Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Xed

I didn't know he was banned at the time. But how can I place this comment on the actual page? WhisperToMe 22:15, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * Add an addendum to your certified testimony. -- orthogonal 22:44, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Discussion moved from Village pump
An RfC has been opened on a user who was at the time it was opened was, and currently remains, blocked, and is thus unable to respond in his own defense.

Regardless of the substantive merits of the claims in the RfC, it is fundamentally unfair to make formal allegations against a user, and to allow others to comment on or endorse those allegations, while the individual charged is unable to respond.

Leaving the RfC until such time as the block ends is not a reasonable option, as in that time many other users will read the allegations, and inevitably draw conclusions, without ever seeing the response of the user charged; if the RfC is simply to be held in abeyance until the block ends, the "jury pool" of users will be irreversibly tainted.

Therefore, in the interest of fundamental fairness, I ask that either the RfC be declared invalid without prejudice to plaintiff or defendant or that the user be unbanned forthwith in order to be able to answer the allegations against him.

-- orthogonal 17:40, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * The simpler solution, if the software will accommodate it, would be to modify the ban so that the user can edit that specific RfC page. I assume the user can already edit his or her talk page, despite the ban.  The user would presumably want to put a note on the talk page to the effect of "comments will be answered only here, because I can't edit your talk page".  The blocked user would still be somewhat inconvenienced, by being unable to leave comments on others' talk pages, but not to a level constituting a denial of fundamental fairness.  I agree with you that continuation of the present situation makes the RfC of questionable value. JamesMLane 18:06, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * As far as I know, blocks are complete and we do not have the capability for partial blocks or "throttles" currently in place. --Michael Snow 18:10, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * If it's who I think it is, I think the RfC and ban were independent of one another, that the ban was the more suspicious of the two actions. I do not think the persons creating the RfC were the ones who made the ban.  At any rate, stopping the clock on the RfC while the ban is in place or removing it, only to reinstate it at the end of the blocking period, would be the best solution.  After all, the people putting up the RfC were trying to do things according to established procedure and should not themselves be penalized if someone else took up the cudgels.  Geogre 18:29, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)

It sure looks like another Salem trial from where I'm standing. This is unbecoming. These feeding frenzies must stop! - Friends of Robert 18:21, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)

The block in question has now been in place for nearly three days (it is scheduled to last for seven). Once the justification for the block was initially clarified, nobody has seen fit to reverse the block, though undoubtedly a large number of admins are aware of it. This suggests to my mind that the community consensus accepts the block as legitimate.

Moving on to the question of what to do with the RfC while the block is in place. The initiator of the RfC apparently did so without knowledge of the block or corresponding unfairness. In fact, the subject of the RfC was given notice of the listing in appropriate fashion. My personal suggestion would be to put a prominent notice at the top of the listing about the user's present inability to respond and stating that the listing is suspended until a response is possible, then protect the RfC listing so that no further edits can be made until the block expires. On Requests for comment, I would suggest adding a note that the listing is suspended and using strikethrough on the text that presently appears there. Would that be a workable resolution? --Michael Snow 18:23, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I think Michael's answer is fine, if a bit overstated. I think unblocking Xed, however, would be ludicrous. Because he's a problem user who generated an RfC, he's somehow immune to consequences for his actions? This is just waiting for some abuse. Snowspinner 18:34, Sep 15, 2004 (UTC)


 * Snowspinner writes, he's somehow immune to consequences for his actions? Is blocking a punishment then? Are blocks of seven days generally made by sysops? I thought such lengthy punishments were more a province of the Arbitration Committee? -- orthogonal 18:44, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * Blocks typically start at 24 hours, but Xed was already blocked previously for that length (by five different sysops, incidentally). It has been fairly common to increase block lengths when dealing with repeat offenders, whether the basis for the block is vandalism or disruption. Seven days is around the outer limit of what sysops generally do on their own, except for blocking malicious impersonations and reincarnations of banned users. Also, it's worth noting that at least two members of the Arbitration Committee, in voting on these cases, called for sanctions against Xed. --Michael Snow 19:11, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * Not being a sysop myself, please forgive me if I'm a bit dense: are you saying that five sysops blocked Xed five different times, or five sysops together agreed on a single 24-hour block? And -- again parson my ignorance -- I thought for a decision by the Arbitration Committee to be binding, more than two members had to vote for it? Or is the argument that a sanction that fails to win support of a majority of the Arbitration Committee can nevertheless be imposed by a single sysop? -- orthogonal 19:51, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * 5 sysops, acting indivdually, each blocked Xed at just about the same time. RickK 20:33, Sep 15, 2004 (UTC)


 * The comments by the arbitrators were in the course of rejecting cases brought by Xed himself, so no case was actually accepted in which they could have issued an official decision against Xed. --Michael Snow 20:39, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * Then your point is that the call for sanctions by two members of the Committee was unofficial and merely obiter dictum? In that case then, what relevance does it have? -- orthogonal 00:30, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * No, that's your point, though I don't particularly disagree with it. My point was that "it's worth noting". I think it should be clear that the expressed opinions of individual arbitrators are relevant in evaluating actions that might later come before the Arbitration Committee. Relevant, not decisive, of course. --Michael Snow 02:57, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * If any blocked user has a rational, appropriate response to either their block or any RfC or arbitration or other matter that they are involved in, and they email it to me, I will post it for them myself. I am confident that most other frequent contributors would do the same. uc 19:45, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * Ditto to uc. And I know he has my email address, because he has more than once emailed me to complain about the conduct of another admin. -- Jmabel 20:27, Sep 15, 2004 (UTC)

End moved discussion