Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Talrias

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In order to remain listed at Wikipedia:Requests for comment, at least two people need to show that they tried to resolve a dispute with this sysop and have failed. This must involve the same dispute, not different disputes. The persons complaining must provide evidence of their efforts, and each of them must certify it by signing this page with ~~~~. If this does not happen within 48 hours of the creation of this dispute page (which was: 22:11 03 Jan 2006, the page will be deleted. The current date and time is: 01:33, 10 April 2007 (UTC).

Note: as the initiator and target of this RFC, I waive the above requirements. Talrias (t | e | c) 22:11, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Please note: This template is for listing disputes about actions that are limited to administrators only, specifically these actions:

  • protecting and unprotecting pages
  • deleting and undeleting pages
  • blocking and unblocking users

For all other matters (such as edit wars and page moves), please use the template at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Example user.

Contents

[edit] Statement of the dispute

This RFC is because I have taken inappropriate actions, according to some people, in regards to the blocking of Marsden. I would like to invite people both involved in the dispute and not to offer their opinions so I can learn from my behaviour here, the opinions of others, and better understand how to act in the future.

[edit] Description

I'm going to briefly go over what the major events were; I've added a section for links to where the discussion took place. I've followed this with my justification for my actions. Depending on the outcome of this RFC I will maintain my justification, modify it, or retract it, depending what people's opinions are. Thanks in advance for your comments.

[edit] Brief summary of events

Marsden was blocked indefinitely by Snowspinner (talk • contribs) on 23:12, 15 December 2005, announcing it to the admins' noticeboard. A couple of weeks later, Dissident (talk • contribs) posted a comment in reply about the indefinite block requesting it be shortened, and another later message after no response to his initial message. Rd232 (talk • contribs) agreed with the sentiments expressed in Dissident's second message and the following discussion, and shortened the block to a month (in other words, 2 weeks from the time he blocked). This was later undone by SlimVirgin (talk • contribs) and FeloniousMonk (talk • contribs), with no announcement by either to the admins' noticeboard. I later posted a similar message to the admins' noticeboard and shortened the block, at 23:04, 27 December 2005. FeloniousMonk then indefinitely blocked Marsden, at 05:34, 28 December 2005. As I could not see any comments left by FeloniousMonk regarding Marsden aside from his block message, I left a note on his talk page and shortened the block at 03:30, 29 December 2005. Tshilo12 (talk • contribs) indefinitely blocked Marsden at 05:46, 29 December 2005.

[edit] My justification for my actions

I am unfamiliar with Marsden's exact situation. The only contact I have had with him was a question he asked me on my ArbCom candidacy statement, my reply, and a follow-up comment he made. The question he left was perfectly civil, and his follow-up comment was a bit "cabal theoryish" but didn't contain any personal attacks or rude comments. That's my background experience with him. My actions on his blocking weren't at all related to this, in fact I did not recognise the name from my ArbCom candidacy until afterwards.

My reasons for reducing the length of Marsden's block at the time were - and still are - that I am perfectly willing to accept a time-limited block of a user from another admin. Admins are chosen by the community and are on the whole a pretty responsible bunch. I'm trust them to block when appropriate and when blocks are inappropriate. However, what I don't do, is assume that when an admin blocks permanently, the person being blocked actually deserves a permanent block. If someone is going to be indefinitely banned from contributing to Wikipedia, that is indeed something. I hope that Wikipedia will be around in 10 years' time, and a number of indefinitely banned people will have matured significantly and may consider contributing to Wikipedia, but won't because of immature behaviour on their parts 10 years previously. Yes, one contributor to Wikipedia is not going to make a significant difference, but I think we should be fair with our blocks and bans. I don't think banning indefinitely is fair, but if we're going to do it, I think it should come from the Arbitration Committee, which despite its flaws does look over each bit of evidence, gives the person a chance to explain their actions and typically comes to a fair decision when blocking annoying contributors.

I've heard it argued that the Arbitration Committee would come to the same decision anyway, so what's the point in hearing the case in the first place? I respectfully disagree with this point of view. An Arbitration Committee case typically has evidence attached which makes it possible for uninvolved bystanders to review and form their own decisions on the merits of the ban. Blocking by community typically comes with few pieces of evidence which makes it more difficult to form a fair opinion. I found the argument on the admins' noticeboard for limiting the block duration more persuasive than having an indefinite ban, so I shortened the duration of the ban, rather than removing it completely - as I respect that other admins have already blocked him for disruptive behaviour. I'm quite willing to take this on good faith. I just don't like the idea that someone can be blocked indefinitely by an admin, especially since Marsden's talk page has hardly any reasoning for the block, nor is the block reason for him particularly descriptive - it now says "Snowspinner was right". I would like more than this.

[edit] Related discussions

[edit] Powers misused

  • Blocking (log):
  1. Marsden block log

[edit] Applicable policies

[edit] Users certifying the basis for this dispute

  1. Talrias (t | e | c) 22:11, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Other users who endorse this statement

(sign with ~~~~)


[edit] Inside view by Tomer

I happened on this dispute some time after it had begun. I don't disagree with Snowspinner's having indefinitely blocked Marsden both because I have a somewhat more literal interpretation of the word "indefinite" than most people and because even using most people's definition, that's ultimately what's likely to end up happening with Marsen anyway—Snowspinner just eliminated about 6 steps in the process. My view of this situation, however, is more relevant to Talrias' actions than to Snowspinner's.

In my opinion, Talrias should have raised his objections on WP:ANI, and if he had been unable to get satisfaction there, should have opened an RfC regarding Snowspinner's action regarding Marsden. What he did instead, was to protest, countermand Snowspinner, and spawn a wheel war.

Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~~~~):

  1. Tomertalk 04:41, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
  2. El_C 04:50, 4 January 2006 (UTC) (everyone seems to be wheel warring these days, though — except for me, possibly excluding Kitty)

[edit] Inside view by Rd232

I came across the Marsden issue on 26 December on WP:AN (discussion subsequently moved to WP:ANI, now archived). I went to ask User:Snowspinner about it, and saw the previous discussion on his talk page ([1]). I asked him to comment on WP:AN, which he declined to do at the time, though he did enter a discussion with me on my talk page ([2]).

Claims of Marsden being an incorrigible troll weren't obviously borne out by eg Talk:British Mandate of Palestine, and even the episode about Jayg's employment (eg Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee Elections January 2006/Candidate statements/Jayjg) where I couldn't find any evidence of a threat, as was alleged) didn't seem to justify a block even as long a month, so I took this as an upper limit on what I'd take on faith in this situation. I left a message on Snowspinner's page asking whether he'd object to my giving Marsden a second chance, and since he responded to me without answering that, I decided to do it. Between the discussions on WP:AN, my talk page, and Snowspinner's talk page, and lookng at Marsden's contributions, I decided to change the indefinite block to a definite one (1 month, with time served), which I did at 10:53 on 27 December. I reasoned that there were over two weeks left for further discussion of the appropriate length of block, and that if there was a good justification for an indefinite block it might then be forthcoming.

In the event, that didn't happen, as several admins reinstituted the indefinite block the same day. One of them (FeloniousMonk) didn't participate in the discussion at any point, and the other (SlimVirgin) had significant prior history with Marsden, which made the pre-emption of ongoing discussion even more frustrating. Talrias reinstituted the 1 month block, at which point the wheelwar took off, with FeloniousMonk (again without participating in the discussion) reversing that. The saga ends with Snowspinner unblocking Marsden (to give him a second chance and get shot of the episode), and then Jimbo reblocking Marsden with the comment "Snowspinner was right".

I don't want to nitpick the rights and wrongs of this particular episode, but I want to suggest some policy conclusions... which are essentially covered by Wikipedia:Controversial blocks. Perhaps we should have an additional policy - to follow policy? (Suddenly, Wikipedia:User Bill of Rights doesn't sound so silly.) Perhaps we need some kind of Wikipedia:User Sanction Review, as an intermediate between the informal (and busy) WP:ANI and the formal RfAr. It would be a sort of Court of Appeal for (potentially) controversial blocking actions; it might help to separate these out, and provide a forum for discussing such actions without having necessarily to resort to RFC or RfAr, which risk blowing a small deal into a big one, and possibly taking up more of ArbCom's time with matters that it shouldn't necessarily be dealing with.

Oh, and since this is an RFC on Talrias' behaviour, I'll conclude by saying that of the people who should think about how this episode played out (including me), and their part in it, he did nothing wrong. (And he did not "spawn" the wheelwar - that was FeloniousMonk, who at one point managed to wheelwar with himself.) Rd232 talk 14:08, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~~~~):

  1. Rd232 talk 14:08, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
  2. --Durin 22:14, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
  3. Oldak Quill 03:22, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
  4. --R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 05:19, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
  5. Blu Aardvark | (talk) | (contribs) 08:42, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
  6. --but see my comment on "talk", --Huldra 15:29, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
  7. Cyberevil 00:14, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Inside view by Dissident

Read this for my inside view and notice the misconduct of several parties.

Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~~~~):

  1. Dissident (Talk) 16:48, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
  2. This is precisely why logs of use of checkuser must be made public; the data resulting from the checkuser should not be, but the arbitrary and capricious use of these rights is repulsive and undermining of privacy. Unless David Gerard can show reason to believe Dissident was a sockpuppet of Marsden, he should be sanctioned for his blatant abuse of checkuser rights. --Durin 22:40, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
  3. Agree especially with concerns about checkuser (though not necessarily with sanctioning anybody): as we see so often (in real life and on Wikipedia), the threshold for using powers that will be "hardly ever used", "only in special circumstances" etc becomes ever lower over time. Is there in fact, an explicit policy on when and how checkuser should be used? If yes, I can't think of where it is. If no, I think we need one. Rd232 talk 23:28, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
    There is a checkuser policy (not that policy really means anything anymore). Why shouldn't a person who abuses checkuser privs be sanctioned in some way? --Durin 00:30, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
    Oh yes, on meta (I thought I'd seen it somewhere). Not really enough detail, I think, and could do with transposing to Wikipedia. Policy should I think clearly exclude its use in the circumstances that happened. Rd232 talk 10:31, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Outside view by Durin

This is a summary written by users not directly involved with the dispute but who would like to add an outside view of the dispute. Users who edit or endorse this summary should not edit the other summaries.

In reviewing the blocks that have happened against Marsden, it appears he has stirred significant controversy before the incidents described in this RfC. That said, the out of process blocks and subsequent wheel warring victimizing Marsden was improper, uncalled for, and unproductive.

With respect to Talrias, he acted in good faith in attempts to resolve the situation and performed as well as expected given the situation. Talrias did inform WP:AN, and the debate there was later moved to WP:AN/I. There does not appear to be a clear reason to censure Talrias' behavior.

Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~~~~):

  1. --Durin 22:40, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
  2. Talrias is one of the most thoughtful, fair-minded admins I know of. If this Rfc had been initiated by anyone but himself, it would be laughed off as frivillous.--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 05:17, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Another outside view by Durin

This is a summary written by users not directly involved with the dispute but who would like to add an outside view of the dispute. Users who edit or endorse this summary should not edit the other summaries.

There is a serious problem brewing within Wikipedia. Recent events both in regards to this situation and other situations have laid a precedent that all of the policies contained within Category:Wikipedia official policy are meaningless and can be overridden whenever somebody, especially an admin, sees fit.

In the case of Marsden; regardless of his past behavior the nature of the block and later wheel warring was entirely improper. In the end, Snowspinner unblocked Marsden, giving him another chance. From that point forward, Marsden made exactly one edit [3]. Nothing in that edit could even remotely be construed as grounds for indefinite blocking of Marsden. Despite this, Jimbo Wales stepped in and indefinitely blocking Marsden again, stating in the summary that Snowspinner was right, even though Snowspinner had unblocked him. This is just a microcosmic example of this most serious of problems.

A day later, Jimbo posted this comment to WP:AN/I. Within it, he starts off by implying that norms and traditions are more important than policy. In the second paragraph, he went on to state that a lack of action by admins meant there was consensus. Since when has a lack of action meant consensus here? This was a faulty conclusion. He goes on to say he won't stand in the way of an ArbCom case to re-allow Marsden back in. This implies that users can be found guilty before any process has been brought to review evidence and debate that guilt.

In summary, official policy is now meaningless on Wikipedia, as is any consensus devoloping mechanism. What is more important is the individual determinations of each user, based on their own personal view of common sense and their own personal experience in working with the community. Nobody is accountable anymore for their actions, except those people who find themselves on the wrong end of the whims and fancies of admins who act outside of policy, and are supported in so doing by Jimbo and/or ArbCom. The only thing that matters now is Wikipedia:Ignore all rules being interpreted very liberally.

The stage for anarchy has been set.

Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~~~~):

  1. --Durin 23:17, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
  2. -- Миборовский U|T|C|M|E|Chugoku Banzai! 05:44, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
  3. I would change some of the "is" in the statement to "seems to be becoming", but I share these concerns that policy is increasingly being ignored in favour of individual judgement, in a way that cannot work well in a community of this size. It was fine when Wikipedia was starting, but it isn't fine now, and can only get more problematic if the tendency and the community grows. Perhaps the inherent contradiction between "wiki" and "encyclopedia" is reaching a crunchpoint, but I hope we can find ways to avoid a descent into "Wild West" (as somebody said recently) or "anarchy". Rd232 talk 10:25, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
  4. Sjakkalle (Check!) 15:57, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
  5. Blu Aardvark | (talk) | (contribs) 20:31, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
  6. -- Huldra 15:32, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
  7. Cyberevil 00:14, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
  8. I fully agree. Because "community" is poorly scalable, what we have now is the "old" community as chief gorillas in what has become something of a jungle. Naturally, everyone who says so and is concerned, no matter that their concern is driven by a desire for the end of a great encyclopaedia to be built, is dismissed as a "troll", a troublemaker or a "clueless newbie". The "common sense" that some of the more heavyhanded types pursue is just one of a divergent set of possible views, which all seem sensible enough to those that hold them. I'm afraid Jimbo has more or less endorsed the view that none of those views has any validity. A strange pass to come to for a place that says convince me with your arguments not your credentials. Grace Note 04:43, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Outside view by -Ril-

Imposing permanent blocks against people without them being sanctioned by formal rules is fundamentally wrong. The UN Charter of Human Rights states that to make a law just to target a single individual or act as if there was such a law for the same purpose is fundamentally unacceptable, a crime against humanity.

Regardless of whatever authority Jimbo Wales thinks he has, Talrias did what was right.

Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~~~~):

  1. --Victim of signature fascism | help remove biblecruft 02:47, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Outside view

This is a summary written by users not directly involved with the dispute but who would like to add an outside view of the dispute. Users who edit or endorse this summary should not edit the other summaries.

{Add summary here, but you must use the endorsement section below to sign.}

Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~~~~):

[edit] Discussion

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

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../r/e/q/Wikipedia%7ERequests_for_comment_Talrias_9039.html"