User:Renamed user 4/WorldTraveller

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] A petulant and totally unjustified block

User:InShaneee blocked me for 24 hours, accusing me of vandalism [1]. I just wanted to bring to someone's attention the fact that this was utterly untrue, and InShaneee blocked me simply because I removed a tag claiming an article for his 'paranormal' wikiproject, because the article had nothing to do with the paranormal. I found this extremely offensive and would like someone else to offer their opinion on this admin's actions. It really won't take you long at all to assess whether I vandalised anything - I've got very few edits. Special:Contributions/81.178.208.69 lists all of them (less than 10). Thanks. 81.178.208.69 23:50, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Well just to note that Red Rain in Kerala does seem paranormal. You should first discuss the changes on the talk page first. — Arjun 23:53, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Eh it really doesn't look like the anon did anything but edit war with Inshanee on the talk page. InShaneee shouldn't have blocked someone he was in a dispute with, such as it was, and shouldn't have said it was a block for vandalism when it clearly wasn't. The anon should have discussed the issue rather just edit warred. But the block has expired and there's no sense crying over spilt milk, really. --W.marsh 23:56, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
I would have discussed, if I hadn't been prevented by being blocked. The point is less whether red rain in Kerala is paranormal or not (and I don't see how organic material in comets could remotely be considered paranormal), than whether this admin acted appropriately by a) blocking someone he was in dispute with, and b) giving a dishonest reason. I think it's very patronising to talk of spilt milk, when this is not about my block but about an administrator who directly contravened policy. That's rather more important and should, I think, be taken a little bit seriously. 81.178.208.69 00:01, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
No, the point is if the article is under the umbrella of a project your not associated with at all. InShaneee should have gotten someone else to block you, but the block was valid. ---J.S (T/C) 00:15, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
(edit conflict and beaten to the punch by JS) Please keep in mind that the template you removed simply indicated the article was being watched or edited by a Wikiproject; in this case, it does NOT mean that the incident is definitively related to the paranormal or any such thing, it simply means that the Paranormal Wikiproject has agreed to contribute to the page (because of the proposed theory discussed on the article page). Removing content from talk pages while not refactoring or archiving is vandalism and you should have been blocked in my view. With that said, InShaneee should have asked another administrator to review the situation and take appropriate action. —bbatsell ¿? 00:16, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
What utter rubbish. Wikipedia:Vandalism says nothing about removing things from talk pages automatically being vandalism. You obviously don't understand the policy. Did you look at my edit summaries? Did you notice that I am not the only one who doesn't agree with this wikiproject sticking their noses in? And the article was getting on just fine without 'paranormal' people getting their project onto it. It's not like anyone asked them to help, as you seem to be implying. 81.178.208.69 00:27, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Separate from the merits of the block, I'm concerned that this editor apparently posted the "unblock" template at 11:38 (UTC) today, no admin reviewed it, and the block remained in effect unreviewed until it expired by time at 23:34. I am wondering if there was some problem with the unblock template, or whether the requests listed in "category:requests for unblock" should be listed in time order or should have the time of the request accompanying the username/ip. Newyorkbrad 00:21, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

I normally review the unblocks each morning, but today I was working on my new bot. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 00:23, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
The template isn't "broken" ... it's just that, honestly, who are these admins who are updating the What links here to {{unblock}} often? I haven't seen them. HighInBC says he reviews them once a day. That's more often than 99% of the other admins out there. --Cyde Weys 01:04, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
As I understand it, an admin doesn't have to check for links to the template; aren't all pending unblock requests listed at <category:Requests for unblock>? I still think it might be helpful if they could be listed in the order the request was posted, or marked with which ones have been reviewed by a previously uninvolved admin and which haven't, or something. Newyorkbrad 01:09, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Explaining to 81.178.208.69 why the Wikiproject tag is no big deal is all well and good, but I'm afraid it doesn't do much to address what I'm having a rather hard time not interpreting as an abuse of the block button by InShaneee. Instead of criticizing 81.178.208.69, we should be apologizing. As far as I can see, he wasn't even warned about our policies regarding edit-warring; and to call what he did "vandalism"... well, go read Wikipedia:Vandalism if you think it might have been. It wasn't. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 00:23, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

I have to concur. Initially both this IP user and Inshanee were using Edit Summaries to discuss the issue, rather than using the talk page. That's a bad idea, but far more forgivable for a newbie than an admin. Inshanee then both warned and blocked the IP at virtually the same time - telling him that he was the only one who disagreed, and for the first time telling him that he should take it up on the discussion page. [2], [3] (I've got to wonder how the IP was supposed to do that given that he was being blocked. In any event, Inshanee hadn't followed his own advice, so it's hard to expect a newbie to know to do so.) Look, we've been over this ground before - it's "spilled milk," but I'm afraid we do need to address this incident in at least some form (particularly since it involves biting a newcomer). Just my two cents.--TheOtherBob 00:26, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

I've left a note drawing InShaneee's attention to this discussion. Newyorkbrad 00:28, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Concur with Bunchofgrapes and others above. Even if it had been vandalism, this block would be wrong, and criticizing 81.178.208.69 when he takes it to the administrators' noticeboard is even more wrong. Admins are supposed to be held to a higher standard, newbies are supposed to be cut extra slack, and all editors are supposed to be warned before they're blocked, unless there's some extraordinary hurry about it. 81.178.208.69, I apologize for Wikipedia. Bishonen | talk 00:49, 4 January 2007 (UTC).
Well he did edit war rather than discuss. I don't buy that admins are never allowed to critisize new users/whatever subset of users, the new user here was acting in good faith but still sort of in the wrong and that he was edit warring. This was a situation where you expect an admin to try to help a new user understand what's going on and the need for discussion, rather than just block them and walk away. Still, if you get reverted, new user or admin, the best thing to do is post an explanation and request an answer, not just keep reverting back and arguing in edit summaries. --W.marsh 01:05, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
This seems to be an increasing problem of administrator's overstepping their charge. (I expect this will be reverted simply for saying this). --FuitOfTheLoon 01:08, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Administrators are human beings. Some make mistakes once in a while. There are over 900 of them and it's unfair to characterize the good, hard-working administrators that are out there like this. --BigDT 01:10, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Actually, I did just block said user. However, he's Cplot (talk · contribs), so he's used to that. Cheerio. Mackensen (talk) 01:14, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
LOL, well, at least you didn't revert him just for saying that. ;) --BigDT 01:17, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
No good faith edit is ever vandalism. But more importantly than that ... any time we add categories or talk page headers, we need to keep things like this in mind, because they can be offensive. If you add something to a Wikiproject, you are characterizing that topic, even though that isn't necessarilly your intention. If you characterize something that is important to someone (like their religion, culture, viewpoints, etc) as something that it is not, that can be offensive and should be discussed. --BigDT 01:10, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Personally, I think the project template thing is getting out of hand. I have removed a project template from an article talk page[4] because I thought it was completely inappropriate to the article. -- Donald Albury 02:41, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Good grief! Blocking someone because edit warring over a template? What the...? No. Just plain no. Even if a person is 100% wrong according to every reliable source, you talk. You try to explain. You work with them. You listen. You do not block. I'm with the above. We draw breath only as long as we keep conversing, keep learning, keep improving. In this particular case, things are even worse. Unless there is a massive history here that the blocking administrator didn't feel like sharing, these blocks are out of line. Geogre 03:40, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

If this isn't reason enough to form an RfAr, I don't know what is. - A Link to the Past (talk) 04:21, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

An arbitration case about a 24-hour IP block, no matter what the circumstances, will more-than-likely be summarily rejected by ArbCom. They gave their thoughts on a similar, yet arguably more severe, case[5], two days ago; (0/7/0/0). Daniel.Bryant [ T • C ] 06:33, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
This is just the straw that broke the camel's back. This is certainly not the first thing he's ever done, and not the worst thing - and considering that this block is so unbelievably illegitimate and wrong, that speaks to the severity of his other actions. Wheel warring, vindictive blocks, punitive blocks, edit warring, abusing AWB, calling people vandals when he disagrees with their edits, criticizing people for calling others trolls when he does it often, protecting pages to suit his wants and needs, and of course, assuming bad faith. After all of this, I cannot see how he can be allowed to be an admin. He clearly hasn't shown ANY caution after receiving an RfC, where he had many people supporting the idea that he has at least done something wrong, with many agreeing he has acted poorly as an administrator. The man thinks that his role here is to govern the lesser Wikipedians, which he has shown by his constant demands for non-admins to show him respect. - A Link to the Past (talk) 08:31, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
He's right; that's exactly what I think. --InShaneee 13:45, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
The above comment by InShaneee is why he is soooo bad an admin, he banned me for 72 hours for the crime of incivility and not respecting him and THEN called me a Douche! The admins here must look into his history as an admin then strip him of that rank and position. PS when is he going to get his ban for calling me a douche? 72 hours is the minimum i want! Hypnosadist 01:15, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps it should be pointed out that, contrary to statements made above, this was not a case of biting a newbie. Worldtraveller (aka 81.178.208.69) [6] has been a registered user since August of 2004. — MediaMangler 14:06, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

  • Was it WorldTraveller? Did he know that? If so, it would have been really helpful to use the noticeboards to seek input. That's what AN/I is supposed to exist for. On-wiki, not off, and with consultation, not without, and with discussion. Geogre 14:29, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Yes, the anonymous editor in this case was me, dropping by after a few months away and wanting to do so anonymously. InShanee is not really guilty of biting a newbie, though he had no way of knowing that he wasn't, and I was guilty of making my case via edit summaries instead of on the talk page. What doesn't change, though, is that InShanee's block of me was unjustified, he used his administrating tools to gain the upper hand in a dispute, and the reason he gave for the block was dishonest. Worldtraveller 15:41, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Exactly. What he was doing could be said as attempting to bite a newbie. InShaneee could not have known that this user was not a newbie - he blocked him thinking of him as a newbie and ignoring a spotless block log (that, if this really were a newbie, would now blemished by an abusive and, let's face it, mediocre administrator). I don't blame anyone for thinking that Wikipedia is getting worse by the day - people like InShaneee ruin it for everyone but themselves. - A Link to the Past (talk) 23:19, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
I don't know anything about the history of InShanee's interaction with the various others posting here nor why such a level of hostility has been expressed, but this attitude of "I've already made my judgement, don't bother me with facts" is troubling. The claim has been made that InShanee could not have known that he wasn't dealing with a newbie, but I don't understand how anyone could have failed to recognize it. It seems obvious to me that a newbie's first action is not going to be to assert ownership of an article to the extent of removing a project template from a talkpage without any discussion. Clearly InShanee should not have labelled the block "vandalism", but I'm not sure I see any other fault in his action. Worldtraveller, on the other hand, does not own the article simply because he wrote the original and he should not be given a pass on WP:OWN just by using an anon account. — MediaMangler 08:34, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Well I don't think it's terribly relevant whether anyone knew whether the IP was someone old or someone new. The fact remains that this block was completely outrageous. If you can't see anything wrong other than the dishonest labelling, let me outline what I see as wrong with it:
Going through WP:BP, let's see whether the block was covered by it. Was the block to protect the rights, property or safety of the Wikimedia Foundation, its users or the public? No. Was it for personal attacks or making threats? No. 3RR? Not by a very long way. Was it for disruption? No, because Disagreements over content or policy are not disruption, and this was a disagreement over the content, not even of an article, but of a talk page. Was it because I am a banned user? No. So, there were not any legitimate grounds to block me. Now, let's look at 'when not to block': Blocking to gain an advantage in a content dispute is strictly prohibited. Did InShaneee do that? Yes he did. Sysops must not block editors with whom they are currently engaged in a content dispute. Did InShaneee do that? Yes he did.
As has been noted, I've been here a while. In all that time this is probably the worst abuse of administrative powers I've had any direct experience of (though not nearly as bad as the outrageous block on Giano that kicked off a massively destructive chain of events). In addition, it seems to me that InShaneee treats his fellow editors with some contempt, as you can see by his assertion that he does indeed see it as his role to govern them, and he treats his fellow administrators with contempt by ignoring this discussion and conspicuously failing to justify his actions. If this isn't his first abuse of administrative tools then I think there is a problem that needs to be resolved. Worldtraveller 12:04, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Please be careful tossing around terms like "dishonest". Note the disparity between your own claim at the beginning of this section "I've got very few edits. Special:Contributions/81.178.208.69 lists all of them (less than 10)" and your current "I've been here awhile". I assume you simply misspoke the first time and actually meant "the account that was blocked has very few edits", just as I assume that InShanee simply made a mistake in labelling and had no intent to be inaccurate. — MediaMangler 12:33, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Well, given that there was no justification in the policy for the block, and given that even if there had been, InShaneee would have been prohibited by the policy from applying a block, and given that one would expect administrators to have read and understood the blocking policy quite thoroughly, I think InShaneee quite consciously ignored the policy. Not much room left for assuming good faith on his part when that much is clear, I'm afraid. I am interested to know whether you stand by your claim that there was no fault in InShaneee's actions. I'd also like to hear InShaneee's justification for the block. Oh, and by the way, in what conceivable way is removing an inappropriate tag from a talk page trying to own an article? Worldtraveller 13:23, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
I didn't say there was no fault in his actions, only that I'm not sure I see any fault. I don't feel qualified to judge how well his block complies with every jot and tittle of policy. Given WP:IAR, I'm not sure I can ever understand Wiki policy well enough to make such judgements. My concern was that those making the judgement have the full facts in hand. It is your opinion that the tag was inappropriate, several others disagree. (Frankly, if I ever experience blood-red rain falling on me, my first thoughts are likely to be about something paranormal!) You removed a tag from the talkpage of an article which you have no current intent to edit (since you claim to be on wikibreak), thereby disrupting the efforts of that project. Tagging the talkpage was simply an indication of the intent by members of that project to edit. You certainly have no right to tell the members of that project that they may not edit the article. You're free to argue that the term "paranormal" should not be associated with this article, but surely you should discuss that with those others who also choose to edit the article. — MediaMangler 14:06, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Well, did my explanation not help you see where fault might be percieved? If you don't feel qualified to judge whether or not the block complied with policy, then why are you participating in this discussion? Sorry to be blunt, but this forum is not to discuss what you or I think of red rain in Kerala but to discuss whether an administrator's actions were justifiable. How about sticking to talking about the merits of the administrator's actions, and stopping accusing me of trying to own things, of trying to tell people what they can edit, of disruption, and whatever other offensive and untrue accusations you might be thinking of making. Worldtraveller 15:11, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
You asked me for my opinion of the merits of the block. I fail to see how anyone can evaluate the merits of the block without evaluating the appropriateness of the actions for which you were blocked. I tried to present my opinion of your actions in as diffident and diplomatic manner as I could. I'm sorry that still managed to offend you. In answer to your question of why I'm participating: I have long monitored these types of Wiki disagreements, since the psychology and politics involved fascinate me. When talk of "biting a newbie" first started to be discussed, if you had come forward to clarify that you were no newbie, then I would have been more than happy to remain an observer rather than a participant. If you wanted to remain anonymous then all that was needed was a simple "I'm not a newbie" in order to forestall the misconception. — MediaMangler 16:43, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
The 'newbie' thing is irrelevant to the central point, which is that an administrator abused his position, contravened the policy, and gave a dishonest reason for a block designed to win the upper hand in a content dispute. Whether he thought I was new or not, the action was still wrong. There is absolutely nothing in existing policy which could justify this block, and in fact existing policy specifically precludes this type of block. And yet you can't see any fault? If you don't feel qualified to discuss whether a block complied with policy, I can't really understand why you're taking part in a discussion about whether a block complied with policy. What you seem to be doing is just slandering me, rather than offering any constructive appraisal or criticism of the administrative action under discussion. Worldtraveller 18:22, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
I disagree with the premise that "a newbie's first action is not going to be to assert ownership of an article to the extent of removing a project template from a talkpage without any discussion." That seems to me exactly like a newbie thing to do - because they come across a template they don't agree with on a subject they feel strongly about, don't understand what the template is meant to do, and don't understand how Wikipedia works. (In this case I guess it wasn't a true newbie- and I'm not happy about being fooled - but the behavior was definitely newbie-esque.) Remember Hanlon's Razor, which could be considered a part of assuming good faith - "Never assume malice when stupidity will suffice." The job of an admin is to steer that "stupidity" into productive editing, not to assume malice and toss out blocks. --TheOtherBob 14:15, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
There was no intent to 'fool' anyone. Just someone editing anonymously, who happened to have once edited with a username. Worldtraveller 15:11, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Um, excuse me? Only members of the WikiProject may remove the template? Isn't this a violation of WP:OWN? User:Zoe|(talk) 23:28, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Regardless of the validity of the block, the fact that an admin who clearly knows his actions are being questioned hasn't offered any kind of explanation is very concerning. It shows a complete disregard for discussion and concensus - and that is worthy of desysopping, I think. --Tango 16:16, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree, it's unbecoming of an administrator to simply ignore a discussion about his actions. Worldtraveller 18:22, 5 January 2007 (UTC)