Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/InShaneee/Proposed decision

Given the 3-1 vote against at present, I guess the interim injuctions are likely to fail. However, looking at the current state of the Workshop page, I would implore the arbitrators to consider giving out some of the "reminders" that User:FloNight mentions. -- ALoan (Talk) 17:33, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Query
I have a query about this sentence "Any response to a personal attack should come from a member of the community who was not a target of the attack" in this section drafted by Paul August. This would be a departure from current practise. Currently, any admin may block if they're personally attacked. There's no reason people should have to look for another admin before taking action. SlimVirgin (talk) 04:58, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I had a similar concern. Perhaps there is a difference between deciding whether to take action against someone with a potentially legitimate grievance who may have gone a little too far, and responding to blatant attacks and harassment. In the case of harassment, the MONGO case holds that any user may deal with the situation, including the target of the harassment. See Requests for arbitration/MONGO. Newyorkbrad 08:05, 17 March 2007 (UTC)


 * It makes sense to have another administrator perform the action, or at least to consult with other users. If a serious attack is involved there should not be a problem.  An administrator is a bit of an Aunt Sally so if he got into the habit of blocking for attacks on himself it could get very messy. --Tony Sidaway 09:59, 17 March 2007 (UTC)


 * The blocking policy says to avoid blocks where there is a "content dispute", it says nothing about other types of disputes. A user can avoid a personal attack block just by adding the present admins to the list of people in the attack. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 14:32, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, that kind of behavior does sometimes happen, but at that stage it's unlikely that his disruptive behavior will go unchecked. --Tony Sidaway 15:14, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I think the point is that admins have to be allowed to use their common sense. If someone calls me a "Nazi c**t," I'm not going to go crying to AN/I; I'm going to block him myself. Ditto if purported personal details are posted, because every admin has the right to protect themselves. So I would ask Paul to remove that sentence. SlimVirgin (talk) 22:13, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I think editors are in general always allowed to use their commonsense. I don't see the problem with the block you describe, but the committee has shown itself to be extremely sensitive to context.  There may be circumstances under which an established editor could use such a strong attack and the block would be seen by the arbitrators as controversial. The footing for administrators, going forward, is I think somewhat uneven.  Don't block established editors without discussion. --Tony Sidaway 00:38, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I think that an admin should unquestionably feel free to block a newly-registered account whose first edit is an abusive post on that admin's talk page, as the account is obviously one created for harassment, and is presumably a sockpuppet. Also, if AdminX is in dispute with User:Y, and User:Y starts posting AdminX's phonenumber on various pages (even on one page), I think that admin should feel absolutely free to block.


 * With regard to an admin blocking an established editor (rather than a newly-created attack account) for an insult directed against the admin (and not something requiring more urgent action such as posting of personal details), I think that it certainly looks better to leave it to another admin to deal with, if, indeed, it needs to be "dealt with" at all. But I freely admit that my opinion is based on my belief that the hypothetical example that SlimVirgin gives above would be extremely rare from an experienced editor. The kind of editor who would be likely to make such egregious attacks &mdash; and Worldtraveler's complaints were nothing like that &mdash; would be indefblocked long before he had built up a record of writing featured articles. ElinorD (talk) 01:50, 19 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm not an administrator. If another editor makes a personal attack on me, then the only recourse I have is to ask somebody else (i.e. an administrator) to intervene.  I can't place a block myself (because I'm not an administrtor).  Administrators shouldn't have the "right to protect themselves" any more than other editors.  While it is true that administrators are often the subjects of abuse, the same can be true of any active editor.  Noel S McFerran 04:08, 20 March 2007 (UTC)


 * In my opinion, that is the single most intelligent thing that has been said here. &mdash;Bunchofgrapes (talk) 05:35, 20 March 2007 (UTC)


 * It is worth noting that the only block in this case which followed a personal attack on the blocker was HighInBC's block of Worldtraveller. However, that came after HighInBC had repeatedly warned Worldtraveller about his attacks and incivility towards InShaneee and the final attack, which resulted in the block, was calling both of them (and myself) 'fuckwits'. Are we then essentially saying that a user can counter a personal attack warning from an admin by attacking that admin as well? That sort of behaviour should inherently validate a block... rather than preventing one. Yes, blocks should be placed by uninvolved admins, but the fact that the admin has warned the user about their behaviour and been attacked for it does not make them 'involved'. Ditto the whole concept of 'do not block if the blockee and/or their friends are likely to be disruptive'. It's just a self-destructive idea to make bad behaviour a 'get out of jail free' card for bad behaviour. --CBD 10:34, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

It is not a good idea for an admin to block someone solely for the reason that they believe that they have been the target of a personal attack. Paul August &#9742; 15:55, 18 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Paul, admins block accounts all the time after being the target of their personal attacks, so your proposal represents a radical departure from current practise, and the ArbCom is meant to interpret policy, not create or challenge it. It's true that if an established editor launches into personal attacks against an admin, common sense dictates that the admin seek other input. But if a less-established or new account, or an otherwise disruptive account, does it, we may block immediately, and that's been the case ever since I've been an admin, which is two years now. It's particularly important if personal details are being posted that admins be allowed to block straightaway. We can't be expected to run to find other admins over every single routine decision that we make. SlimVirgin (talk) 02:15, 19 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I think the distinction here is when a user is headed toward a block anyway for other behavior, and replies to appropriate warnings with a stream of invective and personal attacks agains the admin wh0 warned him, that's a pretty clear sign that the user is not interested in changing his behavior, and the block is for the behavior, not the personal attack. For example the Gundagai editor case, where the editor made personal attacks against pretty much every admin who got in her way, and we all blocked her at one point or another.  However, if I had a user whose only disruptive behavior was harassing me personally, I would look for help and not make the block myself. Thatcher131 02:30, 19 March 2007 (UTC)


 * These are important distinctions, but Paul doesn't make them in his proposal. SlimVirgin (talk) 05:41, 19 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Obviously true... but just as obviously not the case here. --CBD 16:59, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

There is an ocean of difference between the ongoing months long situation I dealt with from the ED trolls and a couple of comments made by Worldtraveller. Worldtraveller never came close to approximating harassment. If we are going to allow admins to make blocks just because someone calls them a couple names, then there is a serious problem here.--MONGO 18:32, 18 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I think we should forget the particulars of this case (I don't even know them). Paul has proposed a sweeping remedy which, if not ignored, would radically change the way we deal with editors who are attacking us. SlimVirgin (talk) 05:41, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Definitely, if attacked by an obvious troll, then a block should be applied...no one has to deal with that, and as NewyorkBrad linked above, my old arbcom case clearly states that admins reatin the right to protect them selves from harassment. But care should be taken when blocking long time excellent contributors like Worldtraveller...especially if his "attack" of one word is on his talkpage in a disgusted response to being blocked and then blocked again.--MONGO 05:50, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
 * People keep saying this as if it were somehow relevant. Nobody in this case blocked Worldtraveller for calling them names. As to what Worldtraveller did not being harassment... many people disagree. It was not the equivalent of the harassment you received, but that was multiple accounts... and they got blocks alot longer than 24 hours after alot fewer than a dozen warnings. --CBD 18:52, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I think we can hopefully agree that there is a vast difference between a featured article writer and single purpose accounts set up solely for the purposes of harassment.--MONGO 19:19, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

I drafted the original text on the workshop page and continue to stand behind it. I have always seen, and continue to see, blocks placed by the target of a personal attack as an inappropriate use of power. Administrators should genuinely not care about personal attacks directed at them -- dealing with that is part of the job. As such there really should never be any reason why an administrator should want to block a user because of something that user said about the administrator. Nor should administrators go around and lobby other administrators to place such blocks on their behalf. The fact that this sort of thing goes on doesn't make it OK. On the other hand, if a user is making personal attacks on other users, and contributing to an overall decline in the environment, a block might be appropriate. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 00:48, 19 March 2007 (UTC)


 * UC, the ArbCom is not supposed to create policy in this way, especially not when it contradicts long-standing practise. If a user posts personal details, for instance, the admin is fully entitled to delete them and block the account that did it. The fact that this goes on does make it okay. Policies are descriptive, not prescriptive, and common sense dictates that admins be allowed to protect themselves against serious personal attack. SlimVirgin (talk) 05:41, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

I feel that the last sentence of that proposal is not clear enough. It says: Any response to a personal attack should come from a member of the community who was not a target of the attack. From the context, I assume that Paul is referring to blocks when he says "response", because otherwise it would seem as if an editor is prohibited from posting a calm reply to a personal attack. ElinorD (talk) 01:50, 19 March 2007 (UTC)


 * /me beckons and points seductively to the workshop page, singing a siren song. Perhaps people interested in these questions would care to read/comment on/modify the new proposed principle (25), finding of fact (25), and remedy (13) on the workshop page? They're concerned with HighInBC's blocks of Worldtraveller and Dbuckner, highly productive and established editors, and with the fact, mentioned by CBD above, that HighInBC was himself the target (one of the targets) of the attack by WT that he blocked for. HighInBC himself has already commented (come away! come away! it's interesting! it's relevant!). Bishonen | talk 03:06, 19 March 2007 (UTC).


 * I'm with SlimVirgin on this. I also point out that this is making policy without consensus, not applying policy, and that it is not required to deal with the dispute at hand. InShanee's block was wrong in any event, under any reasonable interpretation of policy and practice. If it is meant to refer to HiBC, rather than InShanee, all I can do is state for the record my total support of HiBC and my unequivocal opposition to any criticism of his actions that the arbcom may be contemplating. I believe that a lot admins, including me, would lose their comfidence in the arbcom if it made any such finding. Metamagician3000 03:16, 19 March 2007 (UTC)


 * In the last few days, I've seen several newly-created accounts that were posting claims about the identity of a certain administrator. Such accounts need to be blocked on sight by anyone with blocking powers, rather than allowing the user to post the details on three or four more pages, while you're looking to find someone uninvolved. I'm sure the ArbCom doesn't mean to prohibit the target of such attacks from acting promptly, but I think the proposal needs to be worded more carefully, so that it can't be appealed to at a later stage in a sense which the ArbCom never intended. ElinorD (talk) 03:26, 19 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Exactly right. Careful wording is very important with rulings like this. I don't believe anyone from the ArbCom would intend to turn admins into sitting targets unable to defend themselves because not allowed to stop the attacks without reference to a third party. SlimVirgin (talk) 05:45, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Precisely...admins should not be "fair game" or be expected to simply tolerate personal attacks and harassment. My argument is more about the care of blocking well established editors...and that is very different than some passerby or troll who is here primarily for disruption. There is no fine line here at all...and it should be obvious when someone is here to write an encyclopedia and when they aren't. Blocking malicious editors who have little or no useful contributions or are here doing nothing but POV pushing and being disruptive who then engaging personal attacks should be blocked, even by an admin who has to deal with this nonsense. Worldtraveller is/was one of the most prolific featured article writers here, and one of my articles only became featured because of his wise and helpful assistance. He is not, nor has he ever been a POV pushing or disruptive force on Wikipedia.--MONGO 06:00, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Small point
The proposed principal: Administrators says "Administrators are not to use their tools in any dispute in which they are directly involved, such as by blocking others with whom they are in a dispute."

I would just like to point out that the blocking policy says "Blocking to gain an advantage in a content dispute is strictly prohibited. Admins must not block editors with whom they are currently engaged in a content dispute." The key difference is that the policy is limited to content disputes, where as the proposed principal extends this to disputes in general. HighInBC 00:03, 19 March 2007 (UTC)


 * This is worrying, because the proposals are seeking to change policy. ArbCom is not supposed to change policy. Are the new members aware of that? SlimVirgin (talk) 05:46, 19 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I think it's well understood that "in dispute" here is to be interpreted restrictively. An administrator is usually in dispute with an editor whom he blocks, over the question of whether the editor should be blocked.  It is not the sense of current Wikipedia policy to prevent any administrator from blocking another editor simply because the editor doesn't want to be blocked.  The case here was different--there was an active dispute over content, an editor war in fact, and InShaneee egregiously broke policy in blocking the person with whom he was in dispute. This principle isn't going to change current policy; it isn't intended to. --Tony Sidaway 00:56, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Obviously "whether or not the editor should be blocked" is a permissible disagreement. Use common sense.  This is concerning blocks over article/policy content, not the behavior of the blocked editor.  Milto LOL pia 03:25, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

My interpretation is that the blocking policy is an integrated document and requires interpretation and enforcement in its entirety. We can not pick up a sentence or a phrase and torture it to an extent that it results into an interpretation of our liking. As such, "caution should be exercised before blocking users who may be acting in good faith", and the opening words of the policy should be (in my opinion) taken as a preamble to the policy, and its spirit should guide the entire policy interpretation and use. Accordingly, "blocks are used to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia and should not be used as a punitive measure". Moreover, in my opinion, the ArbCom has full authority to interpret the policy and thus possibly the ArbCom has full authority to interpret the policy overriding the opinions and interpretations by general editors which include administrators. --Bhadani 13:44, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Admonition vs. suspension
Arbitrators who believe that a lesser sanction (i.e., admonition rather than suspension of adminship) would be sufficient in this case might wish to consider adding my proposed finding no. 7 to the final decision. This finding notes the contents of InShaneee's statement at the outset of this case, acknowledging error with respect to this block, as something of a mitigating factor, somewhat balancing the aggravating factor of the prior RfC involving other disputed blocks which has also been noted. It might also be worth noting that there have been no allegations of bad blocks since the subject incident in early January. Newyorkbrad 00:09, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Raul654
This isn't an an attempt to influence the outcome, but I note that, once again, Raul654 comes through as a sober voice of reason. Well done. El_C 18:07, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Admonishment of WorldTraveler's actions as well
I think attention needs to be paid to the behavior and increasing incivility of WorldTraveler and the responsibility he shares for the way things happened. It should go along-with the thanks for his many positive contributions. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 18:42, 23 March 2007 (UTC)


 * There were personal attacks, and they do seem to be being glossed over. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 18:44, 23 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Indeed: something like "thank you very much for your great contributions, please come back and make some more, but less of the bad language, you naughty boy"? -- ALoan (Talk) 19:00, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Yeah, true. Personally, I don't really care - WorldTraveller is a great editor and we need him back in the fold. It's not that important that he be criticised by the arbcom, as long as he isn't positively given a free pass by action of some kind being taken against CBD or HiBC (we mustn't get to the point where admins are too intimidated, when dealing with some editors, to do their job). It's true that he is far from blameless in this sorry saga, and it's a bit surprising that there's no "admonishment" being directed his way so far. I didn't expect him to get off scot free, given his poor behaviour, but so be it I suppose. Let's just give InShanee some admonishment, get WorldTraveller back editing, and not make findings that are going to tie the hands of admins in future situations. Metamagician3000 23:03, 23 March 2007 (UTC)


 * On the other hand, he had already been blocked, and there is considerable evidence that he was poorly advised. I think our policy is clear enough that grievances should be pursued through the dispute resolution apparatus, and in the end this is what he did. Arbcom isn't our mother, so we don't need Worldtraveller to be admonished just so that we all know what we should be doing anyway. --Tony Sidaway 23:23, 23 March 2007 (UTC)