|
#REDIRECT [[Love or Something Like It]]
This is a page for working on Arbitration decisions. It provides for suggestions by Arbitrators and other users and for comment by arbitrators, the parties and others. After the analysis of [[../Evidence|/Evidence]] here and development of proposed principles, findings of fact, and remedies, Arbitrators will vote at [[../Proposed decision|/Proposed decision]]. Anyone who edits should sign all suggestions and comments. Arbitrators will place proposed items they have confidence in on [[../Proposed decision|/Proposed decision]].
==Motions and requests by the parties==
===Motion to clarify scope of the RFAr===
1) As originally stated this RFAr was to examine InShaneee's block of Worldtraveller, editing as an IP, two months ago and the subsequent ongoing dispute about that block. InShaneee previously unblocking himself (after the blocking admin accidentally unblocked 'InShanee' (s/b three 'E's)) and closing an RFC on himself (after a month of inactivity and discussion with others suggesting it would be ok for him to do so despite his reservations) were subsequently tagged on. There have now also been moves towards including elements of past disputes (circa 6 months ago) with Hypnosadist and A Link to the Past and/or blocks placed by myself and HighInBC last week. I'd like to clarify the scope of the RFAr. If my block is in question then I, and likely the admin who reversed it, should be listed as parties. Ditto for other disputes. Listing only two parties to one particular incident is fine, but then there should not be evidence and proposed motions brought in the back door based on only 'one side' of unrelated events. --[[User talk:CBDunkerson|CBD]] 10:09, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
:'''Comment by Arbitrators:'''
::
:'''Comment by parties:'''
::The stuff about InShaneee's other blocks is peripheral but potentially important if it confirms any trends in behaviour. The subsequent blocks by CBDunkerson and HighInBC arose from this dispute and it may be wise to examine them, particularly as InShaneee appeared to be encouraging CBDunkerson to make good his threat to block me. [[User:81.179.115.188|81.179.115.188]] 19:38, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
:'''Comment by others:'''
::It is important to review blocks made on Worldtraveller as to whether they had a calming effect or not.--[[User:MONGO|MONGO]] 10:19, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
===Motion to remove Tony Sidaway from list of parties===
1) To the best of my knowledge Tony Sidaway made no comment and had no involvement of any form in this dispute until he decided to list himself as a party after the arbitration case had opened. As the dispute is between myself and InShaneee, and not anything to do with Tony Sidaway, I feel it is inappropriate and unhelpful for him to be listed as a party. [[User:81.179.115.188|81.179.115.188]] 19:35, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
:'''Comment by Arbitrators:'''
::
:'''Comment by parties:'''
:: For what it's worth, I always make a practice of adding myself as a part to a case in which I give evidence. I think it clarifies the role in which I contribute to the case. I'll remove myself from the list since this seems to be upsetting some people unnecessarily, but ultimately the arbitrators decide who is and who is not a party. --[[User talk:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway]] 20:24, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
:::You should not add yourself as a party unless you are part of the dispute, or a reasonably anticipated extension of the dispute. [[User:Fred Bauder|Fred Bauder]] 13:42, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
::::: This is new and I'll take notice of it in future. However it is the case that I was approached by InShaneee about this harassment some weeks ago now. I seem to recall recommending that he take his further concerns primarily to CBD, who I noticed had also expressed concern about the harassment. I also asked him to bring any further instances of harassment to the admins noticeboard. --[[User talk:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway]] 13:49, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
:'''Comment by others:'''
*Tony is here purely and simply as a troll to cause as much trouble as he possibly can. It is truly about time someone told him when to but out and shut up. As none of his friends seem able to to do it: - I will: Piss off out of this, and leave it to those concerned. You have attempted to upset the apple cart for your own nefarious reasons. You are losing credibility. Now just let those concerned sort their own problems out. This is nothing to do with you - OK? Now get lost! [[User:Giano II|Giano]] 20:51, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
**Giano, comments of this nature are unacceptable. [[User:Fred Bauder|Fred Bauder]] 13:45, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
:::::Oh no they are not! You have the choice of sorting out Tony Sidaway "scoobies indeed!" or having an RFA degenerate into a rough scrum. Keep order and you won't have this sort of comment occuring. The choice is yours. [[User:Giano II|Giano]] 14:13, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
*This is absolutely clear. Tony Sidaway was in no way involved in any of the blocks under discussion. That he doesn't ''like'' the people he blames for his own block abuse being reviewed unfavorably is a pity, but it's really not germane here. The only way that I can see a wedge into the subject is if this is an RFAR on "personal attacks can/cannot cause blocks," as he invoked that language in his own blocks, eight months ago, but ArbCom is not a policy body. His presence here is adding distraction and upping the level of venom precipitously. We have gotten no evidence that he has been involved in the dispute in any form -- either the actions or the discussion (he did not even take part in the rancourous AN/I debate), so it's hard to see his entry here as being intentionally disruptive. [[User:Geogre|Geogre]] 21:43, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
*:Geogre, '''you''' (and Giano), were "in no way involved in any of the blocks under discussion". You have both also taken actions which could certainly be described as "upping the level of venom". Does that make your presence here "intentionally disruptive"? Everyone is allowed to comment on an ArbCom case if they wish. I'd urge Tony, ''and'' yourselves, to tone the hostility '''way''' down, but nobody should be telling anyone else they can't be here. --[[User talk:CBDunkerson|CBD]] 21:49, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
*::Here's the difference: Geogre and Giano have both commented on the blocks in question. They have not frivolously listed themselves as parties to the dispute. Tony has made no previous comment at all but has listed himself as a party. That is why Tony Sidaway is being accused of trolling but Geogre and Giano are not. [[User:81.179.115.188|81.179.115.188]] 21:51, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
*:: If that were the problem, then I'd simply disclose now that Inshaneee approached me complaining of harassment some weeks ago. The accusation of trolling is, of course, unworthy of response. --[[User talk:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway]] 23:33, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
*::: Did he now? Where and how? [[User:81.179.115.188|81.179.115.188]] 01:18, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
**I'm not listing myself as a party. I was out there in public on AN/I concerning the 2nd and 3rd blocks. I'm keeping my comments in the "comments by others" section. Tony can't claim to be a party ''even if'' he were "approached" (privately, we assume). He's not a party, and yet there he is...blowing bubbles in the soup. [[User:Geogre|Geogre]] 02:39, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
::::::*Is anyone in authority going to do something about Tony's fervour[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/InShaneee/Workshop&curid=9963375&action=history] the last 14 edits are all by someone with no connection to the case. This seems to me to have become a some form of hijacking - that needs to be stopped. It is ridiculous, and disruptive. He needs to be banned from the page. [[User:Giano II|Giano]] 13:28, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
===Template===
1)
:'''Comment by Arbitrators:'''
::
:'''Comment by parties:'''
::
:'''Comment by others:'''
::
==Proposed temporary injunctions==
===Template===
1)
:'''Comment by Arbitrators:'''
::
:'''Comment by parties:'''
::
:'''Comment by others:'''
::
===Template===
1)
:'''Comment by Arbitrators:'''
::
:'''Comment by parties:'''
::
:'''Comment by others:'''
::
===Template===
1)
:'''Comment by Arbitrators:'''
::
:'''Comment by parties:'''
::
:'''Comment by others:'''
::
===Template===
1)
:'''Comment by Arbitrators:'''
::
:'''Comment by parties:'''
::
:'''Comment by others:'''
::
==Questions to the parties==
=Proposed final decision=
==Proposed principles==
===Administrators===
1) [[Wikipedia:Administrators|Wikipedia administrators]] are trusted members of the community and are expected to follow [[Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines|Wikipedia's policies and guidelines]]. Occasional lapses from optimal behavior are acceptable, but consistently poor judgement may result in desysopping. Administrators should in particular avoid actions that are likely to be disruptive. 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. See [[Wikipedia:Administrators]], [[Wikipedia:Blocking policy]], and [[Wikipedia:Protection policy]].
:'''Comment by Arbitrators:'''
::
:'''Comment by parties:'''
:: Yes. --[[User talk:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway]] 03:48, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
:'''Comment by others:'''
::Proposed. Adapted from [[Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Seabhcan]]. [[User:Newyorkbrad|Newyorkbrad]] 03:02, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
:::Should go further as far as blocks of established editors are conserned and even further for blocks of editors who pull FA's on the almost weekly basis. Creating an encyclopedia is the main goal of this project. Those particularly valuable for the contribution towards great content should be protected and provided with the most comfortable working environment. This environment should be the main task of admins. --[[User:Irpen|Irpen]] 05:48, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
::::So if you get an article to FA on "the almost weekly basis" then you get ''more'' of a free pass than if you only do it once a month, or once a year??? Is that what you actually mean? I certainly agree that established contributors should get more consideration than brand new users, but I'm not sure I'd go farther than that. Thanks for clarifying. Also, what do you think should be done to make the working environment "the most comfortable"? Free drinks? Foot massages? Surely not. I'm not sure what you mean by that either, but perhaps it would be a good topic for an essay somewhere. ++[[User:Lar|Lar]]: [[User_talk:Lar|t]]/[[Special:Contributions/Lar|c]] 13:49, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
::::Policy doesn't provide for any such exemption. [[User:Mackensen|Mackensen]] [[User_talk:Mackensen|(talk)]] 15:00, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
::And so the one-note symphony gets played again. Both of you should know that the straw man you're knocking down has nowhere stood. The suggestion is that people who have long experience have long periods of time showing themselves to "play by the rules," and so they do get an additional benefit of the doubt. Those who write FA's "nearly every week" show themselves to be of value to the content, and they show a person who deals with adversity well -- and frankly only someone who hasn't been through FAC wouldn't know how dreadful that process is and how many unreasonable people will speak up and make unmotivated demands. So, a person who writes frequent FA's shows by evidence good temperament, good knowledge of content, and prolonged time without dispute. If there is a sudden block or shriek over that user, it means that something rather extraordinary has happened or that the person making the accusation needs serious investigation. Stop with the dreary "free pass" stuff, please. It's a simpler question: it's inductive logic. Like passing RFA, it shows that a person has been put in some crucible and established some credit. [[User:Geogre|Geogre]] 20:06, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
:::One-note symphony? Well... I think we all have our own oxen that we like to gore on a regular basis, actually, but I'll speak out against free-passism '''whenever''' I see it pushed forward. Irpen's comment, above, struck me as doing just that, and nothing more (as per his usual rhetoric... factor in some anti IRCism and we'd have about all of what he says). Your comment, on the other hand, about how nasty FAC is, and how it's evidence of some more noble forebearance by the supplicant than the average process around here, is both '''true''' (FAC IS nasty, from this outsider's perception anyway, and not something I'd look forward to subjecting any articles that I was the primary author of to without some considerable trepidation (and perhaps a stresstab or two)), and '''new''' (That is, it's not been used as a justification before. Before... we always just got "the people writing the encyclopedia deserve special consideration" (as Irpen appears to be saying above). That dog don't hunt, at least not with me.) Thanks for introducing some new rhetoric. I actually agree with you about it, believe it or not.... but I still wonder what you mean when you say ''"Those who write FA's "nearly every week" show themselves to be of value to the content"''... isn't "of value to the content" some sort of statement of worth? ++[[User:Lar|Lar]]: [[User_talk:Lar|t]]/[[Special:Contributions/Lar|c]] 20:40, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
===Controversial blocks===
2) The [[WP:BLOCK|blocking policy]] states that blocks against established editors may be seen as [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Blocking_policy#Controversial_blocks controversial] "''Blocks may be damaging when consensus proves elusive. Examples include: blocks of logged-in users with a substantial history of valid contributions, regardless of the reason for the block''"
:'''Comment by Arbitrators:'''
::
:'''Comment by parties:'''
::
:'''Comment by others:'''
::Proposed--[[User:MONGO|MONGO]] 08:34, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
::As InShaneee's block was made on a seemingly 'brand new' IP user this principle would apply only to the blocks for harassment and personal attacks placed by myself and HighiInBC. As we were not listed as parties to this RFAr this would seem to be out of scope. As people seem to keep wanting to bring it 'in scope', despite the lack of any significant past 'dispute resolution' efforts in reference to these actions, I will say that I believe my action was entirely proper even by the heightened standards for 'potentially controversial blocks'. I can add evidence to that effect, but will not do so unless this expansion to include myself and HighInBC as 'un-stated parties' is validated. --[[User talk:CBDunkerson|CBD]] 09:44, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
:::One need not be a named party in a case to have their actions reviewed if said actions are part of the case. If actions escalated a bad situation rather than deescalated it, then that should be reviewed.--[[User:MONGO|MONGO]] 09:51, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
::::To quote [[WP:RFAr]], "'''You are required''' to place a notice on the user talk page of each person against whom you lodge a complaint." Not naming individuals as parties, not giving them talk page notification, but then 'lodging complaints' anyway would thus seem 'poor form' at the least. It's better to be up-front about the scope of the dispute so that evidence on both sides of all issues under review is presented. --[[User talk:CBDunkerson|CBD]] 10:20, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
:::::Sorry if you see if this as a complaint about you in particular. However, akin to the Giano situation months back, the question of blocking established editors without consensus needs to be ruled on once and for all. Naturally, everyone must follow policy and no one is above it no matter how many great articles they write. But blocking established editors has repeatedly been shown to be more harmful than beneficial to the project overall.--[[User:MONGO|MONGO]] 10:35, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
::::::Then I guess I'll have to add evidence, because the block I placed was not "without consensus" at the time. --[[User talk:CBDunkerson|CBD]] 10:46, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
::My view is that CBD had the "consensus" of the immediate. Part of checking out a block is ''allowing time for comment.'' Given the size of AN/I and how riven it is with "block for personal attack" and the fact that this was an IP address, you need to allow sufficient time for multiple eyes to see. The people already involved will reply immediately: they're watching. The people who are actually third parties are going to be slower. Tony Sidaway concludes that there is a "gang" because a group of people are consistent in their views, above, and thinks there has to be a conspiracy because, over a period of 48-72 hours, people trickled in to oppose. What do we call it when there are 2-3 opinions endorsing in the first 6 hours? What is ''that?'' Well, getting input does not mean allowing 2 hours to go past. There was no danger in not blocking. There was no fear that poor Inshaneee was going to quit if there weren't a punitive block. There was no fear that WorldTraveller would feel happy and vindicated and get meaner without a block, and yet you declared consensus immediately and went ahead. That ''was'' a mistake. [[User:Geogre|Geogre]] 20:11, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
:::Geogre said, "and the fact that this was an IP address". It wasn't an IP address. If it were, then the "logged-in users" principle cited above would not apply. I blocked Worldtraveller under that account name. As to 'allowing time for comment'... there were a couple of days worth of comment at the time I made the block. Not '2 hours' as you state. My "mistake" of declaring consensus "immediately" never happened. There was a long comment period. Please familiarize yourself with the facts of the case. --[[User talk:CBDunkerson|CBD]] 20:40, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
::Then you really, really, really must give that "evidence" you promised, because I saw nothing like consensus after two days. My failure was in assuming you were referring to a period when there really was consensus, as opposed to thinking that you deemed the widespread dissent that emerged as being consent to block. My mistake: I will not assume that you judged consensus correctly again. [[User:Geogre|Geogre]] 21:38, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
[[WP:BLOCK]] should be rewritten from "logged-in users" to "established editors"...logged in users is vague.--[[User:MONGO|MONGO]] 20:43, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
:::The trouble with all this is that the block by CBD should have been ''totally'' uncontroversial, given the extreme abusive behaviour that it addressed. If anything, CBD should be commended for his calm but decisive handling of the situation. If blocks like this are going to be considered "controversial" from now on, arbcom had better spell it out in detail and draw a clear line so that admins know where we stand, and exactly when we should be fearful about doing our job; to that extent, I agree with MONGO. [[User:Metamagician3000|Metamagician3000]] 10:11, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
::: It is a fact that blocks of established editors have become more controversial over time. Administrators may have cause to regret this, because sometimes you really do have to stop ongoing bad behavior and a block is the only effective way. But we cannot ignore this change. We must tread carefully. --[[User talk:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway]] 12:34, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
===Courtesy===
3) Wikipedia users are expected to [[Wikipedia:Civility|behave reasonably and calmly]] in their dealings with other users. Insulting and intimidating other users harms the community by creating a hostile environment. [[WP:NPA|Personal attacks]] are not acceptable.
:'''Comment by Arbitrators:'''
:: Proposed. It shouldn't be necessary to make this finding, not with the collective tenure of the participants. [[User:Mackensen|Mackensen]] [[User_talk:Mackensen|(talk)]] 14:48, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
:'''Comment by parties:'''
::Tony Sidaway appears to think the RfC came after the 'apology'. It took 48 days, 11 posts to InShaneee's talk page and the failed RfC before InShaneee even vaguely admitted that there might have been a problem. Specifically, he apologised for jumping the gun and not seeking outside input. He did not concede in any way that the block contravened policy. The ridiculous length of time it took for him to respond vastly compounded his initial error and ultimately led to arbitration. [[User:81.179.115.188|81.179.115.188]] 22:04, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
:'''Comment by others:'''
:: As in the Giano case, an editor clung to a grievance long after the original problem had been remedied. To his credit, Worldtraveller also attempted an RFC. But somewhere I think he forgot that Inshaneee is also human, and had admitted his error to him on his talk page. --[[User talk:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway]] 21:48, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
::::*Do not bring me into this case Tony unless you truly want me here, at the moment I am merely obsearving your conduct - start talking about "''an editor clung to a grievance long after the original problem had been remedied''" and you will find exactly how long I can cling - and as for remedies, just don't tempt me. This case has hardly anything to do with me, and even less with you. [[User:Giano II|Giano]] 22:35, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
:: Worldtraveller, I think your response here illustrates the problem. You seem to have a huge investment in your personal feelings, and insist on the right to demand restitution in your own terms. You will never be satisfied by a just and equitable outcome, you seek to escalate the disagreement until you get whatever it is you want. Inshaneee's bad actions were criticised for what they were, and it was also recognised that the block review process had failed in your case. But rather than accept that, you kept it up.
:: You did try an RfC, and I think that was good, and I wish it had succeeded. Another mechanism, which you don't seem to have used, is Mediation. This would probably have enabled you to discuss your grievances more-or-less directly with Inshaneee. What you did instead was not productive, and here we are. --[[User talk:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway]] 22:51, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
===Community responsibility===
4) Editors who enjoy high standing in the community have a responsibility to comment constructively during disputes, should they decide to comment at all.
:'''Comment by Arbitrators:'''
:: Proposed. [[User:Mackensen|Mackensen]] [[User_talk:Mackensen|(talk)]] 17:08, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
:'''Comment by parties:'''
::
:'''Comment by others:'''
::And those with low standing? [[User_talk:Derex|Derex]] 05:35, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
::: ...cannot reasonably be expected to know better, unlike those who have been around for a while. <b>[[User Talk:JzG|Guy]]</b> <small>([[User:JzG/help|Help!]])</small> 12:04, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
===Responsiveness===
5) Administrators must be willing and prepared to discuss the reasons for their actions in a timely manner.
:'''Comment by Arbitrators:'''
:: Proposed. [[User:Mackensen|Mackensen]] [[User_talk:Mackensen|(talk)]] 21:03, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
:'''Comment by parties:'''
::Absolutely. [[User:81.179.115.188|81.179.115.188]] 08:16, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
:'''Comment by others:'''
:: Yes. InShaneee's initial failure to respond is disappointing. Had he not apologised, eventually, I think I'd view his overall behavior in a less favorable light. --[[User talk:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway]] 21:51, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
===Statements about actions are impersonal===
6) Characterizing or criticizing the ''actions'' of another editor, even using harsh and disparaging terms or epithets, is not a personal statement and cannot be considered a personal attack.
:'''Comment by Arbitrators:'''
:: That's a slippery slope. If I characterize someone's actions as "infantile" or "absurd," then I'm clearly making a statement about the person themselves. This is, to my mind, a false dichtomoy that we need not encourage. That using such language tends to inflame the situation is also important. [[User:Mackensen|Mackensen]] [[User_talk:Mackensen|(talk)]] 18:46, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
:'''Comment by parties:'''
:: This isn't going to pass because it's simply a mechanism for an end-run about the personal attacks policy. --[[User talk:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway]] 20:09, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
::: That's what I've been saying. This opens the door to "I would politely like to point out that some would consider your actions of late to be likened to those of a jackass" to be labeled as legitimate criticism. Attack the person's actions, and you're attacking the person. I don't believe there's any disputes where even harsh criticism can't be worded in a respectful manner. --[[User:InShaneee|InShaneee]] 20:50, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
::Yes, I called InShaneee a witless moron. Having had no response whatsoever - not even so much as a 'piss off' - to any of my five requests for his comment, over 25 days, I was pretty exasperated. I apologised for it [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Worldtraveller&diff=109292641&oldid=109236950]. Calling him a terrible administrator is something I absolutely stand by and is absolutely not a personal attack. The difference between the two is what this proposal is trying to address and I think it is worth addressing, seeing as HighInBC 'warned' me about incivility for calling InShaneee a terrible administrator. [[User:81.179.115.188|81.179.115.188]] 21:11, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
:'''Comment by others:'''
::Proposed. I've seen it suggested, which made me wonder if I had previously made some faulty assumptions about policy. So I'd like some clarification if this is the case or not. [[User:Bitnine|Bitnine]] 18:43, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
::Frankly, I've always considered this the ''worst'' sort of sophistry... 'I didn't say that YOU were a pathetic moronic jackass, I said that your ACTIONS were consistent with those of a pathetic moronic jackass'. Or to quote this case, [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:InShaneee&diff=prev&oldid=107678913 "By ignoring the question you give me cause to believe you're a witless moron. That's no personal attack, just a statement of belief."] It's absurd gamesmanship to 'justify' insults and incivility and, if anything, ''more'' deserving of a block. --[[User talk:CBDunkerson|CBD]] 19:04, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
:::CBD, I agree with you on that, and strongly, but you and I both know that civility blocks hardly ever work... At any rate I'd like to see this repudiated and something more along the lines of an opposite to it adopted, per what I think Mackenson is saying... ++[[User:Lar|Lar]]: [[User_talk:Lar|t]]/[[Special:Contributions/Lar|c]] 20:05, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
::Had I blocked everyone that insulted me with far more egregious comments than were ever made by Worldtraveller, my blocks would have been twice as many as they were. Admins are expected to have thicker skins, and blocking any editor just because he insults you is grounds for desysopping. Administrators should always get a neutral third party to perform blocks against those they are in dispute with. I wonder when the non-writing admins are going to stop harassing those editors who can write. There is a BIG difference between blocking a long standing and excellent contributor than some single purpose POV pusher or troll.--[[User:MONGO|MONGO]] 20:33, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
:::I assume you are referring to the block by HighInBC and/or myself (since the harassment which I blocked Worldtraveller for included personal attacks), but as those were blocks for Worldtraveller's actions towards InShaneee I'm not sure what you are talking about 'in dispute with'. HighInBC's block did come after Worldtraveller had insulted him (as well as InShaneee) for warning him to ''stop'' attacking InShaneee, but that doesn't really make them 'in dispute'. Or if it ''does'', 'all admins (including me) are ninnies'! Ha, I'm unblockable now. :] As to 'non-writing admins harassing editors who can write'... haven't seen it. --[[User talk:CBDunkerson|CBD]] 21:33, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
::::Maybe the best thing would have been to disengage? I can see no cost benefit to blocks made subsequently by yourself or HighInBC....and in fact, it appears they are part of the escalation into where this situation is currently.--[[User:MONGO|MONGO]] 21:47, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
:::::Heh. I wasn't involved in a dispute to 'disengage' from. There was a report of harassment. I agreed with other users that it was valid and told Worldtraveller to stop. He refused. I blocked him. Cost benefit analysis? Subsequent further incivility by Worldtraveller and others currently being experienced vs harassment continuing forever. Infinity is always bigger. There is a point at which you '''have''' to stop people who will not stop themselves. This differs ''markedly'' from previous cases in that there the complaint was that blocks were made for 'one or two incivil comments'. This was an ongoing (for two '''months''') pattern of disruption which the user had vowed to continue despite multiple warnings to stop. Would you allow that to go on indefinitely? --[[User talk:CBDunkerson|CBD]] 22:05, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
:::::::I keep seeing comments about "harassment" as if such were an obvious fact. I've seen nothing even remotely approaching what I consider to be harassment. If [[User_talk:InShaneee#Block|this]] is blockable harassment, half of Wikipedia ought to be blocked. Hell, half of the commentors in this Workshop ought to be blocked under that standard, including me. [[User_talk:Derex|Derex]] 05:44, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
::::::If, rather than blocking me, you'd strongly advised InShaneee to respond to my questions rather than ignoring me completely, and if he'd done so, we wouldn't be here now. There was no pattern of disruption - there was a pattern of someone trying to get answers about a violation of policy, and an administrator ignoring the questions apparently hoping they'd just go away. Your decision that I was the guilty party seems to me a major error of judgement. I recall that you got pretty worked up over [[Wikipedia:Wikipedia is failing]] and suspect that might have influenced you. [[User:81.179.115.188|81.179.115.188]] 22:09, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
:::::::You were '''both''' 'guilty parties'. The difference is that InShaneee admitted his mistake directly to you and publicly on AN/I and did not repeat the bad action... whereas you denied you had done anything wrong and vowed to continue even after several people told you to stop. Yours was an ongoing problem. His was not. As to the sudden accusation of bias on my part (over what I recall as a fairly civil discussion in which we disagreed on some points and agreed on others), I find it distressingly cynical and unjustified, but how does one prove that they ''do not'' harbor bias against someone - except by noting that I have never called you names, said you were bad for the project, tried to get rid of you, or otherwise expressed anything akin to bias. I just wanted you to stop harassing InShaneee... and I was far from the only person who warned you about that. Even now that you have made attacks and incivil comments about me, I'm not happy with you, and would now recuse myself from decisions about you, but I'm not trying to 'go after' you either. I was all for Mackensen's proposal to just let this go... which is what '''you''' should have done a good ways back. --[[User talk:CBDunkerson|CBD]] 23:51, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
:::::::::InShaneee's apology on my talk page was not adequate. Several people have agreed that it was not. Where did he admit his mistake 'publicly on AN/I'? He repeated the bad action of ignoring everything I said and thereby frustrating my efforts to resolve the situation. Apart from you and HighInBC, who else thought I was harassing? How many people, then and since, have disagreed that any harassment was taking place? As for letting it go, should one always drop it if an administrator, having violated policy, simply stays silent and ignores all criticism? [[User:81.179.115.188|81.179.115.188]] 08:41, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
::::::::In the interests of fair disclosure... I am forced to recognize that there ''are'' aspects of this case which are relevant to my personal 'biases', though they have nothing to do with you personally. Specifically, I strongly disagree with the idea that there should be any difference in treatment between the newest anon and the most venerable arbitrator '''and''' I have a special dislike for harassment. I '''don't''' believe either of those prevented me from acting impartially here (again, ''alot'' of people told you to stop), but we all have particular views and these inevitably played a part in my taking an interest in the case and decision to act. You '''were''' in the wrong. Someone else who wasn't much bothered by harassment or who paid higher deference to 'valued contributors' might have waited longer to block (and indeed, I blocked first... so they did), but your refusal to stop your improper actions '''required''' a block at some point. --[[User talk:CBDunkerson|CBD]] 00:34, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
:::::::::I just read through some of the discussion on [[WP:WIF]] and I don't think I was fair to say you got 'worked up'. In fact you were among the most sensible and calm critics of the essay. However, I do find it slightly curious that both you and HighInBC, neither of whom I recall having interacted with before, both opposed my views there and then only a couple of weeks later end up blocking me on the unrelated InShaneee situation. [[User:81.179.115.188|81.179.115.188]] 08:41, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
::There is some distance between outright calling someone a terrible administrator for failing to communicate, as Worldtraveller did, and proposing that an administrator to be formally admonished by the Arbitration Committee for the same, as Mackensen does [[#Responsiveness|above]], but not very much. —[[User talk:Cryptic|Cryptic]] 23:13, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
:::Worldtraveller did both. Indeed, his stated goal was not to get InShaneee to reform, but rather [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:InShaneee&diff=prev&oldid=111903370 "Whatever I can do to get your administrative tools taken away from you, I will do."] '''That''' is why this matter was not settled prior to reaching ArbCom. --[[User talk:CBDunkerson|CBD]] 23:51, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
*'''Support''': Comments about actions are evaluations of the rightness or wrongness of them and no way come close to something like, "The Scoobies," which argues about ''character'' and mental ability. Having gotten both sorts of accusation in the past, I can tell you that one is an expression of a view ("You should never have deleted The Urban because it's a great club") and the other is the hubris of trying to characterize the self ("You just go support your friends") and therefore ''all future'' and ''potential'' actions. I can make a mistake and be a good person, but if you say that I'm a bad person, you are saying that all my actions come from that. [[User:Geogre|Geogre]] 10:42, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
: It is possible that "Scoobies" has some cultural meaning of which I was unaware. If so, I apologise. As far as I'm aware it addresses neither character nor mental ability, but rather an unfortunate tendency to treat Wikipedia as a battleground between good and evil. --[[User talk:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway]] 12:39, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
===Personal attacks are harmful to the community===
7) While personal attacks rarely damage the quality of encyclopedic material directly, they impair the motivation and ability of editors to go about their work in article space and elsewhere in the manner to which they are accustomed. As a volunteer community where consensus is necessary, civility and a professional level of respect need to be demonstrated by all parties.
:'''Comment by Arbitrators:'''
::
:'''Comment by parties:'''
::Proposed. --[[User:InShaneee|InShaneee]] 21:00, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
:'''Comment by others:'''
::Agree. Not that this justifies the initial block in any way - but InShanee has ackmowledged that. It is relevant to other events. It is important that Wikipedia maintain high standards of politeness and respect, and not degenerate into flaming, and that it be seen that this will be enforced if needed. [[User:Metamagician3000|Metamagician3000]] 10:15, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
::Sure. Personal attacks poison the well, about equally with quick blocks, partial blocks, and failure to answer for one's actions. No one is in favor of personal attacks. [[User:Geogre|Geogre]] 10:43, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
===Disruption===
1) Disruption - A user may be blocked when his/her conduct severely disrupts the project — his/her conduct is inconsistent with a civil, collegial atmosphere and interferes with the process of editors working together harmoniously to create an encyclopedia.
:'''Comment by Arbitrators:'''
::
:'''Comment by parties:'''
::
:'''Comment by others:'''
::Proposed. Taken directly from [[WP:BLOCK]]. I think it is important to reiterate this as a proposed principle because of problematic interpretations of and comments upon policy made by heavily involved admins Geogre and Bishonen (see the relevant diffs in my evidence section [[Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/InShaneee/Evidence#Comments_upon_blocking.2FNPA_policy_made_by_several_admins|here]].) Geogre outright states he doesn't think [[WP:NPA]] should be policy; he is of course free to advocate such a view, but it is an extreme view bereft of consensus and I don't think the InShanee ANI thread was a helpful place to push it yet again. Also, it is unclear whether his statement that "you should not block for insults" was intended as an interpretation of existing policy or as wishful thinking; given the above text from [[WP:BLOCK]], it is certainly incorrect as the former.
::Also, Bishonen's statement that [[WP:NPA]] "has no penalties" is wrong technically and by extension; first, [[WP:NPA]] does directly include penalties for some cases ("In extreme cases, even isolated personal attacks may lead to a block for disruption"), and second, the phrase quoted above from [[WP:BLOCK]] states directly that a user may be blocked for disruption for conduct "inconsistent with a civil, collegial atmosphere", conduct defined by in detail by [[WP:NPA]] and [[WP:CIVIL]]. It is also important to note that there is no exemption in policy for attacks made by a "user under a block". - [[User:Merzbow|Merzbow]] 04:39, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
::'''Disagree''': Merzbow's "proof" disproves, precisely as Bishonen says. "May be blocked" is not "must be blocked" or "will be blocked" or "should be blocked." Personal attacks are not part of the blocking policy. My view has been and remains that WP:NPA really doesn't say anything that's not said a hundred other places: don't be nasty, not insult people, be nice. The wording Merzbow points to is a way of saying, "you may be disruptive with your insults and might trigger a block for disruption." I agree with the policy statement in that and disagree entirely with Merzbow. [[User:Geogre|Geogre]] 10:47, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
===Template===
1) {text of proposed principle}
:'''Comment by Arbitrators:'''
::
:'''Comment by parties:'''
::
:'''Comment by others:'''
::
===Template===
1) {text of proposed principle}
:'''Comment by Arbitrators:'''
::
:'''Comment by parties:'''
::
:'''Comment by others:'''
::
== Proposed findings of fact ==
===Worldtraveller has edited from several IP addresses===
1) {{userlinks|Worldtraveller}} has also edited from {{IPuser|81.178.208.69}}, {{IPuser|81.179.115.188}}, and {{IPuser|81.179.150.16}}.
:'''Comment by Arbitrators:'''
::
:'''Comment by parties:'''
::
:'''Comment by others:'''
::Proposed. Just a 'housekeeping' issue since many of the discussions and evidence diff-links involve these IPs. Worldtraveller has acknowledged these so there should be no privacy concern. If I missed any please add them. --[[User talk:CBDunkerson|CBD]] 00:11, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
::Those are all the anon accounts which he has acknowledged as part of this case. He has used at least one other anon account, but I don't believe that IP should be listed here since it was not used as part of this dispute. — [[User:MediaMangler|MediaMangler]] 09:11, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
::: Agreed. His general conduct as an editor is not at issue and the finding above only brings together what he has stated about those specific publicly disclosed IPs. --[[User talk:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway]] 14:43, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
===(Withdrawn)===
2) <s>In late December, 2006. after several months away from Wikipedia, [[User:Worldtraveller]] who had little previous expressed interest in the paranormal came in his first edits to [[Talk:Red_rain_in_Kerala]] and chose to edit war anonymously with an administrator, [[User:Inshaneee]], known to have an interest in the paranormal, over the appropriateness of a project label on the talk page. In subsequent complaints on [[WP:AN]], several editors associated with [[User:Worldtraveller]] volunteered extremely strong statements about Inshaneee's adminship.</s> WITHDRAWN (see comments below)
:'''Comment by Arbitrators:'''
::
:'''Comment by parties:'''
:: <s>I would love to be proved wrong here, but the Scoobies have been acting so weirdly over the past six months that I can't be the only person to have noticed. It's like they turned into pod people or something. --[[User talk:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway]] 02:05, 11 March 2007 (UTC)</s>
::The immediately preceding comment by Tony Sidaway is more uncivil and offensive than any of the behavior (by either party) underlying the arbitration case. [[User:Newyorkbrad|Newyorkbrad]] 02:11, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
::I (Worldtraveller) started the article [[Red rain in Kerala]] and contributed much of its content. [[User:81.179.115.188|81.179.115.188]] 02:14, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
::: I formally apologise to Worldtraveller and withdraw this propoed finding of fact. I did not know that he had created the article. I don't think it's uncivil to try to find the truth. --[[User talk:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway]] 02:19, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
::::I'd like to see the characterization of experienced, respected Wikipedians as "the Scoobies" and "pod people" withdrawn and apologized for as well. [[User:Newyorkbrad|Newyorkbrad]] 02:26, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
:::::I accept Tony's apology but would second Newyorkbrad's suggestion and also hope Tony will remove his proposed principle above entitled 'Trolling'. [[User:81.179.115.188|81.179.115.188]] 02:30, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
:'''Comment by others:'''
::Isn't it unfair to imply that Worldtraveller was jumping in on something he had little interest in just because it was Inshaneee who was editing it? (I assume that Tony is trying to imply that, because it's the meaning I pick up from his proposed finding of fact.) Worldtraveller actually ''started'' that article. See [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Red_rain_in_Kerala&oldid=42410792 the very first version of it]. [[User:ElinorD|ElinorD]] [[User talk:ElinorD|(talk)]] 02:18, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
::I'd contest Newyorkbrad's statement only in that I don't find 'scoobie gang' and 'pod people' "more uncivil and offensive" than Worldtraveller repeatedly calling InShaneee "witless moron" ([http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:InShaneee&diff=103664100&oldid=103614947], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:InShaneee&diff=prev&oldid=107678913], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:InShaneee&diff=prev&oldid=107833683]), "fuckwit" ([http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Worldtraveller&diff=prev&oldid=112442680]), and "childish" ([http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:InShaneee&diff=prev&oldid=101990266]) amongst other things. Tony should exercise a higher sense of decorum, but let's not pretend it has been sunshine and roses to this point. --[[User talk:CBDunkerson|CBD]] 07:35, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
::Probably not more offensive than InShaneee calling an editor a "[[douche]]" either. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:InShaneee&diff=prev&oldid=78502687] [[User_talk:Derex|Derex]] 07:56, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
:::Shouldn't you also note, CBD, that you '''blocked''' him for saying that Inshaneee was ''acting'' like a fuckwit, and here you're arguing that Tony Sidaway's characterization of a group of people themselves is ''proper?'' I think the one looking inconsistent, or hypocritical, isn't Newyorkbrad. [[User:Geogre|Geogre]] 20:15, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
::::No, I shouldn't note that... because I '''didn't''' block him for that. Again, you should look at the particulars of the case. Worldtraveller's claim that InShaneee '''IS''' a "fuckwit" (no 'acting like' sophistry in evidence) came '''after''' my block. As to the rest... I did not say that Tony's actions were proper (indeed, I said I agreed with Newyorkbrad that they ''weren't''), I did not say that Newyorkbrad was inconsistent, I did not say that Newyorkbrad was hypocritical. I said that I do not agree with Newyorkbrad that "scoobies" and "pod people" were the worst incivility we have seen in this case. --[[User talk:CBDunkerson|CBD]] 20:48, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
:: I regret that what I consider to be reasonable suspicions based on some very strange coincidences in this case have not been shared by others. I could have expressed them better. I have long found the extreme hostility expressed by Geogre, Bishonen, Bunchofgrapes and some others towards their fellow administrators who are outside their small group very, very dismaying, and their ongoing hostile activities are in my opinion inimical to the smooth running of Wikipedia, and very much against the spirit of cooperation with which we are supposed to engage in editing. I apologise for expressing these reasonable concerns in a way that may have upset them. --[[User talk:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway]] 23:16, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
:::I've received a few self-serving passive-aggressive apologies on this site, but that is by some distance the worst apology I've ever been offered. I reject it as an apology and deplore it as an attack on my actions, demeanour, and motives. In this RFAr a totally irrelevant attack, to boot. Mackensen, I have several constructive suggestions for ways in which you can improve the function of this page and make it more like a workshop and less like a trollfest. I'd try these from 1 to 4 inclusive, if I were you. 1) briskly remove ''all'' personal attacks from Tony that are irrelevant to this case (example: this here "apology"), 2) give Tony some sort of ultimatum as to the terms on which he may edit the page. 3) if it comes to that: ''page ban'' him from here. 4) if it comes to ''that'', block him for egregious trolling, disruption, and extreme personal attacks. Any inspiration there at all? [[User:Bishonen|Bishonen]] | [[User talk:Bishonen|talk]] 23:47, 11 March 2007 (UTC).
::::Seems overly complicated and somewhat limited to me, Bishonen. Wouldn't it be easier to simply follow Tony's own [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/InShaneee/Workshop&diff=prev&oldid=114229634 request] and, as "an act of kindness to me and to all other Wikipedians", make him "banned from Wikipedia forever"? Unless if you somehow find Newyorkbrad's proposed finding of fact re: Tony's behavior here completely without merit? Now, me, I haven't noticed Newyorkbrad as being the type to completely make up crazy, meritless stuff and propose it in an Arbcom workshop, but YMMV. —[[User:Bunchofgrapes|Bunchofgrapes]] ([[User talk:Bunchofgrapes|talk]]) 00:14, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
:: I've patiently ignored a lot of attacks on me today, but here I must ask you both to tone it down. This is an arbitration case Workshop, not a place to make silly personal attacks. --[[User talk:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway]] 00:50, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
::: Oh, quoting your very own, recent words at you is a personal attack now? But you wondering about what grand skulduggery and scheming plans I took part in to trap Inshaneee ''isn't''? How does that work, please? —[[User:Bunchofgrapes|Bunchofgrapes]] ([[User talk:Bunchofgrapes|talk]]) 00:56, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
:::: Er... Not to speak directly towards or against anyone's statements here, but I don't suppose that refactoring some of these comments about commenting on workshop items over to the talk page might be possible? [[User:Bitnine|Bitnine]] 01:04, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
:::::I would object to having my statement "refactored". Tony has persistently insulted and trolled me on this page, in a way that I'm actually amazed the arbitrators editing here put up with, and the post above is my one single comment on his behaviour. [[Iff]] ''all'' of Tony's attacks are removed from the page, feel free to remove my comment on them and advice to Mackensen, too. [[User:Bishonen|Bishonen]] | [[User talk:Bishonen|talk]] 01:29, 12 March 2007 (UTC).
::So, umm, Tony is sorry that he characterized everyone as incapable of independent judgment, malicious, and "odd," even though he has himself been dormant and suddenly appears as both a clerk and a party and has kilobytes to say about something that he hasn't touched before? This is one of those self-destructing semantic traps, isn't it? A [[koan]], perhaps? Tony's not a party to the dispute, and I could have sworn he wasn't a clerk, either, that he was dismissed from that position. I must not keep up. [[User:Geogre|Geogre]] 02:46, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
:::For the record, Tony hasn't been a clerk for several months, nor has he claimed to be acting as a clerk in this case, nor have I seen him doing anything that should be reserved to the current clerks (renumbering proposals on the workshop, etc. can be done by any user). [[User:Newyorkbrad|Newyorkbrad]] 02:54, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
: Thanks, I was just about to make this point. I'm not a clerk and I haven't been a clerk since mid-September. If I were a clerk I would have recused in order to contribute to this case. I'm afraid a lot of the wilder accusations we're seeing on this page are the result of ignorance of this kind. --[[User talk:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway]] 02:57, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
::The fact that someone made one factual mistake should not be blown out of proportion. Looking now at another colloquy, Geogre may have been confused by your removal of comments (something that ''should'' be left for an arbitrator or clerk to take care of—and don't look at me, as I am obviously recused as clerk in this case). I respectfully suggest that you seriously consider the arbitrators' comments in response to my proposed finding #10 before you post anything further to this page. [[User:Newyorkbrad|Newyorkbrad]] 03:06, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
::: I respectfully demur from that motion, which I find inexplicable. --[[User talk:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway]] 03:19, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
::::As I said, I must not be keeping up with the fortunes of Tony Sidaway, but it is weird as heck to see a person go from full slumber to full attack on a case that seems entirely unrelated to him this way, but what's '''really inexplicable''' is Tony Sidaway removing my comments, ALoan's comments, and others. I'm astonished to learn that he did that without being a clerk and wasn't blocked for it. It's a rather arrogant or intolerant thing to do. [[User:Geogre|Geogre]] 10:51, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
: I'm not aware of having removed your comments. I did remove some puerile sniping from general comments, but I believe these items were by ALoan and Bunchodgrapes. --[[User talk:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway]] 12:46, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
===Inshanee blocked Worldtraveller inappropriately===
3) The block of [[User:81.178.208.69]] by Inshaneee was not supported by the blocking policy.
:'''Comment by Arbitrators:'''
:: I can't find anybody who disagrees with this, least of all me. [[User:Mackensen|Mackensen]] [[User_talk:Mackensen|(talk)]] 20:47, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
::Needs more detail [[User:Fred Bauder|Fred Bauder]] 14:25, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
:'''Comment by parties:'''
:: I don't think anyone seriously disputes this. Inshaneee fucked up and realizes he fucked up. --[[User talk:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway]] 02:04, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
:: Endorse. You're right Tony. I fucked up, and I'll re-admit to that in whatever fashion the Committee would like me to. --[[User:InShaneee|InShaneee]] 20:37, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
:: My word, I wish you'd said that two months ago. [[User:81.179.115.188|81.179.115.188]] 20:51, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
::: I did several weeks ago. --[[User:InShaneee|InShaneee]] 23:38, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
:::: ...almost seven weeks after the event. If you'd have said this in anything remotely resembling a timely fashion we wouldn't be here right now. [[User:81.179.115.188|81.179.115.188]] 01:22, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
::::: Perhaps I should have said something earlier, but I was still doing what I could to resolve this peacefully. --[[User:InShaneee|InShaneee]] 02:24, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
:::::: Which was what, exactly? [[User:81.179.115.188|81.179.115.188]] 08:43, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
:'''Comment by others:'''
::Endorse (the proposal, not the phrasing of the comment). Fixed a typo. [[User:Newyorkbrad|Newyorkbrad]] 02:15, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
:::Yes, but it was not the block itself, but the aftermath that led us all here. --[[User:Irpen|Irpen]] 06:25, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
===The block review process failed===
4) [[User:Worldtraveller]], editing anonymously, placed a block review template on his talk page half-way through his block, but this was not reviewed before the twenty-four hour block ended.
:'''Comment by Arbitrators:'''
::A policy problem. We say "everyone can edit" but are unable to deal adequately with an inappropriate block of an an anonymous editor. [[User:Fred Bauder|Fred Bauder]] 14:30, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
:'''Comment by parties:'''
:: For what it's worth. It puzzles me that [[User:Worldtraveller]] didn't simply tell one of his colleagues, many of whom are administrators, that he'd been wrongly blocked. What was the problem? I'm still very suspicious about the role of the Scoobies here. It worries me that all they showed up so early in the discussion and expressed opinions so clearly at variance with those of the other respected editors. Yet none of them realised that the blocked editor was their friend! Pull the other one. --[[User talk:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway]] 02:47, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
:::You may be puzzled, but jumping to conclusions and advancing a broad negative generalization violates assume good faith. People do not always act in an optimum way. That is to be expected and accommodated. [[User:Fred Bauder|Fred Bauder]] 14:30, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
:::: I jumped to no conclusion, but made specific observations and expressed reasonable supicions, satisfying good faith by accepting the explanations given to my reasonable questions. --[[User talk:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway]] 14:40, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
:'''Comment by others:'''
::
===Worldtraveller deliberately misrepresented his identity===
5) For unknown reasons, Worldtraveller misrepresented his Wikipedia status, referring to the "four edits I've made" "[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:81.178.208.69&diff=prev&oldid=98156703] ., "It really won't take you long at all to assess whether I vandalised anything - I've got very few edits." [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard&diff=prev&oldid=98291756],
:'''Comment by Arbitrators:'''
::Rather disingenuous [[User:Fred Bauder|Fred Bauder]] 14:32, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
:'''Comment by parties:'''
:: Sure, it could be innocent. *just*. But again, why did this editor choose to get into an argument with a respected administrator in his first edits on Wikipedia in months, and why did he claim to be a newcomer in the middle of the argument? This looks like a troll, a fit-up. We've seen this before, only usually the trolls are not previously respected editors. --[[User talk:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway]] 03:07, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
:: I can't respond to this any better than Derex did with his comment below. In addition I wonder by whose definition was InShaneee 'a respected admin', and how would I know that? I don't recall ever having encountered him before 31 December. Why on earth would I decide to pick a random editor to attack? What, in all my contributions, has given Tony the idea that I'd behave like that? [[User:81.179.115.188|81.179.115.188]] 09:02, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
:'''Comment by others:'''
::When InShanee blocked this ip, it had a total of 4 edits. In complaining, WorldTraveller pointed out that fact, indicating it would be a simple matter to review all the evidence that InShanee had seen. That's different than saying "I'm a newcomer." ... Sidaway repeatedly remarks how WT "chose to get in an argument with a respected admin". Does it not take two to argue? Are all admins privileged against dissent by "trolls", or just "respected" ones? How about the "Scoobies"? They seem to be getting trolled a lot here by Sidaway; I can only assume they're not respected admins but Sidaway is a respected admin. [[User_talk:Derex|Derex]] 03:59, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
::How can anyone assess his "intention?" Also, what difference should it make? Shouldn't we behave ethically with IP editors and named accounts alike? [[User:Geogre|Geogre]] 02:50, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
::The words were clearly disingenuous and misleading, and create the suspicion that the user was fencing with InShanee for some purpose. However, it's of dubious relevance because whatever he was up to does not justify s block that was totally outside the blocking policy. [[User:Metamagician3000|Metamagician3000]] 10:21, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
::: It certainly doesn't justify the block, but this case isn't about the block. --[[User talk:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway]] 12:47, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
===Aftermath of the block===
6) When Worldtraveller raised his objections to the block on the Administrators' Noticeboard after its expiration, InShaneee failed to respond to the concerns and questions expressed by Worldtraveler and by several administrators in a reasonably satisfactory manner. Over the ensuing two months, Worldtraveller pursued the matter, culminating in this arbitration case [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:InShaneee&diff=111903370&oldid=111751593].
:'''Comment by Arbitrators:'''
::Added diff illustrating intent. [[User:Fred Bauder|Fred Bauder]] 14:44, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
:'''Comment by parties:'''
::To claim that InShaneee's failure to respond "satisfactorily" led to an arbitration case is obviously false. The relentless and indefensible harassment of InShaneee by Worldtraveller led to this arbitration case. --[[User talk:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway]] 04:00, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
::No, the complete failure of InShaneee to bother responding to concerns expressed by me and by many administrators is what led to this case. If I had seen an administrator misuse their tools and fail to respond to criticism, and not pursued it, that would have been indefensible. My own view is that 'in a reasonably satisfactory manner' could be omitted from the proposed text here because the single comment InShaneee made on WP:AN was not in response to anyone's concerns and did not make any attempt to explain his actions. It could also be made clearer that almost seven weeks passed without any response from InShaneee. This, to me, is the crux of the matter - without these unaccountable delays and refusals to discuss, this wouldn't have come anywhere near arbitration. [[User:81.179.115.188|81.179.115.188]] 10:25, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
:'''Comment by others:'''
::Proposed. [[User:Newyorkbrad|Newyorkbrad]] 03:16, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
:::Support. Whatever anyone's idea is about what constitutes "satisfactory", ignoring the non-frivolous requests for explanation made by a non-troll for ''any'' length of time is unsatisfactory. Calling such requests "harassment" is rather unhelpful. Quick and sincere apology would have ended the matter early on. --[[User:Irpen|Irpen]] 05:51, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
::'''Agreed''': I would say to Irpen's comment that we owe trolls an answer, too. We owe everyone an answer, at least once. What makes a troll a troll is that he or she keeps asking the same thing ''after being answered.'' Edit summaries are not answers or engagement with fellow editors, and Inshaneee never offered an answer, much less an explanation, and less yet consolation. No one is "too busy" to answer and yet not "too busy" to block. Patrolling means ''both'' sides of the action, not merely firing from a bunker. [[User:Geogre|Geogre]] 21:49, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
:::Actually, he did. InShaneee '''did''' answer Worldtraveller. He '''did''' say he was wrong and apologized... repeatedly no less. That's the problem. I don't agree that Worldtraveller continuing to belabour the point after that makes him "a troll" as you say, but it ''does'' make him guilty of harassment. --[[User talk:CBDunkerson|CBD]] 21:54, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
::::Repeatedly? I recall his half hearted apology which didn't really answer any of the questions raised, 48 days too late, and following which he lapsed into refusing to communicate again. I do not recall anything else until this arbitration case finally convinced him of the seriousness of the matter. [[User:81.179.115.188|81.179.115.188]] 21:57, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
:::::Let me ask a question. In the second RfC you indicated that you wanted him to admit that he "either didn't understand or deliberately violated [[WP:BP]]." Whether you accept his apology or not he did make one, and he does seem to have indicated ''why'' he made the block: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AWorldtraveller&diff=109198891&oldid=109198637]. Why is this statement insufficient? Put another way, ''what'' was so insufficient about this statement that we're all here? [[User:Mackensen|Mackensen]] [[User_talk:Mackensen|(talk)]] 22:01, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
::::::The problems with the 'apology' were listed in my reply to it. He indicated that part of the reason he blocked was that I was an anonymous editor. He didn't offer an explanation of why he had blanked me for 48 days. He did not acknowledge that his block contravened policy. He did not offer any explanation as to why he had ignored the original discussion on AN. And finally, he returned to a position of silence after making that statement, ignoring my further questions. Had he even bothered to say "I don't want to talk about it any more" that would have been something, but instead he chose to simply not respond at all - I consider that extremely rude and immature, and it greatly exacerbated the situation. [[User:81.179.115.188|81.179.115.188]] 22:18, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
The fact is that the block was wrong. End of story. Once this was admitted, there was no need to turn it into a ''cause celebre''. InShanee is a respected admin who made a mistake and admitted it. [[User:Metamagician3000|Metamagician3000]] 10:24, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
===InShaneee's recent statements===
7) In his statement with respect to the Arbitration Committee's acceptance of this case, InShaneee has acknowledged that the block that is the subject of this case was improper. InShaneee has also indicated that he intends to focus his administrator activities in upcoming months on less contentious areas than those he has addressed heretofore. See [[Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/InShaneee#Statement by InShaneee]]. See also, prior to this arbitration case, a similar comment [[User:Bishonen/Archive_10#AN:I_Comment|here]]. InShaneee's comments provide a reasonable basis for expecting that his conduct at issue in this case will not be repeated.
:'''Comment by Arbitrators:'''
::
:'''Comment by parties:'''
:: InShaneee apologised ''weeks ago'' but Worldtraveller continues to hound him. Do we have an expectation that Worldtraveller will cease his harassment? --[[User talk:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway]] 04:02, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
:: It took the arbitration case to get something full and frank out of InShaneee on this issue. To me at least, that does not imply a reasonable basis for expecting that his conduct won't be repeated. [[User:81.179.115.188|81.179.115.188]] 21:37, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
:'''Comment by others:'''
::Proposed. [[User:Newyorkbrad|Newyorkbrad]] 03:16, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
:::I can agree that Worldtraveller pursued this matter long after most other editors would have dropped it. Whether this is characterized as harassment or tenacity is a matter on which opinions can differ. [[User:Newyorkbrad|Newyorkbrad]] 04:05, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
::::Agree with the proposal that InShanee is unlikely to repeat a similar mistake within a reasonable future. But to respond to Tony's ungratuitous assertion, for an editor with immense contribution to the project, being blocked '''is''' a big deal. This is merely a human nature that people get angry when for months of their selfless work they get, what seems to them, as spit in the face from users who seem to come here mostly to tell others what to do (and enjoying it) and write nothing (I am not saying that InShanee is among those power freaks but it may have legitimately seemed so to WT whom he blocked). Blocks hurt committed editors for much longer than the time than the blocks run. To talk of statute of limitation here means ignoring deep feelings of the committed editors who make make Wikipedia such a high traffic site, which is all about the info we have here. --[[User:Irpen|Irpen]] 05:59, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
:::::I disagree. I was once blocked by [[User:Moriori]] for "disrupting with silly policy", a move which I couldn't agree with less. However, I did what I felt was the best thing for myself and the Wiki and let the matter drop. --[[User:InShaneee|InShaneee]] 22:38, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
InShanee was wrong. He has acknowledged it. There is no danger that he will make a block of this kind, over a content dispute, again. The lesson has clearly been learned. [[User:Metamagician3000|Metamagician3000]] 10:27, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
===Certain allegations rejected===
8) With respect to the allegation that InShaneee improperly unblocked himself in violation of the blocking policy, it appears that confusion arose because another administrator intended to unblock InShaneee's account and instead unblocked an imposter account. Accordingly, this allegation is rejected. Additionally, no basis for action is found regarding InShaneee's seeking the delisting of the prior Request for comment against him in view of apparent ambiguity concerning when, if ever, administrator-conduct and user-conduct RfC's should be de-listed.
:'''Comment by Arbitrators:'''
::
:'''Comment by parties:'''
::The allegation was false and may be set aside. No need to explicitly reject false allegations--it might lead some people to assume, erroneously, that allegations not explicitly rejected are accepted. -[[User talk:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway]] 03:44, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
::I plan to post this in Evidence later, but since no one seems to have noticed it yet, here's the discussion I initiated into whether or not my RfC could be archived, and how it should be done [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_comment#Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment.2FInShaneee]. --[[User:InShaneee|InShaneee]] 21:26, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
:'''Comment by others:'''
::Proposed. [[User:Newyorkbrad|Newyorkbrad]] 03:17, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
:::Tony's point here is well-taken in terms of drafting the final decision, but I wanted to provide a platform here for discussion of the allegations if anyone feels the need to discuss them. Alternatively, this would be an appropriate place for Worldtraveller to withdraw the allegation if he sees fit to do so. [[User:Newyorkbrad|Newyorkbrad]] 03:49, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
:::The RFC bit is torturously worded. What InShanee actually did is personally delist a certified RFC on himself, over objection, four times. That's quite a different matter than "seeking the delisting", which suggests a sober discussion on Talk. At least, forthrightly state the "allegation rejected". Personally, the RFC edit war is the action that made me finally lose all confidence in his judgement. So, if arbom is to endorse that action, I'd like it to be explicit rather than as sort of a tack-on to the technical self-unblock violation. [[User_talk:Derex|Derex]] 05:54, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
===Worldtraveller repeatedly harassed InShaneee ===
9) Worldtraveller repeatedly harassed InShaneee [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:InShaneee&diff=prev&oldid=111903370]
[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:InShaneee&diff=prev&oldid=112291442]
[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:InShaneee&diff=112358909&oldid=112358215] long after InShanneee apologised [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AWorldtraveller&diff=109198891&oldid=109198637]
:'''Comment by Arbitrators:'''
:: Regardless of comments made earlier, InShaneee's statement of February the 18th is an admission of error. You can't force people to make the apology that you want. [[User:Mackensen|Mackensen]] [[User_talk:Mackensen|(talk)]] 15:08, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
:: Administrators should always be willing to discuss and explain their administrative actions. [[User:Paul August|Paul August]] [[User_talk:Paul August|☎]] 18:22, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
:'''Comment by parties:'''
:: I think this is the problem. Had Worldtraveller accepted that his grievance had been aired and thst InShanee had already accepted that he'd jumped the gun in blocking him, I don't think we'd have a case here. InShaneee was not at this point in dispute with Worldtraveller on any point except Worldtraveller's unwillingness to stop gnawing on the bone.--[[User talk:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway]] 03:40, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
::: To clarify for Worldtraveller, both InShaneee's edit warring and that of Worldtraveller were blockable disruption, there's no question on that. InShaneee instead of seeking help and advice "jumped the gun" and abused his sysop powers. Neither editor acted well at the time. --[[User talk:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway]] 16:51, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
::::Come on. I removed the tag three times over three days; he restored it. Which bit of [[WP:BP]] says that's something you should block for? [[User:81.179.115.188|81.179.115.188]] 19:29, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
::::: Blocking is never mandatory, but this kind of disruption (edit warring over templates) has quite often resulted in blocking, particularly if as in this case an editor has the appearance of having edit warring as his sole purpose in for editing the wiki. --[[User talk:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway]] 19:47, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
:::::: This was a content dispute. From WP:BP: ''Disagreements over content or policy are not disruption, but rather part of the normal functioning of Wikipedia and should be handled through dispute resolution procedures'' [[User:81.179.115.188|81.179.115.188]] 19:56, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
::::::: Edit warring, even over content, is ''always'' disruption. When and whether it becomes blockable is for debate. I'd say both editors had clearly shown that they had no intention of discussion. --[[User talk:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway]] 20:06, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
:: This proposal relies on the assumption that as long as anyone says sorry, then they are absolved of their sins and anyone who had a problem with them should leave them alone. Had InShaneee left his 'apology' six weeks earlier, and been willing to actually discuss the situation on AN/I and explain why he blocked against policy, things would never have got this far. Refusing to let an administrator get away with a big mistake is not harassment, not by any stretch of the imagination.
::As for 'jumping the gun' - so you and he both apparently both think he should have blocked, just not at the time he did? [[User:81.179.115.188|81.179.115.188]] 08:53, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
:'''Comment by others:'''
::Proposal deeply ignores how much it hurts editors with immense contributions to the project to be blocked. It further ignores the fact that an instant quick and sincere apology usually ends such matters despite being rarely given. --[[User:Irpen|Irpen]] 06:01, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
::Also ignores that it wasn't much of an apology, particularly in light of previous comments like [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard&diff=prev&oldid=98408630 this]. [[User_talk:Derex|Derex]] 06:41, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
::Apologies are irrelevant. No one can coerce an apology, and no one can be forced into one, but an admission of error is an indication that one recognizes his own fallability. There is a big difference. WorldTraveller expected better. When he not only got what he seems to have considered sub-standard behavior but then ''belligerence'' in that behavior, he had some right to outrage. Being outraged by another person's (seemingly) flaunting of rules of behavior and ethics is not "harassment." The wording here is absolutely incorrect, because "harassment" involves following a person around, stalking, interrupting other conversations, etc. What we see here is insistence, but nothing like harassment. The terminology proposed by Mackensen simply doesn't match even the alledged actions. [[User:Geogre|Geogre]] 21:53, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
:::I think it's actually Sidaway's proposal and terminology, not Mackensen's.[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/InShaneee/Workshop&diff=114220440&oldid=114216505] [[User_talk:Derex|Derex]] 05:56, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
::::Mackensen said it. [[User:Metamagician3000|Metamagician3000]] 10:29, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
===Inappropriate conduct by an editor during this arbitration case===
10) During the evidence/workshop phase of this arbitration case, [[User:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway]], while exercising his right as an editor to present evidence and workshop proposals, was uncivil, made personal attacks, and engaged in unnecessarily inflammatory conduct in that, among other things, he:
:(A) Unnecessarily added himself as a ''party'' to the case, although he had no involvement in the block dispute underlying the case or in any related matter and there was no reason for him to be listed as a party;
:(B) Repeatedly (beginning [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/InShaneee/Workshop&diff=114170266&oldid=114167452 here]) referred to [[User:Bishonen|Bishonen]], [[User:Geogre|Geogre]], and [[User:Bunchofgrapes|Bunchofgrapes]], administrators or former administrators who objected to InShaneee's conduct surrounding the block of Worldtraveller, as "the [[Scooby Gang]]" or "the Scoobies", a mocking reference to characters from the television series [[Scooby-Doo]] and/or [[Buffy the Vampire Slayer]];
:(C) Uncivilly refused to withdraw his characterization of Bishonen, Geogre, and Bunchofgrapes as "the Scooby Gang" or "the Scoobies" when asked to do so and repeatedly continued to use and to emphasize the use of these epithets thereafter;
:(D) Uncivilly stated or implied, without evidentiary support, that members of "the Scooby Gang" have objected to InShaneee's block of Worldtraveller over a period of weeks and have presented evidence in this arbitration case for reasons other than their good-faith views on the merits of the issues in the case;
:(E) Uncivilly accused "the Scooby Gang" of "vigilanteeism" for supporting the bringing of this case;
:(F) Uncivilly stated that the members of "the Scooby Gang" "have been behaving very, very oddly for some time now and it doesn't do to deny it. It is a fact that the Scoobies have made a habit of attacking other respected Wikipedians, to the extent of demanding that they relinquish all duties on Wikipedia"; in addition to being incivil and containing personal attacks, these allegations referred to extremely bitter prior disputes having nothing to do with this case and had the obvious potential to unnecessarily inflame and broaden the scope of the present case for no legitimate purpose;
:(G) Uncivilly stated that "I would love to be proved wrong here, but the Scoobies have been acting so weirdly over the past six months that I can't be the only person to have noticed. It's like they turned into pod people or something"; and
:(H) In his evidence, referred to [[User:A Link to the Past]] as "a disruptive troll", notwithstanding that A Link to the Past, despite rough edges and a significant block log, is a longtime contributor who has made substantial good-faith contributions and whose overall conduct as a Wikipedian cannot reasonably be characterized as trolling.
:'''Comment by Arbitrators:'''
:: Many of Tony's comments have been uncivil and unhelpful. [[User:Paul August|Paul August]] [[User_talk:Paul August|☎]] 02:11, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
:: I don't see a need to add Tony to this case as his involvement is tangential at best, but I do agree this needs to stop. Happily, it appears that Bunchofgrapes has answered Tony's question(s) (see general discussion below). [[User:Mackensen|Mackensen]] [[User_talk:Mackensen|(talk)]] 02:17, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
:'''Comment by parties:'''
::Oh do grow up. --[[User talk:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway]] 04:05, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
:: Seriously, if there is any merit ''at all'' to this, I should be banned from Wikipedia forever. It would be an act of kindness to me and to all other Wikipedians. --[[User talk:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway]] 04:31, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
::The one time I recall having anything to do with Tony Sidaway was about two years ago when we found ourselves on the same side of a dispute with [[User:Everyking]]. I'm struggling to think of any reason why he might have decide to make the astonishing accusations he's made against me and others. I find his use of the term 'scoobies' immature and unhelpful, if not really uncivil. I can't really understand why he's added himself as a party when he has played no part in this dispute at all. He seems to be trying to obfuscate the issues by bringing in unrelated gripes such [[User:A Link to the Past|A Link to the Past]] and his perception of poor behaviour on the part of [[User:Geogre|Geogre]], [[User:Bishonen|Bishonen]] and [[User:Bunchofgrapes|Bunchofgrapes]]. [[User:81.179.115.188|81.179.115.188]] 08:42, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
:'''Comment by others:'''
::Proposed, with regret. This has to stop. [[User:Newyorkbrad|Newyorkbrad]] 03:46, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
:::Can't you just be minimally civil, especially on arbitration pages, of all things? [[User:Newyorkbrad|Newyorkbrad]] 04:33, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
::::I am not sure that the behavior during the arbitration counts but if so, the proposal hits the nail. Tony's attitudes seem to not have improved or cured by his leave. It is very much not helping. --[[User:Irpen|Irpen]] 06:04, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
::The last time I saw Tony Sidaway was when he was posting 144 times to the "Workshop" page of the "Giano case." He was often coming back to add comments to his own comments. If anyone is acting oddly, it certainly seems to be him. Even here, he has a sarcastic response and then a melodramatic "ban me forever." Emotion seems to be typing, not reason, and anger and bitterness, rather than any helpful emotion. He has nothing to say in ''defense'' of Inshaneee, nothing to ''add'' to mitigate or ameliorate, but only side issues to clutter and to come ''back'' to. That has to stop, I agree. [[User:Geogre|Geogre]] 12:49, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
:: I see no serious charges of incivility here. It is always difficult and painful to confront reasonable suspicions of serious misconduct. I expect to take flack for doing so but that's just the way it is. Arbitration isn't a dinner party, we're after the facts. --[[User talk:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway]] 02:38, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
::Here's the deal: as long as Tony Sidaway is given leeway to make any attack he wants '''''as long as he believes it to be true''''' this will happen again and again and again. I've been seeing this crap longer than I've even been editing, regardless of what that may say about my character, and until someone can take the action necessary to make it clear that, for example, "grow up" is not an appropriate response to criticism, expect to have to deal with this regularly. [[User:Miltopia|Milto LOL pia]] 07:46, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
::: A reasonable suspicion, whether it is seen as an attack or not, should be discussed at arbitration. "Grow up" is a reasonable response to a baffling snd inexplicable set of complaints. --[[User talk:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway]] 09:07, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
::::Baffling and inexplicable? Two arbitrators have recognized unhelpful incivility on your part. But I'm not here to crusade against you; what I'm saying is that this would make many people question whether an assertion is really as "baffling and inexplicable" as they think it is. [[User:Miltopia|Milto LOL pia]] 09:31, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
::::: Well I've considered the criticism and, while I think my choice of words has given offence unnecessarily, for which I apologised, the overall thrust seems to be that the statements themselves were unhelpful. Since I know of at least two other reasonable people who have entertained suspicions similar to those I held (which I have now abandoned), and one of them is an arbitrator, I cannot think that my bringing these questions into the open where they could be addressed by the subjects of the suspicion and refuted, did anything other than good. We can now move on.
::::: I think there is a danger here of "shooting the messenger". Nevertheless this should not be an ongoing problem because I consider the matter satisfactorily closed. --[[User talk:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway]] 10:01, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
::::::Your knowledge, as a "party", of an arbitrator's personal suspicions is somehow disturbing. [[User_talk:Derex|Derex]] 10:23, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
::::::: Although the deliberations of the arbitrators in conclave are kept secret, it is quite in order for an arbitrator to express his personal opinion. --[[User talk:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway]] 12:26, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
I have no idea what Tony is doing here as a "party". His presence is making a bad situation worse. [[User:Metamagician3000|Metamagician3000]] 10:33, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
: I really don't see that. Yesterday several people, myself included, believed on reasonable grounds that some people involved in the case might have acted in an underhand manner. Now none of us believes that. This is what arbitration is for. --[[User talk:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway]] 12:29, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
===CBDunkerson's block of Worldtraveller was contested===
11) [[User:CBDunkerson]] blocked [[User:Worldtraveller]] citing the following diffs:[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=112291288] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:InShaneee&diff=prev&oldid=112291442] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:InShaneee&diff=prev&oldid=112358909] as commented [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Worldtraveller#Block_2 here]. The block was contested [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=112803735 here]
:'''Comment by Arbitrators:'''
::
:'''Comment by parties:'''
::
:'''Comment by others:'''
:: Proposed.--[[User:MONGO|MONGO]] 07:57, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
::Is the section heading intended simply to describe current practice? Or is it intended to endorse PA blocks based on judgement calls as a reasonable standard practice? [[User_talk:Derex|Derex]] 08:09, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
:::Adjusted.--[[User:MONGO|MONGO]] 08:21, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
::Clarification. The wording seems to imply that I blocked for the content of those three diffs alone. It was the continuation of the behaviour after repeated warnings which prompted me to act. Most notably, Worldtraveller's assertion in the first diff that if what he was doing was (as several people had said) harassment, then he would [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=112291288 "keep on harassing"]. As there was, at that time, a clear consensus of opinion that Worldtraveller's actions ''were'' harassment, he had been warned that a block was imminent if it continued, no one disputed that warning on AN/I in the 30+ hours between it and the block, and Worldtraveller had vowed (and acted upon that vow) to continue the behaviour, I felt that a block to stop the ongoing disruption was both needed and approved by the community. Subsequent to the block there have been many objections that Worldtraveller committed no personal attacks and/or harassment. While these seem to me false on their face, had they occurred prior to the block I would have weighed the potential disruption of possible wheel-warring against the certain disruption of ongoing harassment. --[[User talk:CBDunkerson|CBD]] 09:27, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
:::Adjusted.--[[User:MONGO|MONGO]] 09:38, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
:: That some people may condone or make light of the harassment, doesn't mean that the harassment didn't take place. Inshaneee came to me a few weeks ago, obviously extremely concerned about Worldtraveller's activities, and at his wits end to know what to do, having already admitted his error and apologised. Worldtraveller's activities were not making Wikipedia a better environment in which to work. --[[User talk:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway]] 20:58, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
:::*...and your activities do - I suppose? Get real Tony but out of this and mind toyr own business. [[User:Giano II|Giano]] 21:04, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
::::In what sense did InShaneee come to you? I see no evidence of that on your talk page. [[User:81.179.115.188|81.179.115.188]] 21:16, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
:::::::OH it will be IRC, I expect. That's where the real wiki-business is done. [[User:Giano II|Giano]] 21:26, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
Giano is right that Tony is making this worse. That said, CBD's block had support and was well within the proper exercise of an admin's discretion. Again, if blocks like this are going to lead to some sort of admonishment by the arbcom, all admins need to know very clearly, for the future, where the line will be drawn. [[User:Metamagician3000|Metamagician3000]] 10:37, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
::The block was contested. I don't regard it as the prime mistake in this case, just rubbing napalm in a wound. It was a serious mistake, but mistakes occur. Nevertheless, '''agree''' with the finding: it was contested. [[User:Geogre|Geogre]] 10:58, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
===HighInBC's block of Worldtraveller was contested===
12) [[User:HighInBC]] first declined Worldtraveller's unblock request [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Worldtraveller&diff=next&oldid=112441085] and then extended CBDunkerson's already existing block of Worldtraveller another 24 hours [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Worldtraveller&diff=next&oldid=112442680] after Worldtraveller commented [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Worldtraveller&diff=next&oldid=112441274 here]. Worldtraveller then scrambled his username password, effectively closing out his long standing account. The block was contested [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive210#Blocks_for_personal_attacks here].
:'''Comment by Arbitrators:'''
::
:'''Comment by parties:'''
:: This seems to be straying far from the substance of the case. --[[User talk:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway]] 20:38, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
::: I think it would be reasonable to say that CBD and HighinBC didn't manage to get it right. ---[[User talk:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway]] 21:07, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
:'''Comment by others:'''
::Proposed.--[[User:MONGO|MONGO]] 08:18, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
:::''Response to Tony Sidaway:'' subsequent blocks did not deescalate the situation, they only escalated it and certainly are contributing factors in this situation.--[[User:MONGO|MONGO]] 20:59, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
::::Temporary blocks ''seldom'' 'de-escalate' the situation. Yet we use them anyway when there is no other way to stop a disruptive user. Nor is the tendency of a person or group to further violate Wikipedia's behavioural policies when annoyed a reason to '''not''' block them. Users who 'escalate' bad behaviour after a block for refusing to stop bad behaviour are creating significant unnecessary disruption and should be cautioned against it... not 'rewarded' by '''their''' acts 'reflecting badly' on the ''target'' of their abuse. --[[User talk:CBDunkerson|CBD]] 21:24, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
::::: I think this is one area where Wikipedia policy is actively evolving. Clarification from the committee might be useful. --[[User talk:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway]] 21:38, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
::::::Precisely, the questions remain as to how blocking established editors for making a few "incivil" comments is beneficial to the situation, as we are now for at least the second time dealing with an arbcom case that is examining very similar issues.--[[User:MONGO|MONGO]] 21:54, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
This block is much closer to the margin than the one by CBD. Assuming that the block by CBD was aceptable, we still need clarification about this one. On its face, it seems justifies - the behaviour that led to the block by CBD had been repeated. [[User:Metamagician3000|Metamagician3000]] 10:45, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
::Well, ''I'' sure contested it, so '''agree.''' [[User:Geogre|Geogre]] 10:59, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
===InShaneee's conduct was the subject of an RFC===
13) Worldtraveller filed a [[Wikipedia:Requests for comment/InShaneee 2|request for comment]] regarding InShaneee's original block. The RFC did not meet the two-person threshold and was deleted after four days.
:'''Comment by Arbitrators:'''
:: Proposed. [[User:Mackensen|Mackensen]] [[User_talk:Mackensen|(talk)]] 15:16, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
:'''Comment by parties:'''
:: This was an apparently genuine attempt by Worldtraveller to air his grievances using the dispute resolution process. It's a shame that those who commented on the original block did not endorse it. Perhaps Worldtraveller didn't tell them about it, which is a shame if true. --[[User talk:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway]]
:::He did attempt to get certification from someone completely uninvolved with the current dispute, though [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:A_Link_to_the_Past&diff=prev&oldid=108316952]. I'll say, of course, that I certainly can't argue with the RfC's existance, so I'll endorse this finding. --[[User:InShaneee|InShaneee]] 20:45, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
::::I mentioned the RfC on AN: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard&diff=108045484&oldid=108038882]. [[User:81.179.115.188|81.179.115.188]] 20:59, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
::::: Well, at least you tried, which is to your credit. --[[User talk:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway]] 21:10, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
:'''Comment by others:'''
::
===Worldtraveller made personal attacks===
14) Worldtraveller made personal attacks against InShaneee, CBDunkerson, and HighInBC [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/InShaneee/Evidence#Worldtraveller_has_harassed_InShaneee]. It is against [[Wikipedia:No personal attacks|Wikipedia policy]] for users to do so and is considered especially poor form for long time members of the community do so.
:'''Comment by Arbitrators:'''
:: Proposed. [[User:Mackensen|Mackensen]] [[User_talk:Mackensen|(talk)]] 15:24, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
:'''Comment by parties:'''
:: I would say the problem is that he was encouraged in his belief that his conduct was acceptable, by those who stepped in and defended it. --[[User talk:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway]] 17:07, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
::: I'd also point out that Inshaneeee himself was not really well behaved. Nobody comes out of this looking good. --[[User talk:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway]] 20:37, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
:: I called InShaneee a witless moron, out of extreme frustration that he was completely ignoring all the problems he'd caused. I apologised for it [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Worldtraveller&diff=109292641&oldid=109236950]. [[User:81.179.115.188|81.179.115.188]] 21:14, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
:'''Comment by others:'''
::It may seem like a technicality, but there really is a difference between saying "you're acting like jerks" and saying "you're jerks." This is not to say that anyone should do the former, but, honestly, I can act like a jerk without being one, and I fully expect that other people can, too, and so I see a great deal less in choice of term (it wasn't "jerk") and characterization than apparently other people do. [[User:Geogre|Geogre]] 16:50, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
:::You may be right, but that's a technicality that was evidently lost on people. These kinds of remarks inflame the situation and do nothing towards resolving the dispute. [[User:Mackensen|Mackensen]] [[User_talk:Mackensen|(talk)]] 16:58, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
:::[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:InShaneee&diff=prev&oldid=103664100 "You're clearly just a witless moron"]. Please, explain the 'technicality' under which that '''isn't''' a personal attack. :] --[[User talk:CBDunkerson|CBD]] 17:24, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
::I was referring to "acting like fuckwits." I will concede that "clearly just a witless moron" is a redundancy and an insult. "Personal attack" is meaningless, and insults can be delivered in many ways without getting flagged (as has been pointed out to me). [[User:Geogre|Geogre]] 21:58, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
:::Ok, but actually it was Dbuckner who said 'acting like fuckwits'... Worldtraveller stuck with plain old 'are fuckwits'. --[[User talk:CBDunkerson|CBD]] 22:09, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
Support this finding. The language used was unacceptable on this site. [[User:Metamagician3000|Metamagician3000]] 10:47, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
===InShaneee failed to communicate adequately with Worldtraveller===
1) InShaneee complained on the administrator's noticeboard that he was being harassed, but at no point did he communicate this belief directly to Worldtraveller, or ask Worldtraveller to stop pursuing his grievances.
:'''Comment by Arbitrators:'''
:: Repeated silence and/or blanking is an obvious desire to be let alone. I have experienced as much in my interactions with other users. [[User:Mackensen|Mackensen]] [[User_talk:Mackensen|(talk)]] 02:36, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
:'''Comment by parties:'''
::Proposed. [[User:81.179.115.188|81.179.115.188]] 21:22, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
::Can I take this to assume that if I had asked you to leave me alone, you would have? Or would have done anything differently? --[[User:InShaneee|InShaneee]] 23:47, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
::Who knows? Difficult to say after the fact. It seems pretty amazing that you only ever complained to others that I was 'harassing' you, and never actually to me. I note the fact without speculating on why it might have been the case. [[User:81.179.115.188|81.179.115.188]] 00:51, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
:::Then I'm going to have to oppose this finding. I fail to see how you would somehow be placated by a request to simply stop if my silence did nothing. You've said you wanted answers; this seems to contradict that. --[[User:InShaneee|InShaneee]] 02:30, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
::::Do you fail to see that communicating directly with me, at any point, would have been better than ignoring me but complaining to others? What made you think it would be better to never respond directly to me but to try and get others to block me instead? [[User:81.179.115.188|81.179.115.188]] 08:50, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
:'''Comment by others:'''
:: Not sure I understand this. I'd go so far as to say that InShaneee's initial response had been unhelpful, even provocative, but complaining on the admin noticeboard is plain enough communication. One shouldn't have to fill in a form in triplicate to express distress at perceived harassment. --[[User talk:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway]] 03:11, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
:::It was obvious that the behaviour was experienced as harassing. InShanee msde clear that it was not welcome, but it continued. At a minimum, this showed considerable insensitivity. [[User:Metamagician3000|Metamagician3000]] 10:50, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
::Absolutely '''agree.''' (Complaining ''about'' someone is generally something done long, long after one has refused to communicate ''with'' a person.) [[User:Geogre|Geogre]] 11:01, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
===Asking an admin to explain their actions does not constitute harassment===
1) Worldtraveller asked InShaneee on numerous occasions to explain his block. This does not fall within any of the definitions of harassment listed at [[Wikipedia:Harassment]]. Administrators are expected to respond to concerns about their actions in a timely manner.
:'''Comment by Arbitrators:'''
::Yes. [[User:Paul August|Paul August]] [[User_talk:Paul August|☎]] 01:46, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
::Agreed, but I would argue that once InShaneee had responded, and been the subject of an RfC, that the matter should have ended. [[User:Mackensen|Mackensen]] [[User_talk:Mackensen|(talk)]] 01:51, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
:'''Comment by parties:'''
::Proposed. Some people seem to think that if they say 'harassment' often enough then it will become accepted as fact. Posting inquiries about a controversial block, repeatedly because there is not an iota of a response from the administrator concerned, does not constitute harassment. [[User:81.179.115.188|81.179.115.188]] 21:33, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
::I like the idea, but not the context. WorldTraveler went about his 'request' in a certain manner that needs to be examined on its own, and not as part of a generalized statement. --[[User:InShaneee|InShaneee]] 21:39, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
:'''Comment by others:'''
:: Badgering is still harassment, though I agree that InShaneee should have handled it better. --[[User talk:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway]] 22:10, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
:::Again, Mackensen has made the obvious point. [[User:Metamagician3000|Metamagician3000]] 10:50, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
::'''Absolutely agree:''' We owe even the bad people an explanation, and we owe the good people reconsideration as well as an explanation, and the blocking policy explicitly states that third party administrators should be called in in cases of content disputes. [[User:Geogre|Geogre]] 11:02, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
::: The block was discussed in early January and there was universal agreement that InShaneee had acted wrongly by using his sysop powers to gain an advantage. While it would have been nice if InShaneee had acknowledged this at the time, I don't think this justifies the badgering and personal attacks he was subjected to. I could certainly accept that InShaneee wronged Worldtraveller by omission and (where he did respond) by provocative comments. This really does not explain, in my mind, how that is supposed to make Worldtraveller's own actions in any way correct. They obviously went far beyond asking for an explanation. Wikipedia isn't a battleground. --[[User talk:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway]] 12:16, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
===Template===
1) {text of proposed finding of fact}
:'''Comment by Arbitrators:'''
::
:'''Comment by parties:'''
::
:'''Comment by others:'''
::
===Template===
1) {text of proposed finding of fact}
:'''Comment by Arbitrators:'''
::
:'''Comment by parties:'''
::
:'''Comment by others:'''
::
===Template===
1) {text of proposed finding of fact}
:'''Comment by Arbitrators:'''
::
:'''Comment by parties:'''
::
:'''Comment by others:'''
::
==Proposed remedies==
<small>''Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.''</small>
===InShaneee admonished===
1) By reason of the foregoing, InShaneee is strongly admonished:
:(A) To impose blocks on editors only in strict accordance with [[WP:BLOCK|the blocking policy]] and other applicable policies, and in particular, not to block any editor with whom he is engaged, or could reasonably be perceived as being engaged, in a content dispute;
:(B) To consult with other administrators, rather than act unilaterally, in instances where the propriety of a block or another administrator action could reasonably be questioned; and
:(C) To respond promptly and in good faith to reasonable questions and criticisms concerning his administrator actions.
:'''Comment by Arbitrators:'''
::Appropriate for a minor incident [[User:Fred Bauder|Fred Bauder]] 14:05, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
:'''Comment by parties:'''
::
:'''Comment by others:'''
::Proposed. [[User:Newyorkbrad|Newyorkbrad]] 03:56, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
:::A, B and C above is nothing but some common sense rule that should always apply to ''all'' administrators. Why only InShanee? He is clearly ''not'' the most abusive one and not even within top 10 or 20. Just happened to be less lucky to hit the editor who feels stronger about pursuing the issue. But support the proposal of course. --[[User:Irpen|Irpen]] 06:10, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
::::Some admonishing doesn't hurt, I suppose, though InShanee has already acknowledged his error and apologised. [[User:Metamagician3000|Metamagician3000]] 11:07, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
:::::If the arbitrators decide that InShaneee already has the message now and this would be piling on, that's fine too. This is basically proposed as an alternative to the other remedy in the air which is desysopping, which I believe would be unwarranted. Cf. [[Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Deltabeignet/Workshop]] and its decision for a situation where an administrator's alleged misconduct was resolved through measures less stringent than those I imagine some of the arbitrators initially envisioned. [[User:Newyorkbrad|Newyorkbrad]] 11:48, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
:::: It has been established that InShaneee had acknowledged his error and apologised some weeks ago, and on Worldtraveller's talk page, but the harassment continued. It is this factor which is most worrying about this case. However Worldtraveller does seem to have improved his tone during the course of the arbitration and I think this is promising. --[[User talk:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway]] 12:06, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
===Decorum in arbitration cases===
2) Editors are requested to maintain appropriate decorum and civility on arbitration pages and to refrain from using epithets or making allegations that may unnecessarily inflame disputes. [[User:Newyorkbrad|Newyorkbrad]] 03:56, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
:'''Comment by Arbitrators:'''
::Not an appropriate remedy for the nasty behavior we have seen here. [[User:Fred Bauder|Fred Bauder]] 14:06, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
:'''Comment by parties:'''
::
:'''Comment by others:'''
::Proposed. [[User:Newyorkbrad|Newyorkbrad]], 03:56, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
:::Support. That this even needs to be raised is unfortunate. --[[User:Irpen|Irpen]] 06:10, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
: It's impossible to get at the truth if one is afraid to examine the evidence and ask questions based on that evidence. I agree that, had I persisted ''after'' being reasonably satisfied that my suspicions were incorrect, it would have been unhelpful. I apologise for the pain this causes. Arbitration isn't a pleasant business. --[[User talk:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway]] 03:15, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
::Support. Civility should be maintained here as elsewhere. Those involved in arbitration cases need to speak frankly, but namecalling and personal abuse are not acceptable. If highly sensitive and serious allegations need to be made, that can be a reason to use more formal and distanced language, rather than to use slurs and mockery. [[User:Metamagician3000|Metamagician3000]] 10:54, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
::: I'm not aware of having cast slurs or mocked anyone. I assure you that I took my suspicions very seriously indeed and delivered them in language that accurately reflected my opinion. --[[User talk:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway]] 12:03, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
===Worldtraveller===
3) In their capacity as individual editors, the arbitrators urge Worldtraveller to put aside his grievance with the block at issue in this case and to resume contributing high-quality content to the encyclopedia.
:'''Comment by Arbitrators:'''
::Phrased poorly, but yes, [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:InShaneee&diff=111903370&oldid=111751593 this sort] of attitude is wholly inappropriate. [[User:Fred Bauder|Fred Bauder]] 14:09, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
:'''Comment by parties:'''
:: The arbitrators cannot make a remedy in their capacity as individual editors. --[[User talk:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway]] 20:18, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
:'''Comment by others:'''
::Proposed. [[User:Newyorkbrad|Newyorkbrad]] 03:56, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
:::''Ultra vires.'' [[User:Metamagician3000|Metamagician3000]] 10:55, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
===Worldtraveller (alternative)===
4) Worldtraveller is thanked for an exceptional quality and quantity of his edits in the capacity of content creator and urged to resume contributing high-quality content to the encyclopedia. He is requested to recognize that to err is human, including on the part of admins, accept the apology for an unfair block, put aside his grievance with the block and the blocker and drop the matter.
:'''Comment by Arbitrators:'''
:: This is sensible. [[User:Mackensen|Mackensen]] [[User_talk:Mackensen|(talk)]] 20:22, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
:: Acceptable [[User:Fred Bauder|Fred Bauder]] 14:10, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
:'''Comment by parties:'''
::
:'''Comment by others:'''
::Proposed. Whatever happened - happened. InShanee is clearly not the fragrant abuser of admin powers. His main mistake is failure to properly act in the aftermath. As for the block, it was an unfortunate one, but Wikipedia have seen more fragrant blocks and blockers. --[[User:Irpen|Irpen]] 06:22, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
:::I think you mean "flagrant". They might be fragrant as well but that's another issue. This is a good and rounded finding. [[User:Sam Blacketer|Sam Blacketer]] 11:25, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
::::Sensible suggestion. [[User:Metamagician3000|Metamagician3000]] 10:56, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
===InShaneee is desysoped===
5) For inappropriate blocking, InShannee is desysoped. He may reapply at any time via [[WP:RFA]].
:'''Comment by Arbitrators:'''
::One inappropriate block is not sufficient grounds, however [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard&diff=prev&oldid=98408630 this remark] does raise serious questions. [[User:Fred Bauder|Fred Bauder]] 14:13, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
:'''Comment by parties:'''
::
:'''Comment by others:'''
::Proposed. (first arbcom comment, please don't [[WP:BITE]], thanks). — [[User:Selmo|<font color="red"><b>Selmo</b></font>]] <sup><i>([[User_talk:Selmo|talk]])</i></sup> 04:36, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
:::No reason to bite; perfectly right as to form. My personal view is that another chance could be accorded (see my proposed findings above and the evidence I'll be submitting in the morning), but this is certainly a potential outcome. [[User:Newyorkbrad|Newyorkbrad]] 04:39, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
::::Tend to agree with Brad if InShanee can admit the mistake and that his reaction to it (or lack of it) aggravated the matters. --[[User:Irpen|Irpen]] 06:12, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
:::::Given Inshanee's statement when the case was brought that his 24-hour block "was rash, reactive, and I should have sought more discussion and input before acting in any capacity on the matter", I would say that he has accepted criticism and is trying to improve. If the committee is thinking on the lines that the blocking was an egregious breach of the [[WP:BP|blocking policy]] (I make no comment for or against) then it would be more appropriate to pass a temporary suspension of sysop status rather than this. [[User:Sam Blacketer|Sam Blacketer]] 11:23, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
::::::Given that this block occurred more than two months ago and there have been no challenges to any more recent ones, I think a suspension would be merely punitive rather than remedial at this point. [[User:Newyorkbrad|Newyorkbrad]] 13:06, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
::I strongly support. He abused his administrator privilages various times. Assuming there was no intent of those abuses makes it worst, as it shows he has poor judgement. Not everyone are fit to be administrators, regardless of how well intentioned they are. Administrators don't realise the gravity of the situation. Administrators on Wikipedia are not moderators from a private forum, they are "elected" from the community, which trust them. InShaneee has broken this trust and there is a significant reason for him to reapply. Administrative privilages are there to serve Wikipedia not harm it and when an administrator place an unjustifiable block, he is harming Wikipedia by not allowing a user to contribute. The community did not vote for this, the community voted to make a user an administrator because it is good for Wikipedia. If an administrator has lost significantly the trust of the community, the same community which elected him/her, then that person is not a legitimate administrator. I strongly urge the arbitrators to consider this option. I think the community should be polled here. Being an administrator is not a dictatorship, the community trust is all that matters. [[User:Fadix|''Fad'']] [[User talk:Fadix|(ix)]] 19:31, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
:::InShanee has made one (admittedly clear) mistake of judgment. I will refrain from saying what I think of this proposal, as it would look like biting. However, the proposal should not be countenanced. [[User:Metamagician3000|Metamagician3000]] 11:05, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
===InShaneee is de-sysopped (alternative)===
6) For his consistent refusal to acknowledge criticism of his administrative actions, and to explain them when they have been discussed on the administrator's noticeboard, InShaneee is de-sysopped.
:'''Comment by Arbitrators:'''
::Definitely a problem, but he has apologized for it. [[User:Fred Bauder|Fred Bauder]] 14:14, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
:'''Comment by parties:'''
::I've said a number of times that the block was nothing worth arbitrating over - the subsequent blank refusal to discuss is what has brought this here. I think it shows contempt for one's fellow administrators to ignore discussions in the way InShaneee has done. [[User:MONGO]] was de-sysopped for ''failure to relate appropriately with other administrators'' and to me that's InShaneee's biggest failing. [[User:81.179.115.188|81.179.115.188]] 10:57, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
:::To comment on Sam Blacketer's comment, I am extremely troubled by the fact that it took an arbitration case to get InShaneee to acknowledge criticism. He spent seven weeks stonewalling before giving even a half-hearted apology, and I can't think of any good reason at all why he didn't offer any justification of the block when it was discussed on AN/I. His refusal to comment is the only reason this case ever got to arbitration. If he'd have responded in early January, we'd probably all be happily editing articles right now instead of arbitration pages. [[User:81.179.115.188|81.179.115.188]] 19:51, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
:'''Comment by others:'''
::In his statement on [[WP:RFAr|Requests for arbitration]] when opening the case was being discussed, [[User:InShaneee|Inshaneee]] definitely acknowledged criticism and stated that he should have sought more discussion. For that reason, I would encourage rejection of this proposal. [[User:Sam Blacketer|Sam Blacketer]] 11:19, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
:::I don't see that clearly there, and in my case, InShaneee never accepted he did anything wrong, he even justified it when another administrator said he see no block material. InShaneee has even gone to lie about the block on IRC talking in my back when a respected member reported that to me. It was really not the proper conduct of an administrator. [[User:Fadix|''Fad'']] [[User talk:Fadix|(ix)]] 19:40, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
:::: I cannot speak to the validity of InShaneee's blocks of you, but it is a fact that your block log contains blocks by Jtkiefer, Khoikhoi and Danny as well as InShaneee, all apparently because of personal attacks. Whatever the facts of your case, it apparently goes beyond InShaneee alone.[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&type=block&page=User:Fadix] --[[User talk:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway]] 13:20, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
:::::Jtkiefer actually apologized and admitted by email that there was no clear block material. You were there when it happened Tony and am sure you remember about the reason of the block. Khoikhoi block was justified, but he also answered to the person who I directed the attack that it was probably his attack against me which was the reason of my countering which resulted with the block. Danny block was of few hours. There was no block material with the two blocks imposed by InShaneee, I contested both blocks, the first, I had no answer, El_C unblocked soon before it was to be expired, on the other an Admin answered by telling InShaneee that he see no reason for the block, but no one took the innitiative to unblock me. InShaneee lied about the reason of the block on the IRC, and when I corrected him on my user page, he edited it by removing it and threatning me with a harsher block even though I announced y departure at that time, because no admin with full knowledge of knowing the block was unjustified took the initiative to unblock me. InShaneee never apologised, and refused to apologise seing nothing wrong in his behavior. [[User:Fadix|''Fad'']] [[User talk:Fadix|(ix)]] 14:31, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
::::The edit referred to is [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration&diff=113458698&oldid=113455943 here]. [[User:Sam Blacketer|Sam Blacketer]] 19:57, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
This proposal should be roundly rejected. Despite making one mistake, InShanee is a valued member of this community. [[User:Metamagician3000|Metamagician3000]] 11:02, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
===All participants admonished===
7) All participants in this dispute are admonished for taking a bad 24-hour block and escalating it into a two-month-long dispute. Numerous opportunities for users of high stature to step in and defuse the situation were not followed. It is expected the users of high standing, administrators or no, will act to defuse and ameliorate disputes for the benefit of the community at large.
:'''Comment by Arbitrators:'''
:: Proposed. I would make no other remedies. This should never have got this far. [[User:Mackensen|Mackensen]] [[User_talk:Mackensen|(talk)]] 15:28, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
:'''Comment by parties:'''
:: Probably the most appropriate single remedy proposed here. --[[User talk:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway]] 16:59, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
:: I couldn't agree more that things should never have got this far. I can't agree that my refusal to ignore an administrator's violation of policy and subsequent refusal to communicate should be admonished like this. [[User:81.179.115.188|81.179.115.188]] 21:45, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
:'''Comment by others:'''
::Works for me. I know I was disappointed in my inability to conceive of a 'peaceful' solution to the matter. --[[User talk:CBDunkerson|CBD]] 16:56, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
::I seem to be lacking in imagination and insight this evening. Please would [[User:Mackensen|Mackensen]] explain (i) who is included in this "All participants in this dispute", so we know who would be admonished (the parties? everyone who has commented so far? the whole Wikipedia community?); and (ii) suggest ways in which such "users of high stature" could have stepped in to defuse "the situation" (whichever "situation" that may be).
::Can I encourage such "users of high stature" to "step in" and "defuse and ameliorate" the, ah, unfortunate exchanges that have occurring on this very page over the past day or so? -- [[User:ALoan|ALoan]] [[User talk:ALoan|(Talk)]] 02:01, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
:::Feel free to do so, I'm rather tired. My statement is intended to be broad, for several reasons. The first is that this dispute was aired publicly several times, but in reviewing the discussions I saw much heat and little light, despite the users involved. Users of high stature means just what it says: responsible long-time members of the community who should have known better and of whom the community expects better. I shouldn't have to explain to said users how to defuse a bad situation, but I would start by suggesting that sarcasm, petulance, and paranoia are approaches best avoided (and the first person who takes that statement as an accusation on my part will be hit on the head with the Assume Good Faith brick). This is basic stuff. I'm not interesting in naming names, the end goal here isn't punishment but reconciliation or, barring that, distance. This should be the end of it. [[User:Mackensen|Mackensen]] [[User_talk:Mackensen|(talk)]] 02:14, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
:::Dispute resolution via Noticeboard tends not to work. Possibly the environment encourages adversarial groupings. Whatever the reason, most disputes that I've seen mushroom were predicated either on a simple mistake or a fundamental misunderstanding--both of which are easily unravelled by actual good faith discussion--not accusation. We're in short supply of that these days for reasons that aren't clear to me. [[User:Mackensen|Mackensen]] [[User_talk:Mackensen|(talk)]] 02:42, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
::::Mackensen, I wrote some suggestions for improving the RFAr process on this page, addressed directly to you, [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/InShaneee/Workshop&diff=114415210&oldid=114414874 up here]. They were quite serious; if the tone suggests light-heartedness, I don't feel it. Perhaps you haven't seen them. I would put them up as Proposed something-or-other for greater visibility, except that's not logical as they are about the process, not the decisions. I scarcely even know where to put this nudge. (Talkpage? Haha, good one.) Could you reply to them please? It doesn't have to be while you're tired. [[User:Bishonen|Bishonen]] | [[User talk:Bishonen|talk]] 03:36, 12 March 2007 (UTC).
I can't imagine how a dispute like this got this far. ''All'' involved should be admonished (with one definite exception: CBD, who did nothing wrong, and one likely exception, HiBC, who made a block that was in good faith and at least arguably appropriate). In the all, I include Geogre and Bishonen who have tended to pour petrol on the fire. I see no merit in any remedies other than admonishments, unless the arbcom is going to clarify its attitude to the blocks by CBD and HiBC. The attacks on their actions are what is most worrying about this case. [[User:Metamagician3000|Metamagician3000]] 10:59, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
:Did subsequent blocks of Worldtraveller help or hurt the situation? I really don't think they were beneficial, but I can't condemn either CBD or HighInBC for doing what they felt was the right thing to do in the circumstance. It is a complicated matter, and one that some see as having been part of the escaltion not only in this case, but in at least one other case that has been before arbcom.--[[User:MONGO|MONGO]] 13:54, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
:: It's hard to tell, sometimes, whether arbitration is dealing with the underlying problem behavior or the results of failed attempts to deal with the problem. Worldtraveller made some attempt to use the dispute resolution process, and it isn't his fault that this failed. I think the onus was on both him, and to a lesser extent InShaneee, to seek to resolve the situation through that process; perhaps he did not know that he could seek mediation. Meanwhile his behavior did present a problem that several administrators independently decided was serious enough to merit some kind of intervention, and being administrators they went for the block button. --[[User talk:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway]] 14:03, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
===Template===
1) {text of proposed remedy}
:'''Comment by Arbitrators:'''
::
:'''Comment by parties:'''
::
:'''Comment by others:'''
::
===Template===
1) {text of proposed remedy}
:'''Comment by Arbitrators:'''
::
:'''Comment by parties:'''
::
:'''Comment by others:'''
::
===Template===
1) {text of proposed remedy}
:'''Comment by Arbitrators:'''
::
:'''Comment by parties:'''
::
:'''Comment by others:'''
::
===Template===
1) {text of proposed remedy}
:'''Comment by Arbitrators:'''
::
:'''Comment by parties:'''
::
:'''Comment by others:'''
::
===Template===
1) {text of proposed remedy}
:'''Comment by Arbitrators:'''
::
:'''Comment by parties:'''
::
:'''Comment by others:'''
::
==Proposed enforcement==
===Template===
1) {text of proposed enforcement}
:'''Comment by Arbitrators:'''
::
:'''Comment by parties:'''
::
:'''Comment by others:'''
::
===Template===
1) {text of proposed enforcement}
:'''Comment by Arbitrators:'''
::
:'''Comment by parties:'''
::
:'''Comment by others:'''
::
===Template===
1) {text of proposed enforcement}
:'''Comment by Arbitrators:'''
::
:'''Comment by parties:'''
::
:'''Comment by others:'''
::
===Template===
1) {text of proposed enforcement}
:'''Comment by Arbitrators:'''
::
:'''Comment by parties:'''
::
:'''Comment by others:'''
::
===Template===
1) {text of proposed enforcement}
:'''Comment by Arbitrators:'''
::
:'''Comment by parties:'''
::
:'''Comment by others:'''
::
==Analysis of evidence==
Place here items of evidence (with diffs) and detailed analysis
===Template===
:'''Comment by Arbitrators:'''
::
:'''Comment by parties:'''
::
:'''Comment by others:'''
::
===Template===
:'''Comment by Arbitrators:'''
::
:'''Comment by parties:'''
::
:'''Comment by others:'''
::
===Template===
:'''Comment by Arbitrators:'''
::
:'''Comment by parties:'''
::
:'''Comment by others:'''
::
===Template===
:'''Comment by Arbitrators:'''
::
:'''Comment by parties:'''
::
:'''Comment by others:'''
::
===Template===
:'''Comment by Arbitrators:'''
::
:'''Comment by parties:'''
::
:'''Comment by others:'''
::
===Template===
:'''Comment by Arbitrators:'''
::
:'''Comment by parties:'''
::
:'''Comment by others:'''
::
===Template===
:'''Comment by Arbitrators:'''
::
:'''Comment by parties:'''
::
:'''Comment by others:'''
::
==General discussion==
:'''Comment by Arbitrators:'''
::
:'''Comment by parties:'''
::
:'''Comment by others:'''
| 