 06:18, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Mostly-outside view from Juliancolton
I was initially planning to certify this based on my belief that Orderinchaos's actions were inappropriate, but now I think there's not much more to be said or done. Orderinchaos acknowledged that they could have handled the situation differently, and it doesn't really seem that they were acting with malice. I suggest a bob on the nose would be preferable to desysopping in this case. – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 14:36, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Discussion
All signed comments and talk not related to an endorsement should be directed to this page's discussion page. Discussion should not be added below. Discussion should be posted on the talk page. Threaded replies to another user's vote, endorsement, evidence, response, or comment should be posted to the talk page.