< Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration | InShaneee Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitextInline

Revision as of 02:49, 12 March 2007 editTony Sidaway (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers81,722 edits →General discussion: removing unhelpful nastiness← Previous edit		Latest revision as of 13:50, 18 February 2023 edit undoMalnadachBot (talk | contribs)11,637,095 editsm Fixed Lint errors. (Task 12)Tag: AWB
(819 intermediate revisions by 51 users not shown)
Line 6:		Line 6:
	:'''Comment by Arbitrators:'''		:'''Comment by Arbitrators:'''
			::I agree with Mongo and 81.179.115.188 (aka, Worldtraveller). ] 23:55, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
	::
	:'''Comment by parties:'''		:'''Comment by parties:'''
Line 13:		Line 13:
	:'''Comment by others:'''		:'''Comment by others:'''
	::It is important to review blocks made on Worldtraveller as to whether they had a calming effect or not.--] 10:19, 11 March 2007 (UTC)		::It is important to review blocks made on Worldtraveller as to whether they had a calming effect or not.--] 10:19, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
			:: I think the arbitrators usually decide the scope of the arbitration. They could make the decision before, during or after the workshop. In one case I recall, for instance, two arbitrations were merged into one when one of them was at the voting stage, because the subject of each was found to be a sock of the same person. No harm in clarifying, though. In the absence of further clarification, I assume that the proposals already endorse by some arbitrators are a good indication of their thinking. Some arbitrators have shown keen interest in the statements about the acceptability of blocking established editors, so I'd say that the later blocks of Worldtraveller are in scope. But listing parties is in my experience a pure formality. I for instance could in theory be listed as a non-party and at the same time censured and possibly subject to severe remedy for adding myself as a party. --] 21:38, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
			::I agree, I don't think people who are not parties should be involved in such a way, or if they are then they should be listed as parties. I was not even notified I was involved in this. <small>]<sup>(Need help? ])</sup></small> 23:58, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
			:::HighInBC, I'm sorry I didn't think to inform you that my evidence section, posted at he top of the page more than a week ago, contained a prominent plea to the arbcom to extend the case into also looking at your blocks of Worldtraveller and Dbuckner. Wrong place for it, I daresay—maybe the arbcom didn't pay attention to it either—but there it is. I didn't hide it from you on purpose. I guess I just assumed you'd have enough interest to read the Evidence. You did say you had the pages watchlisted. ] | ] 03:24, 19 March 2007 (UTC).
			:::: I'm sure they're considering all relevant events already. While we certainly don't want to develop a culture that permits administrators to be freely harassed, the steps taken to deal with such harassment should be discussed. Some effort was expended trying to point WorldTraveller towards legitimate dispute resolution steps, but perhaps more should have been done and perhaps our approach should emphasize such steps (rather than the range of blocking and hand-sitting that went on) should be included. --] 16:55, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
	===Motion to remove Tony Sidaway from list of parties===		===Motion to dismiss the case in favor of reopening the RfC===
			3) The Arbitration Committee notes that Worldtraveller previously attempted to resolve this matter through an administrator-conduct request for comment against InShaneee, which was properly deleted as not having been certified by two users at that time. Based upon the discussion so far in this workshop, the parties seem now to be in agreement on some aspects of this matter, including that the initial block was unjustified and that there should have been greater communication between InShaneee and Worldtraveller. Other issues remain in disagreement and could benefit from broader community discussion, but not necessarily remedies ordered by the Arbitration Committee. Accordingly, this case is dismissed and the parties are urged to address their remaining areas of disagreement by reopening the RfC. All outside comments on the RfC should be civil, should address the conduct and policy matters in disagreement, and should look toward constructive change for the future rather than recrimination. Worldtraveller is also urged to reactivate his account and to resume contributing content to Misplaced Pages. ] 19:45, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
	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. ] 19:35, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
	:'''Comment by Arbitrators:'''		:'''Comment by Arbitrators:'''
			:: I'm receptive to this, with the caveat that the RfC should actually focus on the matter at hand, and not get side-tracked into who actually threw the 1919 World Series. ] ] 21:26, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
	::
	:'''Comment by parties:'''		:'''Comment by parties:'''
			::I appreciate the sentiment but the impression I have is that the only reason InShaneee has fully and frankly admitted his error in blocking is because of this arbitration case. He hasn't yet made any apology for the seven weeks of stonewalling and I continue to believe that some kind of sanction is appropriate for his failure to abide by the principles outlined above. I don't feel like repeating everything I've said here in another forum in another format and so I would like the arbitration process to continue. Unfortunately it is impossible for me to reactivate my account. ] 00:59, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
	:: 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. --] 20:24, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
			::I have apologized before; this was not a first here. I support this idea, as I really would like to see if there is any other method to resolve this in a more peaceful fashion. And for the record, Worldtraveler, if I read the Giano decision correctly, it is unusual, but there may be a way for your account to be retrieved. --] 03:14, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
	:'''Comment by others:'''		:'''Comment by others:'''
			::Proposed. ] 19:45, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
	*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! ] 20:51, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
			:::Thanks for your good faith suggestion, however in my humble opinion, InShaneee should be desyopped. Accordingly, I would prefer this process continue. ] 20:12, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
			::I am in favor of this. --] 00:22, 14 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. ] 21:43, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
			::It's a fine sentiment in principle, but a little silly in practice. There's already been plenty of comment here, and I presume the majority of interested people have said something. What's the point of replicating it all on yet another InShaneee RFC page? If no action is deemed necessary, simply close the case with a reminder to everyone to play nice. Also, WT can request an RFC at any time he chooses anyway &mdash; it's not really for arbcom to mandate whether there should be one, or what the subject matter ought to be. ] 00:38, 14 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. --] 21:49, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
			:::In fairness, much of what you have said represents the best argument against this proposal, and looking back I wish I'd proposed this 36 hours ago, rather than now, for that very reason. It might be that the new RfC page would peter out pretty quickly. Or, it might become a basis for moving forward and discussing some of the issues that remain open. No one would be ''obliged'' to comment who felt they have already said everything they have to say. I'm just suggesting it as a possible way forward, as opposed to continued formal proceedings and voting on remedies. ] 00:45, 14 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. ] 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. --] 23:33, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
	*::: Did he now? Where and how? ] 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. ] 02:39, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
	===Template===		===Template===
Line 44:		Line 45:
	:'''Comment by others:'''		:'''Comment by others:'''
	::		::
	==Proposed temporary injunctions==		==Proposed temporary injunctions==
			===Tony Sidaway banned from this arbitration===
			1) Due to disruptive behavior Tony Sidaway is banned from this arbitration.
	===Template===
	1)
	:'''Comment by Arbitrators:'''		:'''Comment by Arbitrators:'''
			::Proposed ] 16:55, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
	::
	:'''Comment by parties:'''		:'''Comment by parties:'''
			::I must oppose this. Tony is at the very least as involved in this case as Bishonen and George claim to be. --] 18:57, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
	::
			::I agree with this. In fact, I would even suggest that this whole thing would be far more productive if we simply started again, without Tony's conspiracy theories to bog us down. His actions here have been massively unhelpful in my opinion. ] 23:53, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
	:'''Comment by others:'''		:'''Comment by others:'''
			:: I'll say in my defence that I have consistently attempted to act within the spirit of Misplaced Pages, and I have apologised for the damage that I inadvertently caused. --] 18:20, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
	::
			:::Support, with regret. I believe that without such a ban, this workshop will soon look like that in the "Giano case"—i. e. be unusable for practical purposes—from the sheer mass, repetitiveness, and exhausting persistence of Tony's editing. (Compare ], who I believe was community banned, arbitrated, and blocked for just such an inability to stop talking.) As for the content of his posts, I find it impossible to believe that Tony is editing this board in good faith. I would like to, but I can't. My concern is that the irrelevant attacks and the ] of rhetoric will drive away sensible editors, who could have enriched the discussion, but find it meaningless at such a level. ] | ] 18:29, 12 March 2007 (UTC).
			:::: (Edit-conflict, reply to Tony Sidaway:) nasty attack was "inadvertent"? It appears to me you were not only exploring whether your so-called suspicions might be true, Tony, but clearly going far beyond such clinical benevolence to the point of accusation and harrying. I once again appeal to somebody to take up Tony on , please. &mdash;] (]) 18:32, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
	===Template===
	1)
			: Nasty it may have felt, and I can't help that. It is never easy to confront such suspicions. I took no joy in it, and I apologise for the pain it caused you. --] 21:51, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
	:'''Comment by Arbitrators:'''
			::How is your attack "confronting suspicions"? I quote: ''"No. They've 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 respect Wikipedians, to the extent of demanding that they relinquish all duties on Misplaced Pages. That kind of behavior, in my opinion, is beyond belief. Absolutely beyond understanding. Vindictive, spiteful and I hope, one day to be foresworn."'' No mention of suspecting anything, just "facts" and venom. Your apologies for one minor facet of your disgraceful behavior on this workshop are inadequate; you need to face up to the full measure of your apparently unintentional disruption, and knock it off. &mdash;] (]) 22:18, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
	::
			::While I strongly support everyone's right to take part in an arbitration case... might I suggest that Tony, Bishonen, Giano, and the long list of others who are at best peripherally involved ''voluntarily'' reduce or remove their presence here? Most of the particulars of the case have been established. Different views have been expressed. The parties are more than capable of speaking on their own behalf. Heck, I was counting ''myself'' peripherally involved and staying out of it until 'proposed findings' about my actions started going up. There seems to be alot of stuff here which doesn't have much to do with the case at hand. I think we'd all agree that things will go more smoothly if that doesn't continue. Add any important info which hasn't been covered yet, but after that why not just let the arbitrators do their jobs? --] 00:01, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
	:'''Comment by parties:'''
			:::Yes please. ] ] 15:24, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
	::
			::I do not support: Tony is free to be in the "Views by others," if he chooses to be, but removing the comments by other people is a blocking offense. There is no reason to give him no voice just because he has tried to silence others and shown extremely poor judgment and self-regard. ] 10:23, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
	:'''Comment by others:'''
	::
			===Giano II banned from this arbitration===
	===Template===
			1) Due to disruptive behavior Giano II is banned from this arbitration.
	1)
	:'''Comment by Arbitrators:'''		:'''Comment by Arbitrators:'''
			::Proposed ] 17:00, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
	::
	:'''Comment by parties:'''		:'''Comment by parties:'''
			::I can't see any disruption from Giano. A few pointed comments do not make a disruptive input. Tony Sidaway on the other hand has buried much of this page in conspiracy theories, done his best to get people angry and generally made this page far, far less useful and productive than it should have been. ] 00:00, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
	::
	:'''Comment by others:'''		:'''Comment by others:'''
			::? What for? If Giano has done anything else than react to Tony's trolling, attempt to contain it, and enter pleas for the arbitrators to contain it, I must have missed it. Feel free to enlighten me. ] | ] 18:30, 12 March 2007 (UTC).
	::
			:::See ] ] 18:43, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
			::Absolutely not. Giano II hasn't been disruptive, but he has cried foul at Tony Sidaway, who isn't a party nor participant, trying to own the workshop page. Additionally, this is a workshop page, and all are welcome to the "other parties" views -- even people who never expressed an opinion or took an action until now, like Tony Sidaway -- unless all they're doing is trying to draw attention to themselves. None of that fits with Giano II. ] 00:34, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
			:::Giano's responses have been worded about as spitefully as is humanly possible, complete with allegations of "nefarious" schemes that would be laughable if he weren't acting so serious about them. While ideally neither of the pair should be banned from editing this case, if disruption is being used as the basis it quite clearly applies to both of them, since the core disruption here appears to be this case being turned into a vehicle for continuing the same idiotic perpetual feud 6 or 7 of you have been involved in for as long as I can remember. It seems that at some point you took vows of eternal war on one another and will use ''any'' incident, no matter how peripheral, that involves any of the other vowees as an opportunity to bring it up once more. --] <small>]</small> 20:19, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
			::::Giano hasn't posted a word to this page in 3 days. ] 20:35, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
			:::::Good, I suppose I'm a bit after the fact then. Just felt like adding my own little rant to the mix. --] <small>]</small> 20:38, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
			::::: His focus was limited (myself and Fred Bauder) and he stopped. Taking more notice would probably only make things worse. --] 21:44, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
			:::Also, he was quoting/parodying the language employed by Tony. The "nefarious" stuff was an echo to point out how the goose gets petted, while the gander gets cleavered. ] 11:32, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
			:::: I'm sure his motives for intervening were of the highest. He did no real harm. --] 14:18, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
			::: Fairly non-contributory statement, Tony. Perhaps you'll strike it, and I'll strike this? ] 21:30, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
			:::: It may help to mend fences, so I think it's constructive. Your statement is harmless so no need to strike it. If we're being nice to one another then I think the arbitrators will be happy. --] 21:50, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
	===Template===		===Template===
Line 104:		Line 113:
	===Administrators===		===Administrators===
	1) ] are trusted members of the community and are expected to follow ]. 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 ], ], and ].		1) ] are trusted members of the community and are expected to follow ]. 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 ], ], and ].
			1.1) ] are trusted members of the community and are expected to follow ]. 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 ], ], and ]. Established editors with an outstanding history of positive contributions while not immune from blocking if acting disruptively deserve the benefit of the second thought and the benefit of courtesy from the administrators.
			1.2 ] are trusted members of the community and are expected to follow ]. Occasional lapses may be overlooked, 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 ], ], and ]. All editors, especially established editors with an outstanding history of positive contributions, deserve to be treated with the utmost respect by administrators.
			1.3 ] are trusted members of the community and are expected to follow ]. Occasional lapses may be overlooked, 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 ], ], and ]. All editors deserve to be treated with the utmost respect by administrators.
	:'''Comment by Arbitrators:'''		:'''Comment by Arbitrators:'''
			:: Yes. ] ] 16:27, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
	::
			:: I've proposed a new version (1.2) that changes the wording "Occasional lapses from optimal behavior are acceptable, but …" to "Occasional lapses may be overlooked, but …" and rewords the last sentence per Ideogram's and ALoan's comments below. ] ] 19:30, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
			:: 1.2 has fundamental implications in the last sentence and I'm not comfortable with them. Editors deserve respect, period. There is no need to make a subjective distinction. What about administrators with an outstanding history of contributions? I'm sure Geogre, for example, still thinks of himself as an editor despite being an administrator. So do I, for that matter. These aren't hard-and-fast boundaries. ] ] 19:41, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
			:::Not sure I understand what you mean by "hard and fast boundaries"? In my view ''everyone'' is an editor. Administrators are simply editors which have the sysop bit turned on. ] ] 19:51, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
			::::However, we're specifically calling for "administrators" to show extra deference to "established editors." Why make any distinction at all? Who defines what an "established editor" is? What if they mainly edit light subjects? Can a dedicated RC patroller or vandal fighter be an established editor? ] ] 20:00, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
			::Reply to Tony: I removed the phrase "while not immune from blocking if acting disruptively", precisely for the reason that it goes without saying. We could add it back, but to me, it sounds silly to say: All editors, … while not immune from blocking if acting disruptively, deserve …". But I'm happy to add it back if we really think it is important. ] ] 23:45, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
			:: Proposed 1.3, which is the same as Paul's but removes the "especially..." clause. As a rule I dislike adverbs, but that clause doesn't add to the statement: we're still treating all parties with the utmost respect, and that's how it should be. ] ] 00:36, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
	:'''Comment by parties:'''		:'''Comment by parties:'''
	:: Yes. --] 03:48, 11 March 2007 (UTC)		:: Yes to 1 and 1.1. Serious reservations about 1.2. --] 03:48, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
	:'''Comment by others:'''		:'''Comment by others:'''
Line 116:		Line 137:
	::::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. ++]: ]/] 13:49, 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. ++]: ]/] 13:49, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
	::::Policy doesn't provide for any such exemption. ] ] 15:00, 11 March 2007 (UTC)		::::Policy doesn't provide for any such exemption. ] ] 15:00, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
			:::::But perhaps sensitivity does? I can see that the ArbCom wouldn't want to make a policy against blocking established users or FA candidates, ''but'' admins with little block buttons should think more of what a slap in the face it is to an established editor who has contributed a lot to have his block log stained. As far as I know, the was for . The editor was just a silly kid, who wasn't contributing to the encyclopaedia at all. If, as a result of the block, he had decided he wanted to start again with a new identity, he wouldn't have had to abandon all the credit for the work he had done, or the respect he had gained, because he hadn't done any, or gained any. People who argue that good contributors, admins, etc., shouldn't get special treatment seem to forget that a stained block log is generally ''much more'' painful and humiliating for such users than it is for Conrad-14 year old socialist. Therefore, treating them the same actually means treating them worse. Leaving aside the question as to whether or not Worldtraveler was behaving badly, I'll just state that I have ''never'' seen a situation improve through the block of a good user who was behaving badly. ]] 01:52, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
			::::::I find it odd how those opposed to blocking established editors for the reason that they may feel humiliated are generally the same who argue that all editors should be thick-skinned enough to ignore virtually any personal attack. Isn't it also painful and humiliating, for most people, to be harassed/cussed-out/etc.? In such a case whose feelings should be taken more into account, the person who did the harassing or cussing, or the victim? - ] 02:02, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
			:::::::No, not to ignore "virtually any personal attack". I just don't think that Worldtravel's behaviour fell into the category of something that an administrator who carried out an abusive block and refused to discuss it properly is entitled to complain about. I've never been blocked, but I have had personal attacks and obscenities directed at me on Misplaced Pages, and I really didn't find it hard to cope with them. I'm quite sure that I'd find a stained block log ''much'' more painful and humiliating. By "stained", I really mean an entry like harassment, personal attacks, etc. I don't think that a 3RR block is terribly humiliating in itself. ]] 12:39, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
			::::::An established contributor '''should know better''' and deserves stricter treatment on that basis alone. It should go without saying that they wouldn't be blocked if they weren't doing something wrong. If there are no consequences to their inappropriate actions, why should they stop? If a block won't get the message across, what will? If they can't stop the inappropriate actions, what exactly should Misplaced Pages do? Suck it up since they are such "good contributors"? --] 02:06, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
			::::::::I'm not sure that an established contributor "should know better" than anyone else when it comes to harassment and personal attacks. I know a lot more about NPOV, NOR, etc., than when I joined Misplaced Pages, but I don't know more about treating other people with respect, because I didn't learn it at Misplaced Pages. I learned it from my mother. I remember FuelWagon, who used to hurl "fuck off" and "asshole" language at all his opponents, argued that it was when he was new and didn't understand Misplaced Pages policies. Nonsense. I'd have a lot of tolerance for a new user who breaks 3RR; but if a new user behaves like Conrad-14 year old socialist, I don't say that he's not to blame because he hasn't been at Misplaced Pages for long enough. A new user who makes POV or original research edits deserves more tolerance than an established user. A new user who attacks other users with obscenities and aggression on his first day of editing does not. ]] 12:39, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
			(outdent) That's an interesting point, but I don't think it supports the comment I was responding to. At best you can claim that harassment and personal attacks should be treated with equal severity regardless of who it comes from. I'm also tired of people wringing their hands over the damage done by having blocks on your "permanent record". Having your block log stained is a lot like losing your virginity: it seems like a big deal until it happens to you. --] 12:58, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
			:::::::''If a block won't get the message across, what will?'' Civil and respectful discussion of the issue by neutral parties? ... just a crazy thought. ] 02:12, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
			:::::::: The block would be used when civil and respectful discussion had been attempted and was obviously impossible. --] 13:35, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
			::::::::Do you really think blocks are routinely applied without such methods being attempted? Do you realize that policy states that blocks cannot be applied except by neutral admins? If you have any evidence of these things happening, bring it and the guilty admin will be promptly sanctioned. --] 02:23, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
			:::::::::Isn't that why we're here? And yes, it's quite common anyway. Do you really think otherwise? ] 02:29, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
			(outdent) Has anyone defended Inshaneee's initial block? And ''where is your evidence''? --] 02:32, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
			::::::::There's the crux of the matter. What constitutes a neutral party? Put another way, the definition of a neutral party becomes broader as the willingness of the editor in question to assume good faith increases. In situations where the latter approaches zero, you have people who agree with the editor's position and then you have everyone else. This needs to avoided at all costs. ] ] 02:17, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
			::::::Oh, agreed. It should never come to the point where an administrator even considers that a block might be necessary. You tell me how to tell an enraged content editor to cool it. I've tried it before and seen others try it as well. The results are less than encouraging. We're all editing the same encyclopedia here. At some point we have to cooperate with each other. ] ] 02:10, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
			::Derex, you suggest that we are here because 'blocks on established contributors were applied without civil and respectful discussion of the issue by neutral parties'. What could you possibly be talking about? InShaneee's block was on an unknown anon, and thus not subject to this 'special status' various people seek to apply to 'established contributors'. My block and HighInBC's came more than two months later... after two extensive civil discussions with neutral parties on AN & AN/I had been completed... and a third discussion was in progress where Worldtraveller had been repeatedly told he needed to stop and refused. Worldtraveller '''got''' his civil and respectful discussion. He declined to listen to it. Three times. ''Then'' he was blocked. If we should not block 'special users' even after two months, three extensive discussions, and more than a dozen warnings then what... they just continue disrupting ad infinitum? It doesn't work. --] 10:47, 14 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. ] 20:06, 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. ] 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? ++]: ]/] 20:40, 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? ++]: ]/] 20:40, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
			::Small point, the blocking policy says not to use blocks in "content disputes", the proposed principle says "disputes". <small>]<sup>(Need help? ])</sup></small> 15:31, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
			::Proposed 1.1 per Irpen's concerns ] 08:47, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
			:::''Everyone'' "deserves the benefit of the second thought and the benefit of courtesy from the administrators", not just "established editors with an outstanding history of positive contributions". This is dual standards and free passes all over again. --] 09:10, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
			::I agree with the sentiment of "Occasional lapses from optimal behavior are acceptable" but not the wording. We should expect administrators to display the highest standards of personal behaviour, but we are all human (well, I am, anyway), and departures from optimal behaviour certainly are understandable and excusable, particularly if there are extenuating circumstances. However, saying that lapses, however occasional, are "acceptable" makes it sound like an admin gets one of those sainted "free passes" for a lapse every other month. One of the qualities we should expect from an admin is the ability to see all sides of an argument, and to freely recognise and admit that they may be - or indeed are - wrong.
			::Secondly, I agree with the first part of ]'s comment immediately above: surely all contributors should be treated with respect and courtesy - there is always a flesh and blood person, with ideas and opinions and emotions, behind the screen username. The extent of that respect and courtesy may be limited for editors with no contributions other than serial vandalism, and may be somewhat greater for "established editors with an outstanding history of positive contributions". If you are vandalising, and I ask you to stop, and you don't, I will block. If you are a long-term productive editor and you are being disruptive, I will give you every opportunity to stop being disruptive. Only if I see no other solution but to block will I do so. That is not a "free pass" (honestly, has anyone ever demanded such a thing? the term is just another loaded and emotive epithet that polarises the argument) - it is common courtesy and common sense. -- ] ] 17:05, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
			: I don't like the look of 1.2. "While not immune from blocking if acting disruptively" should be absolutely uncontroversial, and removing it at this stage makes it look as if established contributors ''cannot'' be blocked. . --] 19:47, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
			:I don't understand why people keep trying to sneak in "special" treatment for established editors. I'm not going to be mollified by reducing the '''strength''' of the statement, I'm opposed to any statement of this kind '''in principle'''. Here's a subtle distinction many may have missed: it is undeniably true that someone who has an established relationship with Misplaced Pages provides more context to evaluate their actions and more room for AGF, but this practical difference should not be enshrined in '''policy'''. --] 20:12, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
			:: Shouldn't and shouldn'ts don't concern us here, and in arbitration we're not, generally, making policy but clarifying it. I'd say that it's uncontroversial to state that the community is more respectful towards established contributors, and far more indulgent towards their failings. Insofar as the community makes policy, this is Misplaced Pages policy. --] 20:18, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
			::Change 1.1 from "may be acceptable" to "may be overlooked" but totally agree with Tony that cutting the "if acting disruptively" is a Bad Idea. Too Free Passish. ++]: ]/] 20:15, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
			::: I agree with Tony that it's uncontroversial to state that the community is more respectful towards established editors with significant contributions. Obviously, contributions include not only article writing but RC-patrolling, developing, admining, you name it. When blocking an editor for disruption the admin states that whatever contributions the editor usually do in the block period has lesser value than the disruption the editor causes. It might be a selfevident statement if the only contribution of an editor was the word penis written in a high-profiled article or if the disruption is really strong, but if the disruption is mild and contributions usually amount to tens of hours a day of productive work it is a great insult. I would think it is trivial and obvious but I am not sure if all the blocking admins understand it ] 00:17, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
			:::: In blocking, if it's true that "the admin states that whatever contributions the editor usually do in the block period has lesser value than the disruption the editor causes.", then the admin is doing it wrong. Applying that kind of cynical calculus could only be destructive to the community. --] 00:34, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
			::Paul, thanks for saying "We could add it back, but to me, it sounds silly to say". Should this pass, and ever subsequently be abused to imply a false interpretation of policy, then we can look at this discussion and see that the Principle here is not to be interpreted as a proscription of the blocking of established, respected, exceptional or otherwise highly prized editors. But all the same it might save some bother if it was restored, because there are clearly some editors in this discussion who are very, very concerned that it might otherwise be abused for that purpose. --] 00:24, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
			::Support 1.3. --] 11:32, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
	===Controversial blocks===		===Controversial blocks===
	2) The ] states that blocks against established editors may be seen as "''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''"		2) The ] states that blocks against established editors may be seen as "''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''"
			2.1) While ] permits blocks for vandalism, vandalism is ] as an edit made in a ''deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Misplaced Pages.'' Further, blocking policy states that "blocks should not be used against isolated incidents of vandalism."
	:'''Comment by Arbitrators:'''		:'''Comment by Arbitrators:'''
			:: Alternative version. ] Co., ] 23:26, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
	::
			:: Yes. ] ] 23:52, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
	:'''Comment by parties:'''		:'''Comment by parties:'''
Line 139:		Line 201:
	::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. ] 21:38, 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. ] 21:38, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
	] should be rewritten from "logged-in users" to "established editors"...logged in users is vague.--] 20:43, 11 March 2007 (UTC)		] should be rewritten from "logged-in users" to "established editors"...logged in users is vague.--] 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. ] 10:11, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
			::::'extreme abusive behaviour' is wildly inaccurate. ] 00:02, 13 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. --] 12:34, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
			::::This is one thing that this user has said in this discussion that I can agree with. I would take it even further, to say that admin action, and adminship itself have, in general, become much more of a "big deal" over time. If I recall correctly, Jimbo once (jokingly? seriously? Who knows?) proposed to randomly sysop established accounts with no process, just to prove it's not a big deal. That would never fly today, because we attach a lot of significance to the sysop flag and to the powers that come with it. The block log transforms from a simple record of the blocks themselves to a de facto rap sheet of the actions that were the cause of the block. Whether anything should be or even can be done about this is clearly beyond the scope of this action, but I think it does need to be examined in the future. --] 14:59, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
	===Courtesy===		===Courtesy===
	3) Misplaced Pages users are expected to ] in their dealings with other users. Insulting and intimidating other users harms the community by creating a hostile environment. ] are not acceptable.		3) Misplaced Pages users are expected to ] in their dealings with other users. Insulting and intimidating other users harms the community by creating a hostile environment. ] are not acceptable.
			3.1) All Misplaced Pages users are expected to ] in their dealings with other users. Administrators are expected to lead by example in this area rather than criticizing inappropriate behavior. Further, administrators are expected to ] even when dealing with editors who disregard policy and community norms. While ] are prohibited by policy, administrators are expected to endure them ].
			3.2) All Misplaced Pages users are expected to ] in their dealings with other users. Administrators are expected to lead by example in this area rather than criticizing inappropriate behavior. Further, administrators are expected to ] even when dealing with editors who disregard policy and community norms. While ] are prohibited by policy, administrators are expected to endure them ]. Any response to a personal attack should come from a member of the community who was not a target of the attack.
	:'''Comment by Arbitrators:'''		:'''Comment by Arbitrators:'''
	:: Proposed. It shouldn't be necessary to make this finding, not with the collective tenure of the participants. ] ] 14:48, 11 March 2007 (UTC)		:: Proposed. It shouldn't be necessary to make this finding, not with the collective tenure of the participants. ] ] 14:48, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
			:: Alternate version. ] Co., ] 23:12, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
			:: <s>Prefer 3.1. ] ] 02:10, 13 March 2007 (UTC)</s> Prefer 3.2. ] ] 21:13, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
			:: 3.1 is reasonable enough, but I'm left with the same quandry. To state that something is unacceptable while providing no real recourse save "sticks and stones may break my bones" is empty and will lead to much trouble down the road. Personal attacks hurt, else we wouldn't ban them. ] ] 14:29, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
			::: I see your point and have added 3.2. ] Co., ] 17:11, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
	:'''Comment by parties:'''		:'''Comment by parties:'''
Line 156:		Line 234:
	:: 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. --] 22:51, 11 March 2007 (UTC)		:: 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. --] 22:51, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
			::3.1 is ill-worded. Of course it is always better for uninvolved rather than involved admins to block (or unblock) - "retaliating" for personal attacks would fall under this. But I very strongly disagree that anyone, including admins, should be "expected" to endure personal attacks, and I don't think this was the intended meaning of this proposal. Endure for how long? Indefinitely, heck no - twenty times? Ten times? Maybe a couple times? Any more than a handful of attacks from one source I think clearly rises to disruption, and should be halted. - ] 23:14, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
			::The remedies in the Giano case involved the demotion of Tony Sidaway and his dismissal from being a clerk, and now Tony is clinging to that. What is proper action? Sometimes it is logical (and therefore "reasonable") to escalate the calls for an answer, although one should not lose one's poise. Sometimes it is improper to use polite words and yet harbor a grudge and show up at an unrelated case trying for a retrial, as I personally think Tony is doing, because it is not reasonable, not logical, and not designed to get a positive result, but rather an emotional response and an effort to get revenge (to make the other guy suffer as much as you think he made you suffer). Being logical and always focused on the community and encyclopedic good is what we need, and yet there are times when both sides can have those views and end up shouting. In other words, shouting is not evidence of unreasonable behavior, and a calm tone is not proof of reasonable behavior. ] 00:42, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
			::Any chance we can get the soft wording tightened on this one? While I'm reserved in my opinion of the statement, if this now fixes to say "Blocking in response to personal attacks is a form of retaliation," it should at the very least do so clearly. And if the lack of nebulousness calls for additional qualifiers, I would tend to think that they would be helpful to see explicitly. ] 13:50, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
			3.2 seems loads better than 3.1, which seemed to admit of no possible exit to a situation where a user is being nasty, short of arbcom. It's also in the spirit of ], one of my favourite pages from that wiki. ++]: ]/] 19:23, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
			:Good principle. I agree that 3.2 is better ] 08:19, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
			::While 3.2 is a great principle, we will need to develop a culture in which neutral parties spring to the defense of admins who are subjected to personal attacks, or else no one will want to be an admin. <blockquote>The small percentage of dogs that bite people is monumental proof that the dog is the most benign, forgiving creature on earth. ''~W.R. Koehler''</blockquote> (found on ]) --] 08:36, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
	===Community responsibility===		===Community responsibility===
Line 162:		Line 252:
	:'''Comment by Arbitrators:'''		:'''Comment by Arbitrators:'''
	:: Proposed. ] ] 17:08, 11 March 2007 (UTC)		:: Proposed. ] ] 17:08, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
			::I agree with the sentiment here. But I do not want to enshrine and encourage the notion of higher versus lower standing. I will go this far, admins have more responsibility than non-admins &mdash; arbiters, bureaucrats, stewards also have more responsibility. ] ] 16:33, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
	:'''Comment by parties:'''		:'''Comment by parties:'''
Line 167:		Line 258:
	:'''Comment by others:'''		:'''Comment by others:'''
			::And those with low standing? ] 05:35, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
	::
			::: ...cannot reasonably be expected to know better, unlike those who have been around for a while. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 12:04, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
	===Responsiveness===		===Responsiveness===
Line 174:		Line 266:
	:'''Comment by Arbitrators:'''		:'''Comment by Arbitrators:'''
	:: Proposed. ] ] 21:03, 11 March 2007 (UTC)		:: Proposed. ] ] 21:03, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
			:: <s>Yes. ] ] 16:33, 12 March 2007 (UTC)</s> prefer 5.1 below. ] ] 15:44, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
	:'''Comment by parties:'''		:'''Comment by parties:'''
			::Absolutely. ] 08:16, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
	::
	:'''Comment by others:'''		:'''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. --] 21:51, 11 March 2007 (UTC)		:: 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. --] 21:51, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
			5.1) Administrators must be willing and prepared to discuss the reasons for their ''administrative'' actions in a timely manner.
			5.2) The consensus editing model upon which Misplaced Pages depends is based on editors' willingness to explain, discuss, and compromise. Because page protection, deletion, blocking, and their converses are capabilities available only to administrators and are ] except for the best of reasons, there is a particular expectation for administrators to explain, discuss, and compromise when using these features. Simple, one-word reasons left in the block log are not a suitable substitute for discussion.
			:'''Comment by Arbitrators:'''
			:: Proposed alternate wording. Does this really apply for actions in the course of normal editing, or is this for use of their admin tools only? ] (]:]) 10:27, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
			:: While we should have higher expectations for administrators to behave well in all their actions, the emphasis on administrative actions, which can include non-tool actions per Random832 below, is the appropriate one here. ] ] 15:44, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
			:: Added 5.2, another alternative. ] 21:26, March 13, 2007 (UTC)
			:::Re 5.2, I agree with Bitnine below, if we are going to give reasons for this, accountability seems more to the point, also the timeliness is important. ] ] 23:55, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
			:'''Comment by parties:'''
			::
			:'''Comment by others:'''
			::I think "administrative actions" can apply to a certain limited set of non-tools-requiring actions - closing a deletion as keep, denying an {{tl|unblock}}, etc. There were certainly some non-tools-requiring actions considered in the recent wheel war. --] 12:35, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
			::I don't think 5.2 is applicable. The issue under question does not stem from the ''reversibility'' (or lack thereof) of the action in question. In fact, one of the few things agreed upon here is that the substantive portion of this matter took place well outside the expiration of the administrative action. A rewrite that instead examined such actions in the context of recourse, accountability, or channels for dispute would seem much more on-target. ] 22:13, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
			:::I think 5.1 is the best wording. 5.2 is to long and nebulous. 5.0 missed an important point that if the administrators act in a user's hat they have responsibilities of a user ] 08:24, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
			::5.1 is better than 5.0. "Timely" is tough to work with though. If a block is discussed at AN/I long enough to get outside comment, and a 24 hour block is given, the acting admin could be in a different timezone than the blocked editor, leaving essentially no window for timely comment during the block. Admins are humans (not bots), need sleep, and have lives. We shouldn't create an expectation that no admin will act unless they are going to be around for the next N hours for any N. The above is potential wiki-lawyering that should be cut off at the knees. The real spirit is obviously that admins should be willing to discuss in a reasonably timely fashion, and probably shouldn't take potentially controversial actions just prior to going on an extended wikibreak. ] 22:25, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
			: I think 5.2 is too weak as it stands, because "must" is more useful to the community here than "there is an expectation that". I think we should go with "must". We should not let the other issue in this arbitration, harassment, blind us to this requirement of administrators. --] 22:03, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
	===Statements about actions are impersonal===		===Statements about actions are impersonal===
Line 186:		Line 303:
	:'''Comment by Arbitrators:'''		:'''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. ] ] 18:46, 11 March 2007 (UTC)		:: 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. ] ] 18:46, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
			:: Yes a slippery slope. However we do need to allow for robust and civil criticism of another editors actions, especially official administrative actions. ] ] 16:39, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
			::: To be sure; I think the important question in this case is not that such criticism is good and proper, but where one draws the line. Also, a quibble: what is "official" in this sense? (And what would be unofficial?) ] ] 16:48, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
	:'''Comment by parties:'''		:'''Comment by parties:'''
Line 195:		Line 314:
	::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, It's absurd gamesmanship to 'justify' insults and incivility and, if anything, ''more'' deserving of a block. --] 19:04, 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, It's absurd gamesmanship to 'justify' insults and incivility and, if anything, ''more'' deserving of a block. --] 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... ++]: ]/] 20:05, 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... ++]: ]/] 20:05, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
			::::And yet you continue to use phrases like and when discussing cases, even after people have pointed out that it IS insulting, and even . ] 22:19, 15 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.--] 20:33, 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.--] 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. --] 21:33, 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. --] 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.--] 21:47, 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.--] 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? --] 22:05, 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? --] 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 ] is blockable harassment, half of Misplaced Pages ought to be blocked. Hell, half of the commentors in this Workshop ought to be blocked under that standard, including me. ] 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 ] and suspect that might have influenced you. ] 22:09, 11 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 ] and suspect that might have influenced you. ] 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. --] 23:51, 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. --] 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? ] 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. --] 00:34, 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. --] 00:34, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
			:::::::::I just read through some of the discussion on ] 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. ] 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 ], but not very much. &mdash;] 23:13, 11 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 ], but not very much. &mdash;] 23:13, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
	:::Worldtraveller did both. Indeed, his stated goal was not to get InShaneee to reform, but rather '''That''' is why this matter was not settled prior to reaching ArbCom. --] 23:51, 11 March 2007 (UTC)		:::Worldtraveller did both. Indeed, his stated goal was not to get InShaneee to reform, but rather '''That''' is why this matter was not settled prior to reaching ArbCom. --] 23:51, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
			::::Oh yes, my stated goal... like I set out with that intent from the start. InShaneee could have avoided it coming this far incredibly easily by simply discussing. He has never offered any explanation of why he blanked me for seven weeks, and even then showed no interest in discussing but just in posting a half hearted 'apology' and then resuming his unfriendly and deeply unhelpful silence. All I wanted was dialogue, and I find it really offensive that you consider attempts to seek dialogue harassment, but you apparently think it's fine for an administrator to block outside policy and then stick two fingers up at everyone by not bothering to take part in the discussion which followed, because he 'apologised' seven weeks later. InShaneee obviously wasn't suddenly going to start discussing his illegitimate blocks, and obviously didn't think he had to. When that became clear, I stated my belief that he was rude, his attitude was appalling and I didn't think he should be an administrator. It's a shame you have a special dislike for harassment (to the extent that you perceive it when it's not there) and not a special dislike for admins thinking they don't need to explain themselves to anyone. ] 00:31, 13 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. ] 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 Misplaced Pages as a battleground between good and evil. --] 12:39, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
			:: Are you saying that it's just one of the worst metaphors on record? ''Scooby Doo'' had nothing to do with good and evil. It was, instead, a group of trivial teenagers who made correcting problems a hobby. It comprised individuals of limited intelligence and high buffoonery. Critically, the metaphor was a strike, as you explicitly said, at ''why these users would care about this case.'' It was about motive. Given the fact that each of these "odd" people were heavily involved on AN/I during the discussion of the block, while you were nowhere to be seen, and then showed up after being notified on their talk pages, while you were not, and then that you would call all of their assemblage a conspiracy without any possible reasonable explanation but a gang beggars the imagination. ] 00:46, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
			:::In all fairness, it's rather more likely that he was referring to Buffy the Vampire Slayer, which most emphatically _does_ have a good vs evil theme, than to Scooby Doo. --] 01:10, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
			:::: Maybe Geogre might benefit from reading ], to which ] links from the lede. (Isn't it a good thing we have this wonderful encyclopedia with which to investigate pop-culture references to check whether someone is '''actually''' being insulting or comparing us to something which they hold in high favour? And isn't it a good thing that pop-culture articles can make it to the Front Page even without major involvement from those whom we are led to believe are essential to the survival of Misplaced Pages?) HTH HAND —] | ] 09:52, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
			::: Ah, how joyful that you have shown up! You're always helpful and raise the level of discourse immeasurably. It's quite important to remember that Misplaced Pages's use by students and researchers the world over is due to its exemplary coverage of cartoons, "footballers," trading cards, and "what you already know" of fictional universes. Indeed, the project's core is articles like ] and serious regurgitations of last week's TV schedule by those in short pants. I'm not surprised that you read such things and accept their blinkers as the horizon, but you can't trust things you read in Misplaced Pages. An article in ''Biblical Literary Society'' online from a few weeks ago had this interesting assessment. It said that junk is everywhere in Misplaced Pages, but some serious scholars are there, and so you have to get past all the fart jokes, fetishists, dimwits, and hope that one of them has contributed. I would HTH, but I know it won't. Given the dull-witted and gullible reading you exhibit, though, I would suppose that you ''always'' HAND. (See? Nice words don't mean one is being nice.) ] 10:31, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
			:::: I waited the better part of a day to respond to this, in hopes that it would become clear what point you were making other than to display your ability to be nasty in an erudite and well phrased way. I'm afraid I'm still not clever enough to see it. Can you elaborate what point you actually were making? I found Phil's comment to be helpful at moving the discourse forward. ++]: ]/] 14:16, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
			:::::: Looks to me like Phil was less than respectful toward Geogre, and Geogre escalated. I'm ''not'' in much of a position to lecture anyone, but hopefully if you both realise that even I can see this then both Phil and Geogre will trim their wicks and the result will be illumination rather than smoke. --] 15:08, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
			:::::Pretty much. Phil came in with no comment on anything except a negative observation about me and a catty remark about how replaceable such persons as I am. I chose to be nasty back. If we're looking for reprimands for being bad, there are two to be handed out. At least I had a reason for being here and had a reason to be talking about your metaphor. Phil just wanted, seemingly, to fling a ... an object ... and go on with his business. Which one is worse? I'd have preferred not to hear from Mr. HTH HAND at all, myself, but I didn't get to choose. No one wanted to remove ''his'' comments as puerile sniping. ] 01:20, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
			:::::: '''All'' Wikipedians in good standing have a reason for being here in this arbitration. Phil explained the meaning of the unfortunate epithet, but the main impression he gave was that he didn't like you very much, which was unfortunate and probably read too much like an invitation. --] 22:02, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
			:::::A ''rhetorical'' cue for speaking = "reason for being here." If some slumbering drunk sticks his head up and says, "Damn Nazis!" in the middle of a party, we tend to regard that comment as being unnecessary and unmotivated. Someone who "drops by" just to say, "You stink!" is without cause. Had Phil been here to talk about the arbitration, that would have made sense. He wasn't. He was here to be sarcastic and to play to the crowd. I can't imagine ''why'' that would engender a nasty response from me. (Remember that I opposed the "ban from arbitration Tony Sidaway.") I wonder what Phil has to say about the issues? Oh, right: that would require ''saying'' something rather than just making fun. ] 11:37, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
			(outdent) This post by Geogre is not helpful and irrelevant and I ask everyone to ignore it. --] 17:41, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
			:That post by Ideogram was not helpful. I ask everyone to ignore it, too. ("Last word" childishness is tiresome.) ] 21:33, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
			::Thank you for proving how childish you are. --] 21:51, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
			:::De nada. I can see why you find it enjoyable. ] 02:24, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
			::::You both ought to stop, as one of you is dragging the other one down to his or her (lower) level. However I'm not sure which one of you that is, actually, as I have trouble distinguishing these sorts of levels when they are very low to start with. In general, this arbitration seems to have had rather too much "why are you here?"ism relative to the amount of value actually added by those asking why people are here. Before anyone brings it up, I'll include myself in the group that probably shouldn't have asked. ++]: ]/] 17:31, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
	===Personal attacks are harmful to the community===		===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.		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.
			7.1) 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. Controversial blocks of established editors and failure to explain them might be considered as a form of personal attack.
	:'''Comment by Arbitrators:'''		:'''Comment by Arbitrators:'''
	::		::
Line 213:		Line 359:
	:'''Comment by parties:'''		:'''Comment by parties:'''
	::Proposed. --] 21:00, 11 March 2007 (UTC)		::Proposed. --] 21:00, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
			:::To comment on Metamagician's statement below, no, this has nothing to do with my initial block. Rather, it is meant to address the fallout thereafter, or, more precisely, the opinions of some during the AN:I discussions of it that regarded them as both trivial and unactionable. --] 16:26, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
			:'''Comment by others:'''
			::Agree. Not that this justifies the initial block in any way - but InShaneee has ackmowledged that. It is relevant to other events. It is important that Misplaced Pages maintain high standards of politeness and respect, and not degenerate into flaming, and that it be seen that this will be enforced if needed. ] 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. ] 10:43, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
			:::: Proposed 7.1 follow Geogre ] 08:29, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
			:::::What constitutes a personal attack is already poorly defined, there's no need to muddy the waters further. We already know that controversial blocks of established editors and failure to explain are bad. This rewording seems like an attempt to sneak in another slam at InShaneee ("oh, and you are guilty of ''personal attacks'' too"). Not to mention it is classic "weasel words". --] 08:48, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
			The reworded version is most unhelpful. ] 04:11, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
			:: On 7.1, conflating one form of offence with another isn't useful here. Making a bad block, against blocking policy, in itself is more damaging to the community than a one-off personal attack (and a series of harassment and attacks is another thing). But they are offences of a different nature.
			:: 7 is reasonably well put and perhaps has a place in the final ruling because personal attacks were made and we don't want to foster an impression that it's okay to ignore the dispute resolution process and badger an unresponsive administrator. --] 22:16, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
			===Disruption===
			8) 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.
			8.1) 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. Blocks for the user conduct should be administrated sparringly with the great care that the blocking de-escalates rater than futher escalates the disruption.
			:'''Comment by Arbitrators:'''
			::
			:'''Comment by parties:'''
			::
	:'''Comment by others:'''		:'''Comment by others:'''
			::Proposed. Taken directly from ]. 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 ].) Geogre outright states he doesn't think ] 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 ], it is certainly incorrect as the former.
			::Also, Bishonen's statement that ] "has no penalties" is wrong technically and by extension; first, ] 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 ] states directly that a user may be blocked for disruption for conduct "inconsistent with a civil, collegial atmosphere", conduct defined by in detail by ] and ]. It is also important to note that there is no exemption in policy for attacks made by a "user under a block". - ] 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. ] 10:47, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
			:::I think it is clear to everyone that blocking "for" personal attacks/insults is actually to block "for" disruption; all blocks should be to prevent disruption. But you and Bishonen personally seem to have a very high bar for classifying attacks as disruption, and sometimes this distinction doesn't come through in your (plural) comments. You say or strongly imply that personal attacks aren't a blockable offense when in fact current policy gives some latitude to block for what is almost always the immediate effect of personal attacks - disruption. - ] 18:03, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
			::That's because your rationale gives the recipient of the "attack" the ability to create the block. I have had my share of insults in my time at Misplaced Pages. I generally (not universally) shrugged them off. If, on the other hand, I knew that I had merely to begin screaming and making a mess to get the other person blocked, then that would be to validate all content disputants. It would immediately turn administrators into feeling police. I do not trust anyone to go around assessing when a comment is hurtful enough for a block as opposed to hurtful enough for a reprimand or hurtful enough for a retort or hurtful enough for ignoring. We cannot put peoples' emotions in the pans of a scale, and so we can't take "how much did you feel disrupted by that comment" into account. I have personally seen, "You are wrong" called a personal attack. Disruption is disruption, and it's not being hurt or insulted or discomfitted. Disruption is the community, not the individual. ] 00:51, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
			:::Blocking to stop ongoing personal comments is our alternative to allowing flame wars on this site. Anyone who resorts to insults and other personal attacks should expect to be warned against it and blocked to prevent further such behaviour if the warning is not immediately heeded. A culture of requiring strict politeness and respect in all discussions, with consequences for people who do not comply, distinguishes Misplaced Pages from the many noticeboards and such where flame wars are the norm. Accordingly, this principle should be supported. ] 02:01, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
			:::I disagree. Flame wars do not erupt the moment an insult is proferred. It takes ''two'' to have a flame war. In other words, for there to be a flame war, the recipient has to be as guilty of loss of decorum as the speaker. If we substitute, "I'm going to AN/I and getting you blocked!!!!" for "I hate you too," have we stopped flame wars? I would say that we would be sublimating it only. We would opt for a tattle-ocracy. The best defense against a flame war is calm discussion. The ultimate defense is what Carlyle referred to as the "Center of Indifference" (or was that the Buddha? or was it the author of ''The Cloud of Unknowing?''). In other words, being the bigger woman or man is the answer, not ranting or tattling or throwing templates. ] 10:39, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
			::::I think you are making two wrong assumptions here. The first is that you assume that just because you are unusually thick-skinned, everyone should be that way also. Certainly there is a point below which a person would almost universally be considered too thin-skinned, but people are different, and above that point I think someone can reasonably claim that his experience in Misplaced Pages is being disrupted by attacks directed just at him, and expect redress. Second is that you assume that even if the target of the attack is not "disrupted", the community isn't also. I think the simple presence of these attacks serves to create a hostile environment, which is de-facto disruptive to the community; other editors involved in the same articles/discussions feel free to up their level of incivility, editors without the skins of trolls are scared away from the vicinity, editors peel off into warring camps, etc. I've seen this many times. Almost always the situation becomes much better once the attacking editor(s) is/are convinced not to attack or are removed. Almost always their presence is not missed, no matter how "valuable" their previous contributions. - ] 17:53, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
			::::I disagree with you entirely. First, yes, if we convince people to play nice, things are better. Of course that's true. "Removal," though, does not make nice. If you are speaking of a permanent ''ban'' (not a block), then it is possible that a community continues with more ''peace,'' but not necessarily with greater ''productivity.'' Let's imagine an expert on an obscure subject, like Russian history, and then that he, acting according to his culture, speaks frankly (and insultingly) when people who know much less try to change what he knows to be correct. The ignorant person can begin hollering about it, and, sure enough, the expert spoke harshly. Boom. He's gone forever. Now there is ''calm'' on those articles, and there is much less ''truth'' and much less ''quality'' and a proliferation of mediocrity and very amicable spreading of overheard misstatements. Calm is not our goal, although it is desired. Our goal is encyclopedic content and effective presentation. Calm is usually necessary for that goal, but it is not a goal by itself. I'm sure that Klansmen are very much in agreement with each other on their message boards, but they are not an ideal for that. Second, most of these blocks are blocks, not bans, and they result in angrier people. The person so frustrated and angry that he called someone a naughty word is now slapped in the face, pinched on the bottom, pounded on the head, and expected to be contrite? In what universe is that true? Intimidation is not peace: it is coercion only. ] 01:30, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
			:::::You're making the mistaken assumption that any editor is irreplaceable. We have millions of editors now, we're all replaceable, and this is not in the least because expertise is not nearly as important here as it is in academia. We're not publishing original research, we're not publishing opinions - nobody's edits stay on Misplaced Pages because of the strength of the editor's credentials, they stay because the edits are cited to someone else with credentials. Literally ANYONE can pick up a book on Russian history, turn to the relevant chapter, and cite and edit. As on any subject. I've seen people who knew jack squat about the subject of an article join the talk page, and within months, they are making edits as high-quality as I've seen. I'm astonished to even see this argument being put forth. You are not advocating for Misplaced Pages; you are advocating for ]. - ] 02:16, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
			::::::Except for the minor problem that, as far as I've been able to discern, the admins at Citizendium (they have a different name there... constables... sort of connotes a policing role but you need to be logged in to see it) apparently have much more sweeping powers to remove those acting the prat than we do here. So, perhaps Geogre wouldn't be very happy there either. I could be wrong about how things actually are there though. Or about how Geogre prefers things be done. ++]: ]/] 03:18, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
			:::::::Addendum. This page is particularly instructive. Again you need to be logged in, but Citizendium constables are empowered to (among other things) block a user the second time they use an initialism. Quoting (content is promised to be available under a free content license, TBD, so quoting is clearly allowed, with attribution, and I'm giving attribution by referencing the page): ''The Policy pages of the Citizendium may not contain any three-letter “initialisms.” For example, “IAR,” “NOR,” and “AFD” are three letter initialisms. These expressions are a considerable problem for new users who are unfamiliar with them. The first time a user introduces such an expression in a policy page, he/she will be warned and the expression removed. The second time a user repeats this offense, he will be banned for a suitable amount of time.'' Now I can't speak for anyone else but as an IBMer, I'm very prone to lapse into TLAs at the drop of a hat! I'd really have to stay on my toes there. The point is though, things might be a bit more draconian there than many of us might be comfortable with, so... the reverence of experts there comes with a cost. ++]: ]/] 14:06, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
			::What ''dreadful'' things you guys are saying! My view reflects Misplaced Pages 2003. Back then, I was considered too block-happy. Now, just as Nixon thought Reagan was too conservative to be elected and Bush is farther to the right than Reagan, so "liberal" today is "arch conservative" of 1972, so too my "block itch" of 2003 seems to you folks to be valuing the editor too much. I'm sorry, but you're wrong. Once you take the absurd position (and it is absurd, as you'll soon see) that there are "millions" of editors (and there aren't), then the question immediately arises, "Why block the person making the insult instead of the person who provoked it?" Why block Ghirla instead of you? Why not block the person tying up AN/I with complaints -- after all, that's the person messing with our peace and quiet? Why block any one particular person instead of another, except that you have some reason to think there is greater or lesser ''value'' to one. If you set "value" as "says nice things," then you can get a Cub Scouts den mothers' wiki and be pleased. Misplaced Pages is still an encyclopedia, and value is "makes the encyclopedia." Once both sides "make the encyclopedia," then we get to "makes it better." That leads to the expert editor being valued much more than the shrinking violet with a minority point of view to push. Trying to say that I should be at Civipedium is a ''horrible'' thing to say about Misplaced Pages, and trying to suggest that we need more ruthlessness is a license to have an empty project. If all it takes is my personal feelings to block someone, I have quite a list of names to go after. ] 01:03, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
			:::We're not saying that "value" is "says nice things". We're saying that "behaves civilly" should be a necessary precondition of being a member of this community. I'll point out two wrong assumptions I see in your latest response - first, that this is just an encyclopedia, and not a community, and therefore a priori anything which improves the community at any expense to the encyclopedia is bad, and second, even granting your first assumption, that pulling back on civility standards will result in an improved encyclopedia in the long term. As I think I've pointed out in previous forums, the prototypical "disgruntled genius" editor who is a master contributor but a malcontent is actually much rarer than many people believe; they seem much more common than they actually are because they are the ones that consume so much of the community's effort at dispute resolution. In my opinion, the loss of such editors is outweighed by the gain in editors who stay because the level of civility is that much higher. - ] 04:37, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
			::::And there we have the crux of the matter. Misplaced Pages is a community by accident and by necessity, not by design. It is an encyclopedia that grew a community, and not a community organized around an excuse of encyclopedia writing. An analogy to web forums is inappropriate, because, unlike them, the "disgruntled genius" can contribute for years without once having to talk to the chattering group. Misplaced Pages is not at all like a forum, because people do not have to speak with any portion of the project they do not wish to. To have an intersection of a chatty group with an editing group can be jarring, especially if the rules of chatting happy are applied to the editors '''or''' if the rules of writing well are applied to the chat sections (e.g. if a person or group began going to AN and such and demanding footnotes and NPOV). When it comes to "personal attacks," there is a world within a world and a world without the world. I would submit that, if we have to choose worlds, there is no choice at all: we're an encyclopedia with a community ''only so long'' as it is completely about building an encyclopedia. ] 10:37, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
			:::::I really don't agree that the "disgruntled genius" is valuable to Misplaced Pages. I'd rather not say more at this time. --] 11:37, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
			::::::Nor do I, at least not without a ], because no particular genius is indispensable, and I would rather not say more than that at this time either. ++]: ]/] 13:05, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
			:::::It does look like we've come to a philosophical impasse here. Nonetheless, I think the discussion has been useful. - ] 21:03, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
			::Proposed 8.1 ] 08:33, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
			:::I don't see the need for this. At best it says what everyone already knows. At worst it opens the door to blackmail, "you blocked our friend and now we are all mad it's your fault for escalating the disruption". --] 09:05, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
			===Vendetta===
			9) Conducting a ] against another user is a disruptive violation of ], ], and ].
			:'''Comment by Arbitrators:'''
			::Should go without saying ] 15:00, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
			::Yes. But being persistent in trying to right a wrong, is not necessarily a vendetta. ] ] 17:41, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
			::We need more willingness to discuss disputes openly, not less. Trying to find someone who will listen does not a vendetta make. ] Co., ] 21:28, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
			:'''Comment by parties:'''
	::		::
			:'''Comment by others:'''
			:: It's a matter of how far you take it, and perhaps how you respond when the user apologises, and when he makes it plain that he thinks you're harassing him. I think Worldtraveller was encouraged to believe that his behavior was acceptable, by other experienced editors who should have known better. However he isn't a child or a new editor, and he himself should have recognised when he had gone too far. It counts very much in his favor that he made an honest attempt to pursue dispute resolution. The failure of that step indicates a problem with that part of our processes, and doesn't reflect on him. --] 18:40, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
			::Yes, it goes without saying as a general principle. So, the only reason to say it here is to imply that someone has in fact conducted a vendetta in this case. Has someone? Who? ] 02:55, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
			:: Perhaps it's just that word. I'll try a different version. --] 04:45, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
			::What's a vendetta? One person's vendetta is another person's campaign for justice. Sam Spade felt he was fixing Misplaced Pages by edit warring. ] 10:42, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
			:::I think most of us agree that particular vendetta was rather ill advised so I'm not quite clear on what point you are making. ++]: ]/] 14:07, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
			::::Since I don't know what "that" refers to I certainly can't know "us" are. I don't acknowledge that there is a clear finding that a vendetta took place, or even a feud. As I said, to one person it's an attempt at justice, and to the other it's harassment. I thought it was more the former than the latter, but I'm sure WT was unhappy, too. ] 01:08, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
			:::::Sorry for the dangling antecedents, I thought it was fairly obvious what I was referring to (your own proffered example, since I was responding directly to you), at least to anyone not deliberately trying to misunderstand me, but apparently I was mistaken, my apologies. Rephrased: ''I think most of us '''in the community as a whole''' agree that particular vendetta '''(of Sam Spade's)''' was rather ill advised so I'm not quite clear on what point you are making.''... Better? (by the way, if I have only the choice of "campaign for justice" or "vendetta" to describe the actions of Sam Spade (your example person, not mine) I choose vendetta. If those are the wrong choices perhaps your example wasn't the best) I await clarification of your actual point. ++]: ]/] 17:54, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
			::::Oh! That's quite true. Sam's vendetta was very, very long and went by with immunity and impugnity for quite a while. He did his without insults, generally, or only insulted IP editors, and so he was able to escape oversight for far too long a time. I chose that example partly as an illustration, but I wasn't trying to get in a zinger. I think everyone agrees that "IP editors are scum" is wrong, just as everyone agrees that insulting each other is wrong. The question is when and how these things work out, and I didn't like the emotionally loaded and presumptive language of "vendetta" applied to someone whom a number of us believe was standing up against IP abuse. ] 11:43, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
			====Dispute resolution as a weapon====
	===Template===
			9.1) Attempting to use the dispute resolution process to punish an editor in a dispute is a disruptive violation of ], ], and ].
	1) {text of proposed principle}
	:'''Comment by Arbitrators:'''		:'''Comment by Arbitrators:'''
			:: I'm not sure what this is meant to accomplish. ] ] 17:11, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
			:'''Comment by parties:'''
			::I fail to see the point this is making, as worded. I am completely mystified as to how a statement that I believed someone was a terrible administrator and I wanted to do what I could to get a terrible administrator de-administrated could be a bad thing to say. Obviously, InShaneee doesn't like being told he's a terrible administrator, but what was I supposed to say? You're a mighty fine administrator even though you ignore simple requests for discussion, and I think you should carry on being an administrator for ever although you might want to follow policy a bit more closely? Is it really the case that one is ''not allowed'' to call someone a terrible administrator? ] 17:05, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
			:::There's a middle ground there that you didn't follow. You don't have to think he's a fine administrator, but after admitting wrong-doing was his refusal to discuss the matter further grounds for trying to get him de-sysoped? That's the salient point here. Was he obligated to discuss further, and is a failure/unwillingness to do so serious enough to warrant de-sysoping. If so, why? ] ] 17:11, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
			::::You yourself proposed the 'responsiveness' principle above. It depends how seriously you think a failure to abide by that principle is. I personally find it astonishingly rude when someone ignores me, and I am sure many people feel that way. A month or so ago I saw an administrator threaten to block someone for reverting vandalism, and I questioned his behaviour . His response was to my mind totally inadequate and pretty rude but the fact that he did respond was at least something. Leaving someone hanging on, unable to tell whether you've even read or understood their question, is a terrible way for an administrator to behave. ] 17:32, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
			:'''Comment by others:'''
			:: Rewording to remove the V-word. This would need a separate finding of fact. Was Worldtraveller's statement of intent to have InShaneee desysopped disruptive, or simply and expression of frustration? --] 04:45, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
			:::It looks awfully like a vendatta to me. I see no reason not to call a spade a spade. ] 06:57, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
			::::I don't think this is a "vendetta" or a "feud" (] redirects to ], and dictionary definitions for vendetta mostly refer to a bitter feud with murders on both sides - this is something short of that).
			::::Sometimes one may call a spade a shovel, or vice versa, but it is usually best to avoid labelling situations or people with emotive epithets. (As Gwendolen said to Cecily, "I am glad to say I have never seen a spade. It is obvious that our social spheres have been widely different.") -- ] ] 16:25, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
			::'''Disagree''': Bringing action at ArbCom is not a weapon or a tool, as ArbCom has to accept a case on merits. If they accept, there is at least something present that needs addressing. ] 01:08, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
			:: In reply to Mackensen's query, I was attempting to see if I could make sense of Fred's Vendetta proposal by removing the V-word. I thought it was worth trying but I don't think it works. --] 22:06, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
			===Rights of non-logged-in users===
			10) Users who do not get an account or do not log in are not entitled to the same processes, protections, etc as users who do regularly log in.
			:'''Comment by Arbitrators:'''
			::We should do our best to address our deficiencies with respect to this issue. ] 15:35, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
			::A can of worms. ] ] 17:03, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
			:::I don't propose this as an arbitration remedy; it is just a general comment. I aspire to follow my own advice. ] 17:11, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
			:'''Comment by parties:'''
			::If it helps the situation, I support this. While I don't necessarily think it's the best way to conduct this site, until Jimbo says otherwise, it obviously is something we all need to strive to enforce. --] 16:28, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
			:'''Comment by others:'''
			::Very distasteful IMO, but evidence has been presented that Jimbo himself holds this view, and I think it's important that ArbCom affirm or reject it. Unfortunately proposed. --] 15:29, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
			:: This should not be expressed as a principle. There are many regular editors who do not log in, and in principle they are entitled to the same rights as all others. That we may fail in delivery in many or most cases is a practical matter related to the difficulty of reliably identifying editors who use changing IP addresses. --] 16:31, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
			::Then Jimbo shouldn't have said it the way he did: "Sorry, but anon ip numbers do not have the same civil rights as logged in members of the community. If you want to be a good editor, get an account, make good edits.". Better to have this out in the open than as a hidden double-standard waiting to ] people when they least expect it. For the record, I strongly oppose this, but it exists, and should be decided one way or the other by the committee. --] 16:37, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
			::Sounds like policy-making to me. ] 02:57, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
			::To me, using Jimbo's comment here is taking it a bit out of context. Jimbo was confronted with a person who had been hit by an autoblock triggered by a vandal account. The complaint was written in a very rantish fashion and full of nonsense. That Jimbo replies with a somewhat terse comment does not mean that he disapproves of anonymous accounts in general. ] ] 07:42, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
			:::I agree that we shouldn't take Jimbo's offhand comment as policy-setting, but included it in the evidence because it has become part of a standardized 'welcome' template to anons and a site-wide trend. Jimbo may not 'disapprove of anonymous accounts in general', but some users clearly do and the simple fact is that anons are almost ''routinely'' blocked with impunity. My evidence also included other cases of blocks on anons for 'vandalism' which just... wasn't. Does anyone seriously think we'd be here if this particular anon IP '''hadn't''' turned out to be Worldtraveller? Do we get alot of ''other'' ArbCom cases over improper blocks of anons? No, because while we officially say it is wrong, anyone trying to fight for the rights of an unknown anon against a respected admin has an uphill battle on their hands. --] 12:38, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
			====Rights of non-logged-in users (rejection)====
			10.1) It is important to ensure, whenever possible, that even users who choose not to log in receive the same protections as any other user.
			:'''Comment by Arbitrators:'''
			::I don't like the way this is put, but it is important to be civil and responsive to anonymous editors ] 16:50, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
			:'''Comment by parties:'''
	::		::
			:'''Comment by others:'''
			::Proposed. It just occured to me that "rejections" as such (that is, committee votes against something) don't make it into the final decision, or likely into the proposed one. Here's the opposing side of the coin, which I do support. Note that this is on its face a rejection of something Jimbo has said, but it's not clear if he was speaking in any official capacity. --] 16:45, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
			:::Everybody should be treated kindly. However, we can't '''both''' show special solicitude to logged-in, well-established users with good records (as we are frequently admonished to do, probably for good reason) '''and''' show equal solicitude to everybody. That's a contradiction. Some people will, in fact, receive more solicitude than others, based on their known record of contribution, and that's not a bad thing as long as it doesn't lead to a "free pass" mentality. Even the most valuable users should follow standards of civility, etc. But if you are a logged-in, well-established user with a good record, a bit more allowance might properly be made for you. I don't think any finding needs to be made about this - especially because the anonymous user concerned didn't really do anything wrong in any event- but we should all be aware that it's how things work. ] 00:31, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
			::'''Totally''' disagree that people not logged in deserve less consideration. They do not get the full process (per Jimbo) because they ''can't''. (An IP can't vote, can't do AfD's, can't do DRV, can't get notices about pending RFC's, etc.) These are ''software'' limitations and by no means ''community standards'' limitations. Beyond the limits imposed upon us, I believe that IP editors deserve and should receive as much consideration and "process" as any editor. The long time editor gets more benefit of the doubt when there is doubt, but IP's don't get a lack of etiquette or politeness or consideration. ] 00:54, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
			::For the record, an IP is as free as anyone else to express their opinion, an AfD is not a vote. What part of DRV can't an IP do, IIRC that doesn't require a subpage. And there are plenty of people more than willing to complete an AfD nomination. An IP is as able to get notice of a pending RFC as one is able to receive vandalism warnings. --] 01:10, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
			:::IP votes are regularly discounted from AfD. It's one thing to say that it's not a vote and another thing to say that IP opinions are given credence. At least my experience of the process from its old VfD days to its current status, IP comments are sometimes stricken and almost always ignored. An IP is not able to get into the dispute resolution world unless his/her IP is static. In other words, these are things where the IP editor is deprecated or denigrated by the system. ] 10:46, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
			::This whole dichotomy is bogus. The distinction is between established editors, and new editors, not logged-in users and IPs. (Although being established does not given an editor carte blanche to spite policy.) An IP can be a long-standing established editor. However, in this case, the IP WT was editing under at the time of the block had no edit history, and was indistinguishable from a new IP editor, most of whom appear to be vandals/trolls/socks/etc. - ] 18:08, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
			::Yup, when Jimbo said "civil rights" I guess he meant IPs don't get equal 'votes' in AfDs and RfBs etc. I certainly don't believe he meant that it was ok to be rude, block if they dare revert you and ignore their requests for an explanation. ] 19:12, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
			::The actual context was, though, in declining to show any concern about collateral damage in an autoblock, not in anything about voting. However, as his word so often is, it's been taken as gospel by the community and expanded in scope at every opportunity for every agenda, which is why I asked him for clarification. --] 23:11, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
			::Geogre's statement that IP "votes" are regularly discounted when closing AFDs is in some ways true, some ways not. The usual reason is that such anon votes are hard to distinguish from sockpuppets or meatpuppets. Another reason is that such votes are often made with a failing or irrelevant rationale. However, they should not be blanket discounted, if we look at ], we find ''"note that verifiable facts and evidence are welcome from anybody and will be considered during the closing process."'' This at least ''should'' be the way anon votes are handled in theory, whether it actually ''is'' the case in practice is a different matter of course. In general, good contributions are welcome whether they are from admins, regular users, bots or anonymous accounts. ] ] 07:47, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
			:::I don't want to have a detail hang the whole of the statement. My point was that IP accounts get deprecated by virtue of the limitations of the IP system, and we can't help that. However, we do not discriminate against them otherwise and must not. I have an IP editor in the 72 range who is doing fantastic things helping out 18th c. British literature articles. She or he keeps catching generalizations I made (a weakness of my writing) and paring them down. Another editor in the 72 range is adding "poo" everywhere. One cannot say "most" IP editors are one way or another. One can say "most vulgar vandalism comes from IP accounts" but not "most IP accounts are useless." ] 01:12, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
			::::Good point, I'll agree with that. :-) ] ] 09:10, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
			====Rights of non-logged-in users (compromise #1?)====
			10.2) Users who have brand new accounts or who do not log in are in limited areas not entitled to the same processes, protections, etc as users who are log in on accounts of long standing. These areas include measuring the consensus of the community, editing of semi-protected articles, auto-blocks of IP addresses used by vandals, being given administrator rights and other limited-acccess rights, and software driven limitations. In other areas, they have the same process participation and protection rights that any other editors do.
			:'''Comment by Arbitrators:'''
			:'''Comment by parties:'''
			:'''Comment by others:'''
			::''Proposed'' (Please add any other areas where by policy we do limit their rights.) I think this is better than a blanket statement that they have reduced privileges, but recognizes the reality that in certain areas they do. I include measuring the consensus of the community, as with the exception of a few IP editors with a stable address, we have a tough time knowing whether they are a new voice to the discussion or an old voice with a new label. Semi-protected articles should be obvious, and is a software limitation. Auto-blocks is the specific Jimbo example, and they do hurt IP editors that decline to create an account. Giving an IP address the administrator bits would neither fly at RFA nor actually give the bits to a particular human editor. Software driven issues was put in as a catch-all in case I forgot some. ] 22:46, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
			:: Too prescriptive, and not really relevant to this case. --] 22:07, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
			===Disruption of arbitration===
			11) Users who disrupt arbitration by provocative behavior or habitual incivility may be banned from participation, in extreme cases from participation in any case not directly concerning them.
			:'''Comment by Arbitrators:'''
			::Proposed ] 15:35, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
			::I think the core problem here is that there are some perennial disputes being brought up that are at most tangentially related to the matter at hand. Better that we encourage third parties to limit their comments to the matter at hand. ] Co., ] 21:48, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
			::Agree with UC on this point. ] ] 21:51, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
	:'''Comment by parties:'''		:'''Comment by parties:'''
Line 228:		Line 526:
	:'''Comment by others:'''		:'''Comment by others:'''
			::That Fred rather depends on who you are referring to - Tony? - or anyone who dares to point out this case has nothing to do with him. It is quite apparent that he is just hijacking the page with his comments to ensure it becomes as unreadable as possible - then surprise! surprise! it can be split into three even more unreadable pages just like another highly publicised and controversial case I well remember. I see right through him and his games. ] 15:57, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
			===Remedies regarding disruption===
			12) Remedies regarding disruption of arbitration may be proposed regarding any user, including users who are not parties, who significantly participates in an arbitration case.
			:'''Comment by Arbitrators:'''
			::Proposed ] 15:35, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
			:'''Comment by parties:'''
	::		::
			:'''Comment by others:'''
			::It's worth noting that he's apologized, and I think I agree with his belief that while justified, the offense taken at the term "the scoobies" was unforeseeable. ("pod people", however...) --] 16:49, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
			:::I don't want to make a bigger deal of this than it is, but for anyone unfamiliar, the term "Scooby Gang" or "Scoobies" comes either from ] or from ] and I think it is readily foreseeable that this metaphor would be considered inappropriate. ] 16:58, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
			::::: As the person who coined the term, I'm still non-the-wiser as to what particular offence it caused, but I accept that it did. --] 19:00, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
			::::Could someone explain why this is 'readily foreseeable'? Because, even if it is offensive, it's less obvious to some here than others seem to think, and an explanation could be useful in averting future use of metaphors that offend on similar grounds. --] 19:38, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
			:::::I've posited elsewhere on the page that any metaphor or slang term applied to a group (or supposed group) by anyone other than the group members themselves has the potential to be viewed as a inappopriate term. ++]: ]/] 19:43, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
			::That's absurd, and it actually looks like attempted intimidation. If you want to strike Tony from the list of parties, Fred, the section is above. If you don't want to read what Giano II writes, don't be an arbitrator or get a full case going about this disruption. I see disruption by Tony Sidaway and very little anymore going on (since his arrival...is he the alternate account of Inshaneee? are they they same person? do we need an RFCU?), but not by others. ] 01:00, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
			:: I agree with this, but don't think a separate principle in this case is necessary. The Arbitration policy is pretty clear that the Arbitrators have a more or less free hand. --] 11:50, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
	===Template===		===The role of arbitration===
			13) The role of arbitration is to resolve disputes or, failing that, eliminate the source of the dispute. It is not a vehicle for the perpetuation of disputes or the creation of new ones. Editors who do not recognize this will be fed to {{user|Bishzilla}}.
	1) {text of proposed principle}
			:'''Comment by Arbitrators:'''
			:: Proposed. ] ] 18:59, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
			:'''Comment by parties:'''
			::I was actually preparing to write something to this effect. However, Mackensen, I'd like to know if something could be added onto this, or if I should create this as a separate note. I'd like something to be said about how, while policy may be shaped through the course of Arbitration, it is not a vehicle to be used explicitly to do only that. I fear that some of the commenters in this case may be here to effect a policy change regardless of the participants of the situation, and if nothing else, I'd like this spoken to. --] 19:03, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
			:::Arbitrators differ on the extent to which arbitration dictates policy and vice-versa. My own view is that arbitration can clarify policy, but barring extreme situations new ground shouldn't be broken here. ] ] 19:12, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
			:'''Comment by others:'''
			::The little arbcom overestimate Bishzilla appetite. ] | ] 21:24, 12 March 2007 (UTC).
			:::Maybe only very small editors? ++]: ]/] 22:02, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
			::::Maybe Bishzilla not like flavor. --] 00:49, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
			===Participation in arbitration process by uninvolved individuals===
			14) Participation in arbitration cases, in particular, in the evidence and workshop subpages of each case, by individuals not directly connected to the case is encouraged. However, such individuals must be careful not to disrupt the proceedings, or they will be asked to remove themselves.
	:'''Comment by Arbitrators:'''		:'''Comment by Arbitrators:'''
Line 241:		Line 571:
	:'''Comment by others:'''		:'''Comment by others:'''
			:: Otherwise, why not strike the header directly above this very comment? proposed. --] 19:34, 12 March 2007 (UTC) Note: This is specifically a reaction to the idea (on InShaneees part) below that mere participation by Giano is evidence of intent to disrupt, and in particular the protestation that he has nothing to do with this dispute.
			:: Without reference to any specifics of Tony or Giano's participation, agree as a matter of principle. It should be implicit that the amount and nature of such participation should not rise to the level of disruption, but maybe it should be said specifically? - ] 20:27, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
			:: Modified. <small>this comment used to say something else.</small> I'll note that despite his rather astonishing level of incivility, in my opinion Giano's actions don't rise to the level of deserving to be banned forever. That's an extremely harsh action to be contemplating. --] 21:29, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
			===The social obligation to accept apologies===
			15) To apologize fully and frankly can be very difficult, and is not an action that can be imposed by force. However, neither can users '''be obliged to accept''' reproachful or passive-aggressive or self-serving statements as "apologies" merely because the statements formally contain the words "I apologize".
			:'''Comment by Arbitrators:'''
			:: Given that InShaneee did not further the dispute after offering an apology/explanation, however weak it might have appeared to Worldtraveller, I am unconvinced that he owed Worldtraveller anything further. ] ] 02:45, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
			:'''Comment by parties:'''
			::Support. I have been completely baffled by the suggestions that InShaneee's 'apology' should somehow have put an absolute end to the disagreement. ] 00:34, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
			:::Frankly, I'm offended at the implication that my apology was 'self-serving'. --] 03:43, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
			:'''Comment by others:'''
			:: Proposed. Please see , where I protest against the assumption that any reproachful, self-serving, partial and direly belated statement must have miraculous healing properties just because it contains the words "I apologize". Please compare InShaneee's apology to Worldtraveller . ] | ] 00:20, 13 March 2007 (UTC).
			:::Support: Anyone who has ever had a romantic relationship break up and heard the dreaded "I'm sorry you're upset" apology knows how weak they can be. (Anyone who has ever ''made'' that speech is a person I don't want to talk to.) ] 01:02, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
			:::: I agree with the sense of this. Whether a person refuses to accept a good faith apology or not may have a bearing on subsequent events, the health of the community and so on, so it doesn't do capriciously to reject apologies, nor does it do to continue to badger and harass in search of a "satisfactory" apology. But obviously an apology could be used as a figleaf for further attacks, or a kind of "get out of jail free" card, and that isn't on.
			:::: But I don't see a finding of fact, or evidence in this case, that has a bearing on this. The evidence section Bishonen cites seems to be an argument by Bishonen to the effect that the apology offered wasn't enough. Well it ought to have been, really. There's no getting around that. If we see evidence to support a claim that the apology was false, or in some other way inadequate, then this principle may apply. --] 01:12, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
			:::::'s your evidence. ]. ]. Use your eyes. ] | ] 04:17, 13 March 2007 (UTC).
			::::: Let's take it as read that I've used my eyes. What I'm saying is that you've yet to turn your stated opinions into evidence, or raise a finding of fact. One person might read that piece and agree with you, another might disagree. This is why I say that I think that this principle, with which I generally agree, is somewhat adrift in this arbitration. As a defence of badgering, in any case, it's not really much use. Nobody should be harassed. Ever. --] 04:35, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
			Regarding the apology and whether or not it was self seeking, it's not possible to be certain one way or another, but considering it was only given after several weeks, and after it had become obvious that Worldtraveler did not intend to let the matter drop, it's inevitable that some Wikipedians will see it as a won't eventually wear me out with coming"]] motive. That may be fair or unfair, but it's a natural consequence of not having apologized when he should have. Considering also that the apology at the time was rather weak, and it was only <s>when an arbitration case was opened</s> shortly before an arbitration case was opened that Inshaneee finally acknowledged that the block was completely inappropriate (and not just that he "jumped the gun"), it's inevitable that people will wonder if that admission is a sign of being contrite, or of hoping to avoid sanctions. I've seen this kind of thing happen before, for example when it's brought up at an RfA that the candidate was abusive to another user months before, and the candidate ''then'' goes to the other user's page and apologizes. There's nearly always a comment from someone to the effect of "what a pity you didn't apologize ''before'' your RfA." Inshaneee unquestionably performed a very inappropriate block, and then left the victim feeling frustrated by his refusal to adequately discuss it, until it began to seem that there might be consequences. His acknowledgment now may be completely sincere &mdash; it may even be that the acceptance of this case jogged him into a realization of how abusive the block was &mdash; but because of his earlier refusal to acknowledge his abuse, he's not in a strong position to be offended if people wonder about the sincerity of his apology. Deathbed conversions are often sincere, but they're not usually impressive. ]] 03:11, 14 March 2007 (UTC) (Post modified by ]] at 12:02, 14 March 2007 (UTC) )
			:It is not accurate to say that, "it was only when an arbitration case was opened that Inshaneee finally acknowledged that the block was completely inappropriate". How is, , '''not''' an acknowledgment? You can quibble over whether, , or even 'fully acknowledge' the mistake, but that other one is hard to argue with... and three acknowledgments, even with 'quibbles' thrown at them, ought to have been good enough reason to stop. --] 11:35, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
			::Noted, and corrected. The basic point, though, is that Inshaneee did not apologize until it became obvious that what he had done could no longer be just brushed aside. ]] 12:02, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
			===Administrative blocks of established users===
			16) In the absence of community consensus, blocking of an established user who engages in a sustained pattern of disruptive or inappropriate behavior is unlikely to be effective. If consensus cannot be reached the process of dispute resolution should be utilized.
			:'''Comment by Arbitrators:'''
			::Proposed ] 15:41, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
			:'''Comment by parties:'''
			::I think there was a failure of logic in the block concerned. Was I ever noted for my disruptive habits and foul mouth? I don't think so. When I started being accused of harassment, did those who believed that was the case think it was out of character, or not? I hope they did. So, did they think "what has made this previously always calm and friendly person get angry enough to do things that some people are considering them harassment?" Did they see my growing anger as a malady in and of itself that needed to be treated, or did they (as I think they should have done) see it as a symptom and investigate the underlying cause? It seems to me that they did the former. I didn't see CBDunkerson anywhere saying that InShaneee was in the wrong. I didn't see HighInBC saying that either. I certainly didn't see either of them suggesting to InShaneee to say that if he actually started talking then I'd no longer need to post to his page every few days in a vain attempt to get answers from him. In fact, when CBDunkerson first started accusing me of harassment he was unclear enough about the situation to think it somehow referred to the fallout from ] - see , and .
			::So, if we take it as read that someone who's been around for two and a half years, been an administrator, and written several FAs won't suddenly start getting angry enough to be accused of harassment for no reason, then it's failure of imagination and of ], I think, to threaten them with blocking and then follow through on that threat, without actually having looked into the cause of their anger. Perhaps this is generally applicable and is the reason why other blocks of established users have proved inflammatory. ] 10:03, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
			:::I'm responding in 'the wrong section' so it doesn't get lost in the mess below. I said at the time I warned you that I didn't know the details of the dispute with InShaneee... it was so long before, and not on your primary account block log, that I couldn't even '''find''' it until I set aside an hour to go digging. I also said it didn't '''matter''', and I stand by that. Since learning the details I ''have'' agreed that he was wrong, but that doesn't make what ''you'' were doing any '''less''' wrong. As I, and others, told you, we have procedures for resolving disputes - continuing to insult and badger someone indefinitely is not part of those procedures, and your insistence on continuing that rather than following dispute resolution is why I blocked you.
			:::The stuff about me 'thinking it somehow referred to WIF' is incorrect... I originally didn't know (or assume) anything about the InShaneee matter at all. I just responded to a query about 'where have I been uncivil' (or somesuch) by pointing out that you'd called someone "stupid" (not in evidence here because it was unrelated) just a couple of paragraphs above that. '''You''' then conflated the two because the 'stupid' comment was about WIF rather than InShaneee - which was irrelevant to me as I was at that time warning you against incivility in general. --] 10:47, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
			:'''Comment by others:'''
			:: The first part, I agree with. The second part, I think is not complete. I think the committee should bite the bullet and endorse very short blocks. This would help to dispel the unfortunate developing trend within the community to regard blocks as a big deal. An editor who doesn't recognise a block as a sign that he needs to stop and revise his behavior is probably beyond hope anyway.
			:: While the committee cannot and should not force a consensus on this, it ''can'' allow for such a development. Dispute resolution certainly has its place, but it is not useful for dealing with the acute effects of bad behavior. In time I think a consensus is likely to emerge to the effect that a short block early in a developing situation can help. That consensus isn't there, yet, but I think the committee should take the long view and allow for the development of more flexible means of handling bad behavior. I would add, therefore, a statement to the effect that blocks are useful and possibly underused due to lack of present consensus on the issue. --] 15:59, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
			:: I agree with Tony's assessment. --] 16:08, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
			::: Not to say that I think a short block would have helped in the current climate. There may be a future time, however, when all users recognise and accept that a brief block when they're overheated is a reminder--not to stop engaging in Misplaced Pages--but to stop doing so in a damaging way. --] 16:17, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
			::I understand the concern, but am not sure about the implementation. First, at the time of my block it wasn't clear that "consensus cannot be reached"... to all appearances there ''was'' consensus agreement that Worldtraveller's actions were incorrect. Do we need a longer discussion period? Or some sort of, 'I now intend to block for this behaviour - please respond with thoughts during the special 24 hour delay period for blocks on established users'? Had something like that been in place and/or people objected prior to the block... what then? Should I have filed an RFC? If that fails then what... 'established users' can never be blocked by admins, only sent to RFAr for an ArbCom ruling? Frankly, I don't like it. An established user "who engages in a sustained pattern of disruptive or inappropriate behavior" ought to have known better... especially after they've received more than a dozen warnings. Further, isn't 'established user' a euphemism here? There are users who have been here longer, with tens of thousands of more edits, than Worldtraveller (thus, surely qualifying as 'established') who are blocked without any sort of issues or concerns at all. Aren't we really saying that if a user and/or their friends are likely to be very disruptive about a block, then we should not make one? If not, then how exactly ''are'' we defining 'established users' here? Are we going to stop blocking everyone with a thousand edits or more? --] 16:39, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
			:::What is the purpose of this kind of "short" or "very short" block in a "developing situation"? To shock the recipient into a spasm of repentance? I find it difficult to believe that a smack in the mouth is ever very effective as a way to make an an angry or upset person think again, but YMMV. -- ] ] 18:16, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
			::::If blocks are, as you say, 'never an effective way to deal with an angry or upset person' then why do we use them for such at all? Why is this '''just''' a bad way to deal with 'established users', and not a bad way to deal with '''all''' users? As to 'developing situation'... it had been going on for two months. That's not 'developing'... it's 'dragging on interminably'. If you want to talk 'block philosophy' - mine has always been that we should block people only when they are doing something improper and it seems clear (after several attempts) that there is no other way to get them to stop. --] 20:28, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
			:::::Firstly, I would appreciate it if you did not purport that your paraphrase of my comment was a direct quotation.
			:::::But, on the substantive point, Tony is avocating "short" or "very short" blocks to deal with the "acute effects" of "bad behavior", "early in a developing situation". I am not sure when, in the current case, Tony would have blocked Worldtraveller or InShaneee, or for how long (1 second? 5 minutes? an hour? 6 hours?), or how it would have helped. It is clear that the blocks that were actually employed have not solved the "problem", whatever it is perceived to be. I don't see how such an insult (essentially saying, "shut up: you have nothing useful to say") can help in this sort of situation. Did your block make Worldtraveller stop? -- ] ] 23:51, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
			:::::: I'm not concerned about the effect on this situation (since no consensus for the block emerged a short block would have been inappropriate). My comment is on general long term thinking about blocking. I do think that short blocking can be very effective ''in the presence of a consensual support for this kind of block''. and I wouldn't like to see the arbitration committee unnecessarily box in thinking about blocking just because it sees no circumstances under which there would be consensus for short blocks at present. --] 17:48, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
			::::::On 'direct quotation'... actually the use of single quote marks in this way is a fairly common convention for indicating that the statement so marked is not entirely accurate or... a paraphrase. We have a passable article on it at ]. As to the rest, did my block make Worldtraveller stop? Um... yes? Yes it did. I told him he needed to stop harassing InShaneee and take the matter to RFC or RFAr or he'd be blocked. He refused. I blocked him. We now seem to be in RFAr... where the matter can hopefully be resolved rather than the harassment continuing indefinitely. No, this result has not come without further attacks / incivility / disruption, but frankly the likely inability of various people to remain civil about a block should '''not''' be a reason to allow someone to continue being disruptive. That is, we should not '''encourage''' abusive behaviour by delaying blocks where it is likely to increase or taking its actual occurrence as a sign of anything except the bad conduct of the perpetrators. That I've been called "fuckwit", "ignoramus", "twit", and the like over this matter ''should'' IMO reflect badly on those who said these things... not on me for ''their'' inability to be civil. Criticize me for a 'hasty block' if you think two months / more than a dozen warnings is 'too soon', but the tendency of some to be incivil should ''never'' be allowed to '''strengthen''' their case. --] 11:17, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
			:::::::Well, starting a comment "If blocks are, as you say, '...' " sure makes it look to me like the part in '...' is a direct quotation, but whatever.
			:::::::Yes, some of Worldtraveller's comments were uncivil - calling someone a "fuckwit" is never civil, even if they are being a fuckwit (a term, incidentally, which is on the milder end of the scale of incivility in the UK, arguably less so than "fuck", and I suspect that part of this debacle derives from this kind of cultural issue; and, correct me if I am wrong, but I believe Worldtraveller did not use that particular word until after you had blocked him for "harassment"). Yes, Worldtraveller should not have used naughty words, and it reflects badly on him that he fell into the trap of being goaded into using such language by being on the receving end of a bad block, then ignored for over 6 weeks, then given a half-hearted apology, and then ignored for a few more weeks, meanwhile being told that he would have to be satisfied with the "apology" that he had been given and that seeking any further explanation for the block was "harassment" and would lead to a futher block. He should have been the bigger person, and simply maintained his composure in the face of the stonewalling, the harassment towards him, and the second block to stop his "harassment". But he didn't. Oh dear. Human after all.
			:::::::Perhaps the second block did lance the festering boil of this dispute (to recall a metaphor) but a cure that kills the patient is not much use. As you point out, your block was not "early" in a "developing situation" - it was late in a situation that had developed because an admin refused to explain his actions, and upon which a number of people had commented more than once.
			:::::::But Tony has not answered my questions above - when, in the current case, would he have blocked Worldtraveller or InShaneee, and for how long (1 second? 5 minutes? an hour? 6 hours?); and how does he think it would have helped? -- ] ] 17:33, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
			:::::::Am I the only one that finds it ironic (and indicative) that CBD, of all people, is saying that remedies other than blocking had apparently been exhausted? To me that's a strong indicator that there was no other recourse apparently available, because CBD is (dare I say it?) ''notorious'' for assuming good faith, even about folk than 99% of the rest of the community has written off, and when ''he'' finds himself without other remedies... ++]: ]/] 13:58, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
			::::::::Pfffbt! :] 'Notorious' I may be, but we can all be too hasty at times. Let us say that I concluded that no other recourse was available because various had been tried unsuccessfully... but trying something, other than a direct warning, ''again'' before blocking wouldn't have hurt. Besides, there's a big difference IMO between a 24 hour block and 'writing someone off'. I'm nowhere near the latter with Worldtraveller. --] 16:54, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
			(outdent) I do not think ALoan's extended partisan description of events is helpful. --] 20:24, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
			::Disagree. If the user is disrupting Misplaced Pages, a block will stop him from doing so while blocked, and the editors whose work is affected by his/her disruption can get on with editing. VERY effective, I say. If the user starts up again after returning from a block, back they go into the block. If the cycle continues, then dispute resolution is needed to either convince the editor to change his behavior or to lock in a ban if it's obvious the editor cannot change. We don't run a social services clinic here; if you can't play well with the other kids, then please leave. - ] 18:20, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
			:::Disagree, the subject is well covered at ] - ArbCom should generally avoid modifying/creating policy. ] 20:49, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
			I guess I am looking for some message (which Bauder has come close to here) that reinforces the controversial blocks section of the blocking policy. However, if an "established editor" won't seek dispute resolution, then what do we do? This is a very tough call...and any findings on this delicate issue need to be worded without ambiguity.--] 11:32, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
			:I agree with MONGO, some statement from ArbCom about thinking on blocking policy would be helpful. Not looking for new policy formulation per se, but more a read of how things will be treated in future. Because civility blocks generally do't work. But ... sometimes there appears to be no other path available. Whether this was one of those times is a large part of what is being contested, in my view. ++]: ]/] 13:58, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
			===Dispute resolution process===
			17) The dispute resolution process is a semi-formal set of procedures intended to aid in the resolution of interpersonal problems that develop within the community. Requests for Comment and Mediation are two examples of mechanisms that exist to facilitate dispute resolution where direct communication fails.
			:'''Comment by Arbitrators:'''
	::		::
			:'''Comment by parties:'''
			::
			:'''Comment by others:'''
	===Template===
			:: Proposed. Please feel free to refine the wording. See my proposed remedy. --] 16:37, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
	1) {text of proposed principle}
			===The responsibility of the Arbitration Committee===
			18) The Arbitration Committee is responsible for resolving conflicts. Thus users who behave in a constructive way, contributing to the solution of problems and conflict should be encouraged, and those who create conflicts and exacerbate them should be discouraged.
			:'''Comment by Arbitrators:'''
			::Proposed ] 01:07, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
			:'''Comment by parties:'''
			::
			:'''Comment by others:'''
			::Added a word, fixing what I think was a typo, but Fred please check. ] 01:38, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
			::I wholly support this. If any arbitrator warns me that I am not behaving constructively, I will immediately admit my error and stop the disruptive behavior, since of course I cannot be objective about myself. If they decide I should be sanctioned, I will accept the sanction as fair and impartial judgment of my actions.
			::I '''also want to note''' that I feel that there are many people participating here who are not behaving constructively. Geogre, in particular, loves to rant at great length about issues that are peripherally related to this case, if at all, and occasionally throws in some gratuitous nastiness such as "Given the dull-witted and gullible reading you exhibit" which does not belong '''anywhere''' on Misplaced Pages and should be condemned in the '''strongest possible terms'''. --] 01:44, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
			:: Someone once said something like "If we all got what we deserve, not one of us would escape hell." We've none of us been on our best behavior but I don't doubt that every single editor here has as his primary goal the resolution of this conflict.
			:: During the course of the dispute that led to this arbitration, there was some taking of sides. During the course of this arbitration, those sides have dissolved, and a resolution is now in sight. While it seems that some parties may have unnecessarily prolonged the dispute by supporting the harassment while not seeming to take notice of Worldtraveller's attempts to use dispute resolution processes, this could be due to their other commitments. Other parties have been criticised for the blocking of Worldtraveller, when other avenues had not been explored.
			::For myself I think if I'd realised that this might end up at arbitration I would have researched the situation more, because a superficial examination showed no good reason for the harassment. So although undisclosed at the time my personal failings also may be at fault here. There were no trolls here--I deeply regret that unwise but, at the time, seemingly plausible suggestion. That other entertained the thought does not lessen the harm done. I realise that my offence is far greater than the one that led to this arbitration, and perhaps that's cause for a remedy far harsher than any proposed to date.
			:: But focussing purely on this case, I see no reason to support this particular principle. Arbitration is something that can succeed because it makes us confront our failings. Mediation is a more formal and less costly way to achieve the same means, but mediation was not invoked here so arbitration will have to do. --] 00:05, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
			===Community participation in dispute resolution===
			19) When participants cannot privately settle a dispute, the resolution depends on the participation of the community as a whole to act as neutral parties. The policy on ] reads: ''"Misplaced Pages works by building consensus. To develop a consensus on a disputed topic, you may need to expose the issue to a larger audience."''
	:'''Comment by Arbitrators:'''		:'''Comment by Arbitrators:'''
Line 254:		Line 691:
	:'''Comment by others:'''		:'''Comment by others:'''
			::'''Proposed'''.--] 18:00, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
			::I've tried to follow this policy for a long time. --] 20:18, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
			:: Not happy with the wording because it conflates written policy documents with Misplaced Pages policy. But the application to this case is spot on. A little more emphasis on dispute resolution rather than excusing misbehavior, a little more mentoring and guidance of two very experienced editors who were however lacking in specific knowledge and insight, would have helped here. --] 23:30, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
			===Repeated pestering is not a form of dispute resolution===
			20) While Misplaced Pages's ] process encourages communication, the refusal of one party to communicate should not be taken as an excuse for incivility or repeated comments demanding they do so. If a user, while otherwise remaining active, fails to reply to a few requests then other dispute resolution options should be explored. If an answer is given, but considered inadequate, that again should lead to other dispute resolution options rather than continuing the dispute indefinitely.
			:'''Comment by Arbitrators:'''
	::		::
			:'''Comment by parties:'''
	== Proposed findings of fact ==
			::Mediation can hardly be feasible when the person who's conduct is being questioned refuses to respond to anything. How would mediation work with one silent party? CBDunkerson's apparent assertion that I posted 'one incivil comment after another' appears to take the position that saying someone is a terrible administrator is somehow uncivil. I called InShaneee a witless moron (and I think most people will agree that's a pretty tame insult) - nothing else I said to him was insulting, unless you take the position that saying someone is rude, has poor judgement and shouldn't have access to the administrative tools on Misplaced Pages is somehow an insult. I had stated my intent to seek arbitration ("whatever I can do to get your administrative tools taken away from you, I will do") and yet some people decided that was harassment. So basically despite some sane voices agreeing that InShaneee should have been responding since the very beginning of the whole thing, and that his failure to do so was a discredit to the whole process, I got piled on and eventually blocked for trying repeatedly to simply start dialogue, filing and RfC and making it known I would be filing an RfA. And now this proposal seeks to enshrine the principle that stonewalling is an OK way to avoid facing the rap for violating policy. ] 15:37, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
			:'''Comment by others:'''
	===Worldtraveller has edited from several IP addresses===
			::Proposed. People keep going back to, 'Worldtraveller had the right to an answer'... which is true, but not in dispute. Surely we all agree that posting one incivil comment after another isn't the ''way'' we want people to go about getting that answer? Isn't that ''why'' we have different stages of dispute resolution... so users '''don't''' continue insulting each other ad infinitum? --] 10:19, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
	1) {{userlinks|Worldtraveller}} has also edited from {{IPuser|81.178.208.69}}, {{IPuser|81.179.115.188}}, and {{IPuser|81.179.150.16}}.
			:: This is what I've been driving it with the attempts to make RFCs more effective. Worldtraveller did try RFC, and he might also have tried mediation but perhaps did not know about it or did know how to initiate it. In earlier days the arbitration committee might have ordered or requested that mediation be attempted before taking on a case. This might have been appropriat here, although I think the arbitration has itself been rather inclusive and (to me at least) illuminating and helpful in moving towards consensus. --] 15:15, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
			:: In reply to the suggestion that this principle endorses stonewalling, that isn't true in any way. Once one has tried talk pages, third parties, RFC and mediation, go straight to requests for arbitration if the party is completely unresponsive. I don't think this was really made clear to you, and I think it should have been. --] 16:41, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
			:::I didn't need it to be made clear. After the RfC, I returned to seeking dialogue. Briefly, I thought this was going to be successful but InShaneee after his half-hearted apology resumed silence. If I hadn't been blocked and walked away in utter disgust, I'd have filed an RfA. ] 16:45, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
			::::I can only speak for myself, but I don't consider "witless moron" a tame insult. It's far from the worst one can say but it's not "tame". At least not in this part of the world, although I am not a world traveller like some. ++]: ]/] 17:45, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
			:::Worldtraveller, let's see; , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , et cetera. Seriously, if you can't see where you've engaged in more than one "pretty tame" example of incivility... the mind boggles. Though I suppose your admission that "witless moron" is a "pretty tame insult" is 'progress' (of a sort) over when you claimed it wasn't a personal attack at all.
			:::On your 'declared intent to file a RFAr', oddly it didn't mention RFAr and looked rather like a declared intent to continue harassing. Several people responded to it with suggestions that you instead file an RFAr , but you disputed those and said that if what you had been doing was harassment then you would "keep on harassing". You also then continued to post to InShaneee's talk and other pages about this, but made no mention of anything about an RFAr. Indeed, you didn't say anything about RFAr until after you had been blocked and Geogre, Bishonen, and ALoan had suggested it . And there you described it as something you were now considering. '''Had''' you gone to RFAr you would not have been blocked. However, the truth is that you made more than a dozen comments (over several days) about this after that, 'I will do anything I can to get you de-adminned' bit... and none of them said anything about following RFAr even though people were urging you to do so.
			:::Finally, on 'enshrining stonewalling'. Not at all. This principle says that the proper response to stonewalling is to seek other dispute resolution options, not to engage in harassment. --] 12:14, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
			::::Right, so you are one of the people who believes that 'terrible administrator' is an insult? What is uncivil about saying 'you really shouldn't be an admin? This makes my mind boggle and looks like a concerted effort to prevent criticism of admins, or to allow blocks for 'disrespecting' the mighty office of admin. Dishonest - well, was the block for vandalism or was that a lie? Am I not allowed to describe someone who lies about a block as dishonest? Perhaps if he finds it insulting to be described as dishonest, he shouldn't be dishonest. I honestly don't know if you just don't understand the difference between criticism like 'you're a terrible administrator' and unkind words like 'you're a witless moron', or if you just don't care about the difference because you're determined to make your 'harassment' charges stick. ] 12:21, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
			:::::Read ]. It forbids exactly the kind of behaviours you are claiming to be appropriate. How can you seriously believe that calling someone a liar '''isn't''' incivil? Both the civility and personal attacks policies directly state that it is - even when you are certain the charge is true. You were warned about it at the time. Yet you '''still''' insist that there was nothing wrong with your behaviour. Calling someone a 'terrible administrator' is ''obviously'' an insult. Yes, it is also criticism... but then you won't find alot of insults which '''aren't''' critical. What you can find, if you try at all, are civil ways to criticize without insulting people. Are you saying that '''you''' really can't tell the difference? --] 10:52, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
			::::::Could I suggest in the context of ArbCom members voting, continuing this discussion isn't worthwhile? Personally, I think InShaneee has on occasions been slightly oversensitive to criticism, and this was covered in his RfC. However, proceeding with dispute resolution, such as filing this ArbCom case is always more productive than calling someone a "terrible editor" or similar. ] 12:39, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
			===User Accounts and Identities===
			21) Users have the freedom to contribute using a pseudonymous identity that obscures their real identity, or of using an ID closely linked to their real identity, or even (within the limits of ]) to use multiple identities, linked together or not, as well as to use IP address based accounts. Each type of account has advantages and disadvantages, and users may choose among them as appropriate based on editing needs. User credibility and reputation often is associated with a particular account. Users also have the ], and have the right to discontinue using an account at any time, including by scrambling its password. However, it is not appropriate for users who use multiple mechanisms to expect the community to discern connections that are not obvious, nor is it appropriate for users to expect the community to afford status and recognition earned on one account to automatically accrue to other accounts, for after all, the idea of multiple accounts is to have multiple identities and it is not the responsibility of the community to keep them straight.
	:'''Comment by Arbitrators:'''		:'''Comment by Arbitrators:'''
Line 268:		Line 729:
	:'''Comment by others:'''		:'''Comment by others:'''
			::Proposed. This may be blindingly obvious. However, I think there has allegedly been a bit of muddying of the waters by WT and the IPs allegedly belonging to WT (including about whether the IPs ought to be given the same automatic consideration (of being an "established editor", for example) as WT was when it was to WT's benefit, but that the IPs were to be treated as new users when it was beneficial to be so treated). Others have introduced evidence to that effect and I offer no comment as to the validity of it, but for the evidence to have meaning, some primciple along these lines might be useful. Note that my identity is closely linked to my real name, and that I have multiple disclosed socks. ++]: ]/] 18:13, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
	::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. --] 00:11, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
			:: While I think I see what you are tring to say, the point can only apply to the period during which InShaneee and Worldtraveller were edit warring and InShaneee inappropriately blocked Worldtraveller. What InShaneee did then was inappropriate no matter who he was in dispute with. Once the complaint started and Worldtraveller's identity became known, then even if one can argue that such a complaint from an anonymous user should have been ignored, the argument (already weak in my opinion) would not hold. --] 18:22, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
			===Conflict Resolution Systems===
	::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. — ] 09:11, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
			22) The essential underlying aspects of each segment in a set of resolution processes is the efficiency with which they can resolve disputes, their ability to transfer issues upon exhaustion, and their ability to comprehensively acquire issues from exhausted processes.
			:'''Comment by Arbitrators:'''
	===(Withdrawn)===
			::
	2) <s>In late December, 2006. after several months away from Misplaced Pages, ] who had little previous expressed interest in the paranormal came in his first edits to ] and chose to edit war anonymously with an administrator, ], known to have an interest in the paranormal, over the appropriateness of a project label on the talk page. In subsequent complaints on ], several editors associated with ] volunteered extremely strong statements about Inshaneee's adminship.</s> WITHDRAWN (see comments below)
			:'''Comment by parties:'''
			::
			:'''Comment by others:'''
			::Proposed. This is probably the broadest underlying principle that can be observed at work here. I'd say that the systemic aspects of problems in this case arise from failures to resolve disputes, to properly handle their transfer, and for other processes to meet and transition so that issues don't "fall through the cracks" and enter an increasingly problematic state. Focusing on this principle is probably a good guideline for policy development and implementation. (And for my next act I'll prove myself the biggest geek in the world by drawing all this up as some sort of UML model. Kidding. I hope.) ] 18:39, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
			:: Nice work, but it needs a more concrete expression to be useful to the uninitiated. --] 19:29, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
			===] is not part of the dispute resolution process===
			23) The noticeboard clearly states: ''"'''Dispute resolution:''' This page is not part of our ] process. "''
	:'''Comment by Arbitrators:'''		:'''Comment by Arbitrators:'''
	::		::
	:'''Comment by parties:'''		:'''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. --] 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. ] 02:11, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
	::I (Worldtraveller) started the article ] and contributed much of its content. ] 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. --] 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. ] 02:26, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
	:::::No. They've 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 Misplaced Pages. That kind of behavior, in my opinion, is beyond belief. Absolutely beyond understanding. Vindictive, spiteful and I hope, one day to be foresworn. --] 02:34, 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'. ] 02:30, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
	:'''Comment by others:'''		:'''Comment by others:'''
			::Proposed. This is tricky becuase this page does accept complaints about administrative actions. However I am more thinking of InShaneee's thread on harrassment here rather than Wordtraveller intial complaint when the block expired. InShaneee should have been aware there was an actual dispute (RfC filed and all) between him and Worldtraveller. The "Harrassment" thread can not be seen as a general incident notice of an editor who is simply keen on harrasing editors.--<i><span style="color:#9966FF;">Birgitte</span><span style="color:#CC99CC; font-size:small;">SB</span></i> 18:53, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
	::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 . ] ] 02:18, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
			:I'm not sure this really goes anywhere, but it might be useful to say this for a few reasons. 1) AN/I historically sucks at issues which ''should'' be in dispute resolution instead. 2) This principle might possibly act as a reminder for people to respond to future such issues with advice on which step of dispute resolution they should enter, rather than with their personal opinions of who is right or wrong.--<i><span style="color:#9966FF;">Birgitte</span><span style="color:#CC99CC; font-size:small;">SB</span></i> 19:02, 15 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" (, , ), "fuckwit" (), and "childish" () 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. --] 07:35, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
			::: Normally I'd say "too prescriptive", because sometimes simple disputes are resolved there (particularly disputed blocks). But yes, that statement is essentially correct. --] 19:27, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
	::Probably not more offensive than InShaneee calling an editor a "]" either. ] 07:56, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
			::'''Disagree''': It is not part of mediation, but it is part of conflict resolution, when that "conflict" is with policy and policy implementation. As the first stop in establishing consensus for the need and fitness of an administrative action, it is necessarily part of any dispute resolution process where administrators are involved. Further, since there are blocks available for "community patience," it is clear that AN/I is a necessary part of blocking. ] 11:48, 16 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. ] 20:15, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
			::: I think that's similar to my reasoning about the page. It is part of discussion and consensus formation, particularly with relation to disputes involving administrative action. But I think the sense of Birgitte's motion here is that it isn't a substitute for the more formal processes, and I would add that it may actually be harmful by promoting polarization. Some editors nudged Worldtraveller in the direction of dispute resolution a few times, but he doesn't seem to have read the dispute resolution page, or if he did he didn't get much out of it. Others explicitly condoned his continuation on talk pages, even in the face of clear statements of distress by InShaneee (see the proposed finding titled "Mixed Signals 2"). The dispute really didn't progress towards resolution here; rather it polarized (Birgitte covers this in her own Mixed Signals proposal). It is in this sense that ANI was counterproductive with respect to dispute resolution. --] 14:50, 16 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. --] 20:48, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
			===Vandalism===
	:: 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 Misplaced Pages, 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. --] 23:16, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
			24) The concept of vandalism as understood in Misplaced Pages is defined at ]. This policy defines vandalism as: any addition, removal, or change of content made in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Misplaced Pages.
	:::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? ] | ] 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 and, as "an act of kindness to me and to all other Wikipedians", make him "banned from Misplaced Pages 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. &mdash;] (]) 00:14, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
			:'''Comment by Arbitrators:'''
	:: 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. --] 00:50, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
			::This finding is already covered in 2.1 above. I also prefer 2.1's wording is slightly better. However "Vandalism" is a better title than "Controversial blocks" (which helps to explain why Guy didn't notice it. ] ] 20:18, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
			:'''Comment by parties:'''
	::: 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? &mdash;] (]) 00:56, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
			::
			:'''Comment by others:'''
			:: Since the original block was supposedly for vandalism, we ought to be clear what vandalism is. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 19:58, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
			===Lengthening a block===
			25) Avoid lengthening a block for rudeness towards the blocking admin. Don't block for rudeness towards yourself.
			:'''Comment by Arbitrators:'''
			::
			:'''Comment by parties:'''
			::
			:'''Comment by others:'''
			::Proposed. This principle is relevant to both InShaneee's behaviour in the LinkTothePast case and to ], who lengthened Worldtraveller's block for "personal attacks while asking to be unblocked".. Far from it being standard to treat blocked users with extra harshness, it's standard to put up with defiance from a user reacting to the shock of a block. It's the wrong moment to block them some more for real or supposed "Personal attacks". It's the moment for considering the extreme power discrepancy between an admin and a blocked user — confined to his/her talkpage, remember — and for looking away from displays of anger. ] | ] 19:07, 18 March 2007 (UTC).
			:::Shouldn't this belong on ]? The blocking policy forbids against using blocks when involved with "'''Content disputes'''", it goes short(intentionally I think) of saying all disputes. This seems to me an extension of policy without a proper community discussion. <small>]<sup>(Need help? ])</sup></small> 21:49, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
			===Template===
			26) {...}
			:'''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}}, {{IPuser|81.179.150.16}} and {{IPuser|144.82.240.93}}.
			:'''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. --] 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. — ] 09:11, 11 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? ] 01:04, 12 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. --] 14:43, 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. ] ''all'' of Tony's attacks are removed from the page, feel free to remove my comment on them and advice to Mackensen, too. ] | ] 01:29, 12 March 2007 (UTC).
			===(''Withdrawn'')===
	::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 ], 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. ] 02:46, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
			2)
	===Inshanee blocked Worldtraveller inappropriately===		===Inshanee blocked Worldtraveller inappropriately===
	3) The block of ] by Inshaneee was not supported by the blocking policy.		3) The block of ] by Inshaneee, purportedly for vandalism, was not supported by the blocking policy because 81.178.208.69 had not engaged in vandalism. Further, even if 81.178.208.69's edits were, hypothetically, construed as vandalism, they were not frequent or numerous enough for policy to support a block.
	:'''Comment by Arbitrators:'''		:'''Comment by Arbitrators:'''
	:: I can't find anybody who disagrees with this, least of all me. ] ] 20:47, 11 March 2007 (UTC)		:: I can't find anybody who disagrees with this, least of all me. ] ] 20:47, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
			::Needs more detail ] 14:25, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
			:: Expanded. ] Co., ] 23:24, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
			:: Yes. ] ] 02:24, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
	:'''Comment by parties:'''		:'''Comment by parties:'''
Line 319:		Line 838:
	:::: ...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. ] 01:22, 12 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. ] 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. --] 02:24, 12 March 2007 (UTC)		::::: Perhaps I should have said something earlier, but I was still doing what I could to resolve this peacefully. --] 02:24, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
			:::::: Which was what, exactly? ] 08:43, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
			::::::: Is there some point at which you will accept an apology? I'm a bit at a loss now. Would it not be better to accept and move on, in the spirit of ] than to hold out for an apology that is precisely in the form and manner you wish it to be? ++]: ]/] 14:46, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
			:::::::: InShaneee did nothing at all to resolve the dispute for seven weeks. Then he made an inadequate 'apology' which didn't include any mention of why he'd blanked me for seven weeks. He has yet to explain why he made no comment whatsoever on the block, and no response whatsoever to my questions, back in January. Without an explanation of why his conduct fell so far below the standards expected of administrators, nothing is resolved at all. He's admitted the block was wrong - great - but it's not the block that got us to here, it was his behaviour in the aftermath, and he has not said anything about that. ] 00:40, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
			::::::::: OK, if Inshaneee apologised again, along the lines of "1)It was a bad block, and I'm sorry for making it 2) I should have explained my actions more fully and more promptly and I'm sorry it caused you distress 3) I will be more careful in future" would that satisfy you? If not, what is missing? If so, would you in turn make a more adequate apology to Inshaneee than the one you've made and then consider the specific matter closed?... because, frankly, I fervently hope that you are in a ''very'' small minority if you continue to think that this incident merits Inshaneee's desysopping... ++]: ]/] 16:39, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
			::::::::::I probably would accept such an apology, particularly if he recognised that ignoring all criticism was pretty much the worst way to proceed, was never going to make the situation better and was bound to be perceived as rude. However, whether he should be admonished or sanctioned for his behaviour is not something I can decide on and should still be considered by the arbitrators now, whatever happens. ] 17:42, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
	:'''Comment by others:'''		:'''Comment by others:'''
	::Endorse (the proposal, not the phrasing of the comment). Fixed a typo. ] 02:15, 11 March 2007 (UTC)		::Endorse (the proposal, not the phrasing of the comment). Fixed a typo. ] 02:15, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
	:::Yes, but it was not the block itself, but the aftermath that led us all here. --] 06:25, 11 March 2007 (UTC)		:::Yes, but it was not the block itself, but the aftermath that led us all here. --] 06:25, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
			====Inshanee blocked Worldtraveller inappropriately====
			3.0) The dispute originated in a revert war over the removal of {{tl|WikiProject Paranormal}} on ].
			3.1) While in dispute with ] over talk page content on ], and reverting rather than discussing (dialogue by edit summary), Inshaneee blocked the user, contrary to the blocking policy which forbids the use of blocking to gain the upper hand in a dispute. In the discussion he initially responded provocatively and offered no explanation or apology.
			3.2) While in dispute with ] (Worldtraveller) over talk page content on ], and reverting rather than discussing , , , , , , , Inshaneee blocked the user, contrary to the blocking policy which forbids the use of blocking to gain the upper hand in a dispute. The block immediately follows InShaneee's third reversion of the editor's removal of the template.
			:Moreover InShaneee entered a block summary of "vandalism" , however Worldtraveller had not engaged in vandalism. Further, even if 81.178.208.69's edits were, hypothetically, construed as vandalism, they were not frequent or numerous enough for policy to support a block. In discussion InShaneee initially responded provocatively and offered no explanation or apology.
			3.3) Inclusion of the paranormal project, supported by InShaneee and opposed by 81.178.208.69/Worldtraveller is at least debatable (). The stated reason for the block, vandalism, does not apply to a content dispute. The fact that it ''was'' a content dispute is demonstrated by the edit summary comments. Dialogue on talk would have been strongly preferred to dialogue by edit summary. A standard ] template warning for 81.178.208.69 would have been acceptable. No such warning was given (). A ] report by InShaneee would have been acceptable, but would likely have been rejected due to lack of formal warnings. No evidence has been presented that Worldtraveller, by whatever name or IP, had been made aware of policy regarding ], or had been made aware of ]. A block for ] ''by an uninvolved admin'' would have been defensible, had 81.178.208.69 been duly warned, however InShaneee's block of 81.178.208.69, an editor with whom he was involved in a content dispute, for a stated reason not consistent with the specifics of the dispute and not supported by either the accepted definition of vandalism or the blocking policy, and in any case related to content on a Talk page not in the main encyclopaedia, was clearly inappropriate. InShaneee now freely admits this.
			:'''Comment by Arbitrators:'''
			:: I've combined 3 and 3.1 into 3.2, reworded slightly and added some diffs. ] ] 18:33, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
			:'''Comment by parties:'''
			:: In a sense we both discussed, using edit summaries. I think it should also be mentioned here that WP:BP specifically proscribes blocking someone you are in dispute with. ] 00:40, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
			::: If there isn't something in written policy warning about the dangers of conversing in edit summaries, there should be. The purpose of an edit summary is to explain an edit, not to give justification for repearting a move that you already know has been opposed. --] 22:18, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
			::On 3.3 - mention of 3RR would not be appropriate, because the three reverts we each made occurred over three days. A block by any party would not have been supported by the blocking policy because no blockable offence at all had been committed. ] 11:46, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
			:'''Comment by others:'''
			:: Proposed in response to Fred's request for more detail. --] 14:52, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
			:: 3.2 seems to be about the state of it. --] 22:15, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
			:: I endorse this, and have added a minor point re the actual text disputed (] applies) and added 3.3. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 19:51, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
			:: 3.3 goes into far too much detail. Findings are supposed to contain a strong element of summary, mainly in the interests of the sanity of editors who may need to read the final decision. --] 22:47, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
	===The block review process failed===		===The block review process failed===
Line 327:		Line 875:
	:'''Comment by Arbitrators:'''		:'''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. ] 14:30, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
	::
			::I'd like to know if this happens frequently or if this was a rare instance. Are we short of admins? Do people consider that appeals by IP-address users are of little value and do not review them? (comments mostly directed outside this arbcom case's scope, but answers I'd like to know). ] (]:]) 10:37, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
	:'''Comment by parties:'''		:'''Comment by parties:'''
	:: For what it's worth. It puzzles me that ] 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. --] 02:47, 11 March 2007 (UTC)		:: <s>For what it's worth. It puzzles me that ] 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. --] 02:47, 11 March 2007 (UTC)</s> Struck. --] 14:20, 16 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. ] 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. --] 14:40, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
	:'''Comment by others:'''		:'''Comment by others:'''
			::Responding to Fred, we just need more administrators who, among all our other chores, remember to keep an eye on the "requests for unblock" category, and of course to review the requests with an open mind. (That includes me; I wasn't an admin at the time of this block, but I am now.) Sometimes everyone is distracted, and CAT:RFU requests linger longer than they should. You are right that a block is a severe thing&mdash;it replaces "everyone can edit" with "everyone can edit, ''except you''"&mdash;and a blocked editor is entitled to a prompt review by an uninvolved administrator upon requesting one. ] 14:55, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
	::
			::General comment, pertinent if not directly on-topic. The unblock requests are not monitored enough. My entire campus, a major university, got shut down as collateral block damage recently. Multiple emails to admins and an unblock template got no attention for hours. There ought to be a place where blocked users can post that is watchlistable for admins, which I surmise doesn't work for membership in ]. ] 05:07, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
			:::The bot generated page ] can be watchlisted and is updated by the bot within 20 minutes of a new unblock request. Someone could review the history of this page to analyze how quickly requests are handled. ] 11:41, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
			::A bit long winded perhaps but here goes. There is a bot which reports on entries to the unblock category in a couple of IRC Channels (can be expanded if need be). The category and the mailing list are both relatively new, a year or so ago the option would have been for an anon that you had no review process beyong the main mailing lists. I would suspect part of the problem in some cases is that (1) People are loathe to get involved in the more complex cases, if that be a time constraint or otherwise I guess is an individual question. (2) Part of the time element of 1, Wheel warring no one wants to undo another admins block unless it is very very clearly wrong. Our basic standards are such that before unblocking discussion should occur with the blocking admin and indeed instances where this hasn't happened have cause their own drama, this can extend the time to properly evaluate an unblock request taking the full context the blocking admin may have had (e.g. Other IP's/Users following the same pattern, now deleted articles etc.) (3) Without looking at this particular case, some of the unblock requests (many) essentially don't help themselves, being quite uncivil or in some cases outright personal attacks. (4) As an extension of 3 many of the unblock requests are little more than trolling, this can be quite disheartening when trawling through the category, for example Mike Garcia is his Johnny the Vandal fantasy guise frequently lists up dozens upon dozens of his socks with identical unblock messages often including general abuse. Similarly Blu Aardvark has done likewise, this can be a huge time wasting effort. I would suspect the category is the least effective of the methods primarily due to level of anonymity and instantaneous nature offered attracting more of the (3) and (4) listed above. --] 11:15, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
			:::Could the bot also make an entry on a watchlistable page? I suspect the great majority of admins pay more attention to watchlist than IRC. There may be complex cases, but it's a bit frustrating to see ] get shut down by accident and see no admins paying any attention. ] 11:38, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
			::::Can you please take this discussion elsewhere? --] 11:40, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
			:::::Certainly, wouldn't want to distract from important matters like the Scoobies debate. ] 11:56, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
			::::::And your attempt to have the last word is a big help too. --] 11:58, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
			:::::::Attempt? ] 11:59, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
			::::::::What exactly are you trying to accomplish in this conversation? --] 12:01, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
			:::::::::Could you please take this discussion elsewhere? This is really not the place. ] 12:04, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
			(outdent) You name the place and I'll follow you. --] 12:05, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
			:An arbitrator asked the question, so discussion right here is fine; moving this to the talk page (with a link) would also work. Ideogram and Derex, please remain civil; the last exchange between you was ridiculous. ] 12:46, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
			:(aside) The unblock-en-l mailing list ( )has been doing fairly well as another place to bring blocks, including those from anons, and is good at getting them reviewed quickly. It could use more help, interested admins and trusted users are invited to join. ++]: ]/] 16:41, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
			Actually, ending his post with "Pull the other one" strongly suggests that Tony did jump to conclusions, and expressed them in a rather unfortunate way. I saw the discussion on the noticeboard at the time, and while I knew (and know) little of Bunchofgrapes, I found it to be perfectly in character for Bishonen and Geogre to take up the cause of an anonymous editor who had been abusively blocked. Isn't that what we ''all'' should do, including me, including Tony? ]] 02:23, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
			::: The terms in which they took it up might have been more constructive, but it was understandable. Later involvement, encouraging personal attacks on InShaneee, was not at all helpful and I'm at a loss to explain why they engaged in that way. --] 17:51, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
			:::: Diffs for this encouragement? I don't recall that. It's easy to be at a loss to explain something that didn't actually happen. &mdash;] (]) 17:59, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
			:::::Nobody said, 'yeah, go curse that guy out'. However, Worldtraveller makes the case in his evidence section that his behaviour must have been appropriate because people said it was. I assume that's what Tony was getting at. Worldtraveller was doing things which were clearly improper (blatant personal attacks, edit warring to keep those attacks on another user's talk page, repeated incivility, et cetera) and there were people saying, 'no, he hasn't made any personal attacks or done anything wrong at all'. That's a problem. People stormed in here denouncing one thing after another which never happened... basically having little understanding of the facts of the case and taking sides seemingly based on who the disputants were. Also not good. People are responsible for their own actions, no matter how many people voice support, but it's certainly easier to think you are fully 'in the right' when others are saying so. --] 09:59, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
			::: Actually that's a good point. We ''haven't'' seen much in the way of findings concerning the encouragement of Worldtraveller's personal attacks by third parties, and I think that's a key omission. The statements I'm thinking about are particularly this kind of thing:
			:::* "And before somebody does start talking about personal attacks and warning WT on his page (as several people did last time WT used the phrase "terrible administrator"), I'd like to stress that there's nothing personal about criticizing somebody's use of admin tools, even in strong terms." (Bishonen 23:02, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
			::: Read by Worldtraveller, that must have seemed like a green light for his personal attacks, because here apparently Bishonen was saying that Worldtraveller's conduct was okay (I think we're all agreed now that in fact WOrldtraveller's conduct at times was far from okay).
			::: I don't know how closely Bishonen had followed Worldtraveller's conduct so it isn't plain whether she actually did condone attacks such as the following:
			:::* "You're clearly just a witless moron" (81.179.150.16, 19:50, 27 January 2007) ,
			:::* "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." (81.179.150.16, 23:00, 12 February 2007)
			::: We can (and should) give Bishonen the benefit of the doubt on motive, but the effect can only have been to solidify Worldtraveller's belief that such attacks constituted valid and acceptable criticism. --] 14:07, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
			::::We can (and should) give Tony the benefit of the doubt on his motive for implying that Bishonen encouraged Worldtraveller to make personal attacks. Even if we try to peer into Worldtraveller's mind to work out what his beliefs and motivations were, and how they were influenced by statements by Bishonen (as opposed, say, to his being ignored by InShaneee, or accused of "harassment" by others), absent a time machine, I don't see how Worldtraveller could have taken any statement by Bishonen at 23:02 on 1 March as encouragement to indulge in any "personal attacks" in the previous two months since this incident began. Are you saying that Worldtraveller's made "personal attacks" after 23:03 on 1 March that were "encouraged" by Bishonen's statement? Which ones? The reflexive (and, I accept, uncivil) insults after he was blocked by CBD, perhaps? I doubt whether anything that anyone said had a stronger influence on his response to that action than the block itself. -- ] ] 14:40, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
			::: My motive for implying that Bishonen encouraged Worldtraveller in his bad behavior is obvious--there is evidence to support the statement. --] 14:45, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
			::::Evidence? Where? Which "personal attacks" by Worldtraveller were "encouraged" by Bishonen? Are you contending that criticism of somebody's use of admin tools is perforce a personal attack? -- ] ] 14:53, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
			::::Tony's motive ''is'' transparently obvious, but it is not the motive he states. &mdash;] (]) 14:59, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
			::::'''Amazing!''' That statement by Tony simply beggars imagination. If he read the diff he offered, I can't see how he could form that conclusion. This, I believe, is the sort of "personal attack" that could warrant a block, if any could. Planting seeds like that, trying to get a respected editor maligned widely (and little Ideogram has gone to do just that) is a strike at a person's reputation. That's repugnant. ] 11:51, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
			(outdent) '''Do you want to talk to me?''' Do you have '''any idea''' how much effort it takes for me not to respond to every stupid thing you say? (Note by your own definition calling what you say "stupid" isn't the same thing as calling '''you''' stupid so it's not a personal attack.) This statement of yours, like most of them, is nothing more than a personal venting that does not serve to advance the proceedings. It is inflammatory and frankly egotistical, as you seem to think your brilliant words deserve to be posted regardless of whether they are productive or not. --] 17:56, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
			(outdent first) No, I don't. You are not the subject of this arbitration, not a party to it, not involved with it, and therefore I do not wish to speak to you. I wish you felt the same. ] 20:59, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
			You claim to not want to talk to me ''while talking to me''??? Here's a clue: don't insult me while talking to someone else and I won't talk to you. --] 21:55, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
			(outdenter more) I didn't insult you while talking to anyone. If "little" is an insult now, then you're living in a very bad place. I was talking ''about'' what a genuine personal attack is, and you obviously know what it is. A genuine personal attack is an attempt to spread lies about a user, to "trash" someone. Tony's secret evidence that there is some complicity of everyone is a personal attack. Your attempt to spread that to AN/I is a furtherance of that. If I call you a chowderhead, or even (gasp) a troll, people will either agree or not, but it won't do much. If I say that you're a POV-pushing edit warrior and claim to have private evidence, or if I link to a diff that shows nothing much, I can seriously weaken your ability to edit cooperatively with others. Tony ''introduced'' a side-swipe at a thoroughly helpful user here. Furthermore, Brigitte did much the same by saying that "no neutral parties" were involved. Tony's mysterious fretting over why I would be involved, why Bishonen would be involved, and why Giano would be involved can be easily answered without conspiracies. Bishonen is one of the staunchest defenders minority point of view and IP editors have. She regularly helps out the "little guy" who is bewildered by the coercion of admins. I am 100% consistent in thinking and speaking out on the issue of "NPA" blocks. Giano has always, always stood up for the people who write articles. In WorldTraveller there is an editor who strikes a chord with the three of us. If any of the people promoting dark conspiracies and mysterious mutterings bothered to read honestly, you'd see that each of us gets involved where our concerns and issues are at stake. I stay far away from many that the others are interested in, and they in those that I find intriguing. This is a case where all our interests intersect. That said, I cannot for the life of me see why Tony Sidaway has decided to go so aggressively here. As for you, Ideogram, you just like to follow me around and try again to get redress for harms you feel you've suffered. I regard your participation as never helpful and generally vindictive, but I also find it relatively minor. When you lose your cool altogether, though, you throw rules and caution to the wind. You shouldn't do that. The central issue in this section of this section is the allegations of "complicity" that are an outrage to the accused. The real subject, though, is ''supposed'' to be WorldTraveller and Inshaneee. Don't mistake yourself or me for the star of the show. ] 02:38, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
			:Oh my god, that is just too long to read. You always were incapable of being concise and to-the-point. --] 03:45, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
			: There was no "secret evidence". I do think that Geogre's explanation covers his and Bishonen's behavior. Although it doesn't to my mind really explain the fairly consistent defence of the harassment or pestering that took place in this case, I think this is consistent with our quite different perceptions of what is and isn't harassment.
			: If I notice a wronged party persistently going after the person he thinks wronged him, "oh that's perfectly okay, then" is absolutely the last thing that enters my mind. I'm more likely to be concerned at vigilanteism, which is what it amounts to when it goes on for months. Seeing other experienced editors condone that kind of behavior (which is what I saw when I reviewed the evidence in this case) worries and puzzles me. On the other hand my own advice to InShaneee (at a time when I was ignorant of the involvement of anyone other than CBD, InShaneee and WorldTraveller) didn't prove useful to him. I was not among those who advised WorldTraveller, but perhaps I should have made that step.
			: One thing I've learned from this is not to ignore cases where grievances against administrators are being pursued by means inconsistent with the dispute resolution policy. --] 09:45, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
			(outdent) I strongly suggest you not speculate on anyone's motives unless you want this proceeding to descend into incivility hell. --] 15:04, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
			About comment removal. I see Bunchofgrapes and Bishonen, surprise, surprise, think that Geogre's comments deserve to be placed here while mine do not. It would seem to me any rational creature would realize that either we all have the right to remove comments or none of us do. It beggars the imagination that these two people could arrogate to themselves the right to make an "objective" judgement on what belongs here and what does not. --] 18:38, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
			*None of us do. Clerks ''may,'' under extreme duress. Warring with removing, screaming, inserting, removing, etc. should result in a block. As I pointed out, several places, Tony Sidaway was warranting a block for removing "puerile sniping." It's why I said that I didn't know he had made himself a clerk. ] 21:11, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
			** In view of the amount of obvious pain it causes, I do now think that messing with content should perhaps be left solely to clerks. I've been a clerk and I don't like the idea of making their work harder, but removing sections that one thinks must surely be seen as deliberately inflammatory does still cause pain, and arbitration workshops should seek to reduce that pain where possible. I've been in enough arbitrqtions that I should have learned that lesson. It pains me to say that I have not yet got it off by heart. --] 22:55, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
	===Worldtraveller deliberately misrepresented his identity===		===Worldtraveller deliberately misrepresented his identity===
Line 339:		Line 946:
	:'''Comment by Arbitrators:'''		:'''Comment by Arbitrators:'''
			::Rather disingenuous ] 14:32, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
	::
			::I don't see any misrepresentation here, rather I agree with Derex's interpretation below, i.e. Worldtraveller was correctly representing the edits made by IP 81.178.208.69. ] ] 02:50, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
	:'''Comment by parties:'''		:'''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 Misplaced Pages 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. --] 03:07, 11 March 2007 (UTC)		:: 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 Misplaced Pages 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. --] 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? ] 09:02, 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? ] 09:02, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
			:::Tony Sidaway should stop trying to speculate on what my thoughts at certain times might have been. Inevitably, when you've had no substantial dealing with someone, you'll probably just be projecting what you yourself might think in a given situation onto them. It's not accurate or useful. ] 18:42, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
	:'''Comment by others:'''		:'''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. ] 03:59, 11 March 2007 (UTC)		::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. ] 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? ] 02:50, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
			::The words were clearly disingenuous and misleading, and create the suspicion that the user was fencing with InShaneee 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. ] 10:21, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
			::: It certainly doesn't justify the block, but this case isn't about the block. --] 12:47, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
			::Disagree as worded. For the purpose of an unblock request, making it known how little evidence there is to look at ''should'' make it more likely that another admin would be willing to investigate. Admins are reluctant to dig into the complex cases, probably especially when the block is short, because the benefit/cost ratio is lower in short blocks than long ones and in complex cases than simple ones. ] 23:00, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
			::: I think I agree with that. While there was an element of play-acting here, which isn't constructive behavior for a blocked user, the lack of detail could be put down to embarrassment at being caught edit warring. --] 17:57, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
	===Aftermath of the block===		===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.		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 .
	:'''Comment by Arbitrators:'''		:'''Comment by Arbitrators:'''
			::Added diff illustrating intent. ] 14:44, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
	::
			::I don't think this claims that InShaneee's failure to respond is the ONLY thing that lead to this arbitration case, but I don't think it can be denied to have been a factor. ] (]:]) 10:39, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
	:'''Comment by parties:'''		:'''Comment by parties:'''
Line 366:		Line 981:
	:::::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 ]." Whether you accept his apology or not he did make one, and he does seem to have indicated ''why'' he made the block: . Why is this statement insufficient? Put another way, ''what'' was so insufficient about this statement that we're all here? ] ] 22:01, 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 ]." Whether you accept his apology or not he did make one, and he does seem to have indicated ''why'' he made the block: . Why is this statement insufficient? Put another way, ''what'' was so insufficient about this statement that we're all here? ] ] 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. ] 22:18, 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. ] 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. ] 10:24, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
			:But by the time any fault at all was admitted in terms of the block, the more significant failing of a refusal to communicate and discuss has emerged. That's what caused things to escalate. ] 16:49, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
	===InShaneee's recent statements===		===InShaneee's recent statements===
Line 371:		Line 989:
	:'''Comment by Arbitrators:'''		:'''Comment by Arbitrators:'''
			:: I think this is important. I suspect that InShaneee has learned a lesson from this prior even to the opening of an ArbCom case. The block in question was several months ago and if there have been any further questionable blocks by InShaneee I have not heard of them. However, I believe that the case illustrates that some precedent needs to be set as to appropriate behavior and expectations. ] (]:]) 10:44, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
	::
	:'''Comment by parties:'''		:'''Comment by parties:'''
	:: InShaneee apologised ''weeks ago'' but Worldtraveller continues to hound him. Do we have an expectation that Worldtraveller will cease his harassment? --] 04:02, 11 March 2007 (UTC)		:: InShaneee apologised ''weeks ago'' but Worldtraveller continues to hound him. Do we have an expectation that Worldtraveller will cease his harassment? --] 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. ] 21:37, 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. ] 21:37, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
			:::Also, InShaneee has expressed no contrition for his seven weeks of silence following the block. Is there a reasonable basis to suppose he's learnt that that wasn't on? Will he discuss his actions promptly in future? ] 16:47, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
	:'''Comment by others:'''		:'''Comment by others:'''
	::Proposed. ] 03:16, 11 March 2007 (UTC)		::Proposed. ] 03:16, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
Line 382:		Line 1,000:
	::::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 Misplaced Pages such a high traffic site, which is all about the info we have here. --] 05:59, 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 Misplaced Pages such a high traffic site, which is all about the info we have here. --] 05:59, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
	:::::I disagree. I was once blocked by ] 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. --] 22:38, 11 March 2007 (UTC)		:::::I disagree. I was once blocked by ] 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. --] 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. ] 10:27, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
	===Certain allegations rejected===		===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.		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 Arbitrators:'''
			:: I consider the first accused violation (improper unblocking) to be invalid, and would sign my name to such an item in Proposed Decisions. The second is more complex and I would prefer not to have the issues tied together like this. ] (]:]) 10:46, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
	::
	:'''Comment by parties:'''		:'''Comment by parties:'''
Line 395:		Line 1,014:
	:::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. ] 03:49, 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. ] 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. ] 05:54, 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. ] 05:54, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
			::::It bothers me that this statement is here while no finding of fact has proposed nor has any evidence been entered to this effect. On discovering this, I tried to find the evidence, but I apparently fail at history pages. Any help here? --] 11:53, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
			:::::See ]. --] 14:00, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
	===Worldtraveller repeatedly harassed InShaneee ===		===Worldtraveller repeatedly harassed InShaneee ===
Line 404:		Line 1,025:
	:: 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. ] ] 15:08, 11 March 2007 (UTC)		:: 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. ] ] 15:08, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
	:: Administrators should always be willing to discuss and explain their administrative actions. ] ] 18:22, 11 March 2007 (UTC)		:: Administrators should always be willing to discuss and explain their administrative actions. ] ] 18:22, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
			::Accepted ] 15:20, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
	:'''Comment by parties:'''		:'''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.--] 03:40, 11 March 2007 (UTC)		:: 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.--] 03:40, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
Line 416:		Line 1,039:
	:'''Comment by others:'''		:'''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. --] 06:01, 11 March 2007 (UTC)		::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. --] 06:01, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
			:::I am struggling here to be civil in my response. Anyone that thin-skinned will have enormous trouble in their personal life, not just here at Misplaced Pages. --] 01:02, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
	::Also ignores that it wasn't much of an apology, particularly in light of previous comments like . ] 06:41, 11 March 2007 (UTC)		::Also ignores that it wasn't much of an apology, particularly in light of previous comments like . ] 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. ] 21:53, 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. ] 21:53, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
			:::I think it's actually Sidaway's proposal and terminology, not Mackensen's. ] 05:56, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
			::::Mackensen said it. ] 10:29, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
			:::::I've commented on it, but the proposed terminology is ''not'' mine. ] ] 11:05, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
			::::::I was endorsing your comment, not the proposal. Sorry to be unclear. ] 12:12, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
			This should metion that he continued after recieving warnings per CBD's evidence. The fact that these warnings where ignored is a big part of the escalation--<i><span style="color:#9966FF;">Birgitte</span><span style="color:#CC99CC; font-size:small;">SB</span></i> 12:09, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
	===Inappropriate conduct by an editor during this arbitration case===		===Inappropriate conduct by an editor during this arbitration case===
Line 433:		Line 1,063:
	:: Many of Tony's comments have been uncivil and unhelpful. ] ] 02:11, 12 March 2007 (UTC)		:: Many of Tony's comments have been uncivil and unhelpful. ] ] 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). ] ] 02:17, 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). ] ] 02:17, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
			:::There is a problem here, and not just with Tony. I have joked (on the Arbitration channel of IRC) that the workshop page is sometimes like a trial conducted by ]. Participation in Arbitration cases needs to be constructive, directed towards resolution of the dispute, not provocative and disruptive. Behavior which inflames is grossly inappropriate. ] 15:17, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
			:: I do agree that some of Tony's contributions to this case have been unhelpful. Namecalling and the bandying about of characterizations doesn't really contribute towards a solution to the problems brought up in the arbitration case. The process deserves a little more respect than that. ] (]:]) 10:52, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
	:'''Comment by parties:'''		:'''Comment by parties:'''
Line 445:		Line 1,077:
	::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. ] 12:49, 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. ] 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. --] 02:38, 12 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. --] 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. ] 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. --] 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. ] 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. --] 10:01, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
			::::::Your knowledge, as a "party", of an arbitrator's personal suspicions is somehow disturbing. ] 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. --] 12:26, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
			::::::::Publicly, sure. But privately discussing suspicions about other editors with a listed party in a case? Not saying it's against the rules, but it still disturbs me. ] 01:14, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
			I have no idea what Tony is doing here as a "party". His presence is making a bad situation worse. ] 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. --] 12:29, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
			::Expressing reasonable doubt is reasonable. Only the truly paranoid see conspiracies in every action where there is none, and only the truly naiive would ] in the face of overwhelming evidence of conspiracy. Examples abound here, where the truly paranoid would say that the actions of a few (posts, voting record, blocks, whatever) are absolute evidence of a conspiracy by some cabal or another, and the truly naiive would say that it was sheer coincidence and there was no collusion, not even innocent discussion, and the truth may well lie somewhere in between. I would think that in this case the truth surely lies somewhere in between... Some communication may possbily have occured, but we assume in good faith that it was just in the nature of "hey did you see this?" and nothing more, and certainly not "hey let's go hang Inshanee" or "hey let's go hang WorldTraveler".
			::So... Tony raised questions that are reasonable to ask. Those he asked them of have averred, and have stated there is no conspiracy. In other words, Asked and Answered, and that's good enough for me. However, because they were reasonable to ask, it's not reasonable to take Tony to task merely for making these queries. He accepted the answers given promptly and in good faith. I will say, however, that I do agree with some that say that he asked too many times and with the wrong implications, and that using "Scoobies" may not have been a wise word choice. In fact, I suspect ANY such word used to describe a group, that wasn't applied first by the group themselves, might be something that might cause friction going forward, and something that ought to be avoided. ANY such word. Regardless of how innocuous one might think the word is. (and this is something I think Tony has some trouble with) I will also say that while I feel Tony's participation here was in good faith, some of the lengths went to in presenting views and making points might have been a bit excessive at best. ++]: ]/] 19:11, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
			There are numerous parties whose involvement here is disruptive. I do not think it is fair to single out Tony. --] 01:06, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
	===CBDunkerson's block of Worldtraveller was contested===		===CBDunkerson's block of Worldtraveller was contested===
Line 450:		Line 1,103:
	:'''Comment by Arbitrators:'''		:'''Comment by Arbitrators:'''
			::Accepted, but as pointed out below by CBDunkerson, citing only the three diffs is misleading. A sustained pattern of harassment was involved. However, a serious behavior problem of this nature cannot be dealt with an an administrative block, especially when there is disagreement among administrators. I consider this a good faith effort to address the problem, but viewed in hindsight, not an optimal action. ] 15:29, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
	::
			::: ] 17:39, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
	:'''Comment by parties:'''		:'''Comment by parties:'''
Line 456:		Line 1,110:
	:'''Comment by others:'''		:'''Comment by others:'''
			:::*Response to Fred Bauder: The three diffs are the same CBDunkerson posted on Worldtravellers usertalk at the time he made the block, so I simply reposted his diffs that he had posted , as I cited above. CBDunkerson did not do anything that appears to have been in bad faith, but there is an issue that needs addressing, as you seem to have below, in regards to what to do when dealing with a well established editor who seems to have been harassing or insulting his/her fellow editors.--] 10:37, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
	:: Proposed.--] 07:57, 11 March 2007 (UTC)		:: Proposed.--] 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? ] 08:09, 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? ] 08:09, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
Line 465:		Line 1,120:
	::::In what sense did InShaneee come to you? I see no evidence of that on your talk page. ] 21:16, 11 March 2007 (UTC)		::::In what sense did InShaneee come to you? I see no evidence of that on your talk page. ] 21:16, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
	:::::::OH it will be IRC, I expect. That's where the real wiki-business is done. ] 21:26, 11 March 2007 (UTC)		:::::::OH it will be IRC, I expect. That's where the real wiki-business is done. ] 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. ] 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. ] 10:58, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
	===HighInBC's block of Worldtraveller was contested===		===HighInBC's block of Worldtraveller was contested===
Line 470:		Line 1,128:
	:'''Comment by Arbitrators:'''		:'''Comment by Arbitrators:'''
			::Accepted. Again a good faith action, but probably not effective in resolving a serious and long standing behavior problem in the absence of community consensus. ] 15:32, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
	::
	:'''Comment by parties:'''		:'''Comment by parties:'''
Line 482:		Line 1,140:
	::::: I think this is one area where Misplaced Pages policy is actively evolving. Clarification from the committee might be useful. --] 21:38, 11 March 2007 (UTC)		::::: I think this is one area where Misplaced Pages policy is actively evolving. Clarification from the committee might be useful. --] 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.--] 21:54, 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.--] 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 justified - the behaviour that led to the block by CBD had been repeated. ] 10:45, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
			::Well, ''I'' sure contested it, so '''agree.''' ] 10:59, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
			::Agree, I did extend the block for personal attacks, it was contested, after the fact. <small>]<sup>(Need help? ])</sup></small> 15:35, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
	===InShaneee's conduct was the subject of an RFC===		===InShaneee's conduct was the subject of an RFC===
Line 498:		Line 1,160:
	===Worldtraveller made personal attacks===		===Worldtraveller made personal attacks===
	14) Worldtraveller made personal attacks against InShaneee, CBDunkerson, and HighInBC. It is against ] for users to do so and is considered especially poor form for long time members of the community do so.		14) Worldtraveller made personal attacks against InShaneee, CBDunkerson, and HighInBC . It is against ] for users to do so and is considered especially poor form for long time members of the community do so.
	:'''Comment by Arbitrators:'''		:'''Comment by Arbitrators:'''
Line 507:		Line 1,169:
	::: I'd also point out that Inshaneeee himself was not really well behaved. Nobody comes out of this looking good. --] 20:37, 11 March 2007 (UTC)		::: I'd also point out that Inshaneeee himself was not really well behaved. Nobody comes out of this looking good. --] 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 . ] 21:14, 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 . ] 21:14, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
			::: I didn't see an apology there, but I may have missed it. Did you mean this: ''By the way, I apologise that your refusal to even acknowledge my questions pushed me into saying . ] 12:53, 19 February 2007 (UTC)'' ?? If so, I'd posit it wasn't much of an apology, it seems to place all the fault squarely on anyone other than you. Were I Inshaneee, and were I in a mood to insist on an apology that suited me (just as you seem to have been doing here), I'd insist on a more specific that actually admitted fault. ++]: ]/] 15:05, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
			::::I shouldn't have said that. I wouldn't have said it if InShaneee has responded in anything resembling a timely manner. Did InShaneee ever say he either accepted or didn't accept the apology? ] 16:44, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
	:'''Comment by others:'''		:'''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. ] 16:50, 11 March 2007 (UTC)		::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. ] 16:50, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
Line 513:		Line 1,178:
	::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). ] 21:58, 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). ] 21:58, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
	:::Ok, but actually it was Dbuckner who said 'acting like fuckwits'... Worldtraveller stuck with plain old 'are fuckwits'. --] 22:09, 11 March 2007 (UTC)		:::Ok, but actually it was Dbuckner who said 'acting like fuckwits'... Worldtraveller stuck with plain old 'are fuckwits'. --] 22:09, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
			Support this finding. The language used was unacceptable on this site. ] 10:47, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
			:Also, there is nothing remotely like an apology in that diff. A ''clear'' apology by WorldTraveller for his harassment and personal attacks would take out a lot the heat - however, no one can be forced to apologise, of course. They actually have to understand and feel that they did the wrong thing. At least he has said above, "I shouldn't have said that", which is a good start. It would also help if people would stop making excuses for him; this has tended to make things worse. That statement to Lar is the first real sign of remorse I've seen from him, but we might have had it sooner if not for people excusing WorldTraveller's actions. This has really done him a disservice. ] 06:47, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
	===InShaneee failed to communicate adequately with Worldtraveller===		===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.		15) 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:'''		:'''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. ] ] 02:36, 12 March 2007 (UTC)		:: Repeated silence and/or blanking is an obvious desire to be let alone. I have experienced as much in my interactions with other users. ] ] 02:36, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
			:: <s>This finding is apparently correct. ] ] 03:20, 13 March 2007 (UTC)</s> ] ] 03:33, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
			:: I've proposed a different (though similarly titled) finding 24, "InShaneee did not respond appropriately to Worldtraveller", below. ] ] 21:05, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
	:'''Comment by parties:'''		:'''Comment by parties:'''
Line 525:		Line 1,194:
	::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. ] 00:51, 12 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. ] 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. --] 02:30, 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. --] 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? ] 08:50, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
			:::::The apology was an attempt at communication, as is this dialoge right now. Perhaps not worded as you would like it to be, but I think this does qualify as ''at any point''. --] 16:09, 12 March 2007 (UTC
			::::::And yet after this single statement, which came seven weeks too late, you again lapsed into a refusal to communicate. That's not dialogue. It's taken an arbitration case to get even grudging and intermittent communication from you. If we'd have been talking like this two months ago, arbitration would have been completely unnecessary. What stopped you from communicating back then? ] 00:48, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
	:'''Comment by others:'''		:'''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. --] 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. ] 10:50, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
			::::Being unwelcome does not make it harassment. Saying it is harassment does not make it so, no matter how often it is repeated. --] 19:23, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
			::Absolutely '''agree.''' (Complaining ''about'' someone is generally something done long, long after one has refused to communicate ''with'' a person.) ] 11:01, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
			::No, this isn't accurate. InShaneee '''did''' 'directly communicate' his desire for Worldtraveller to stop harassing him. Several times in fact -> . Before anyone complains about 'not using warning templates on established editors' (another of those institutionalized double standards)... two of the templates were to the anon IP. One of the requests to 'Worldtraveller' to stop the attacks was written out. The other was a last stage personal attack template after Worldtraveller had posted "witless moron" to InShaneee's talk page twice and edit warred to restore it there twice more... which, frankly, was blockable bad behaviour all by itself. Worldtraveller knew InShaneee wanted him to stop (even without the two AN/I threads which made that '''very''' clear), and shouldn't be pretending otherwise. --] 00:29, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
	===Asking an admin to explain their actions does not constitute harassment===		===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 ]. Administrators are expected to respond to concerns about their actions in a timely manner.		16) Worldtraveller asked InShaneee on numerous occasions to explain his block. This does not fall within any of the definitions of harassment listed at ]. Administrators are expected to respond to concerns about their actions in a timely manner.
	:'''Comment by Arbitrators:'''		:'''Comment by Arbitrators:'''
	::Yes. ] ] 01:46, 12 March 2007 (UTC)		::Yes. ] ] 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. ] ] 01:51, 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. ] ] 01:51, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
			:::Perhaps it might have been best to have let the matter drop, it depends on how important it is to insure that InShaneee really understood that his block was wrong and why, and in addition why it was wrong to have ignored Worldtraveller for so long. Continuing to pursue this matter does not by itself constitute harassment. ] ] 17:02, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
	:'''Comment by parties:'''		:'''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. ] 21:33, 11 March 2007 (UTC)		::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. ] 21:33, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
Line 542:		Line 1,218:
	:'''Comment by others:'''		:'''Comment by others:'''
	:: Badgering is still harassment, though I agree that InShaneee should have handled it better. --] 22:10, 11 March 2007 (UTC)		:: Badgering is still harassment, though I agree that InShaneee should have handled it better. --] 22:10, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
			:::Again, Mackensen has made the obvious point. ] 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. ] 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. Misplaced Pages isn't a battleground. --] 12:16, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
			::The claim that all Worldtraveller did was 'ask for an explanation' is clearly belied by the facts. He engaged in repeated incivility, personal attacks, and threats. That's harassment. By the very ] of the term. Yes, many of his incivil comments included a request for an explanation... even after one was given. Three times. I'd call '''that''' harassment too, but apparently opinions differ on this point. --] 00:36, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
			:::Pardon me, but that's by ''your'' definition "incivil" comments and "repeated." By ''your'' definition, saying, "I'm never going to explain myself, so go away" is effective communication (above). You say that all of WorldTraveller's requests (as he has demonstrated, about 5 in 25 days) were "harassment" sufficient to ''block'' him, but these are, in fact, the matters that arbitrators are supposed to decide. Since you ''did'' the block, you obviously thought you were right. I entirely disagree, and, more, I submit that blocking instead of communicating was the worst possible response. ''Could'' you block? By turning your head and squinting at it just right, I suppose. ''Should'' you block? No, if the goal is peaceful editing. ] 01:11, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
	===Template===
			::: Even being as generous possible, I don't see Worldtraveller doing much editing of articles at all from his logged-in username during the period in which he pursued his dispute with InShaneee. Let's get some perspective on this: I am hardly ever conscious of editing Misplaced Pages these days, but in my logged-in user I performed over 40 edits in mainspace. In the same time, Worldtraveller's logged-in username performed about 16. InShaneee, well I lost count after paging through a short distance. It was quite a lot. If we really were to run Misplaced Pages according to a calculus of "peaceful editing", then the result would not be favorable to Worldtraveller. I think things are a bit more complex than that. --] 22:50, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
	1) {text of proposed finding of fact}
			::::No, but that's not disruption in that case. WorldTraveller was already cutting back his editing heavily. Look at the long term and you'll see that. ] 21:14, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
			::::: I think it's true to say that Worldtraveller had tried to give up on Misplaced Pages altogether. I agree that the effect of the harassment on InShaneee's excellent work seems, at least at first, to have been minimal. We can't expect all editors to show such commitment and we shouldn't expect them all to endure all slings and arrows. --] 23:02, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
			===Feuding by Worldtraveler===
			17) Worldtraveler has engaged in a ] with InShaneee with the intent of stripping him of administrative status .
			:'''Comment by Arbitrators:'''
			::Proposed ] 15:27, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
			::It seems incontestable that Worldtraveller's stated desire was to have InShaneee desysoped. I wouldn't go so far to call it a "feud," but it certainly wasn't pleasant (on either side). ] ] 15:56, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
			::As per Mackensen, WorldTraveller did indeed express that desire. However, there is no evidence that this was his goal at the beginning or at any time up to that statement. I don't think it's a "feud" per se. Neither do I think that it should be unacceptable to call for an administrator's de-sysopping - the manner in which one does so may be acceptable or unacceptable, of course. ] (]:]) 10:59, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
			:: I agree with Mackensen and Morven. In particular, "feud" is inappropriate, there is nothing inherently wrong with believing that an administrator should be de-sysopped, and working toward that end, and I see no evidence that that was Worldtraveller's intent until the statement pointed to above. ] ]
			:'''Comment by parties:'''
			::I endorse this. Whatever you want to call it, it's clear for all to see that he wants me desysoped, and to this very moment is refusing to accept anything less. --] 19:05, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
			::Ridiculous. It implies that from my very first edit to ] my intention was to see InShaneee lose his administrative status. It's also pretty hard to have a feud in which one party is silent. It beggars belief that some people can describe 'you should not be an administrator' as a personal attack. What if I said 'you should not be a ballet dancer' or 'you should not be an astrophysicist'? There is also quite some difference between saying 'you should not be an admin if you won't respond to complaints' (as I said after 10 days of silence) and 'I am actively seeking to have you de-sysopped' (which I said after one inadequate response followed by yet more stonewalling). And I'll repeat yet again that the block is not the reason I think InShaneee should be desysoppsed - it's the blank refusal to communicate afterwards. ] 16:08, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
			:'''Comment by others:'''
			:: This is such a ludicrous suggestion that it is so without foundation or any proof that it is insulting. ] 15:40, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
			:: That was his stated intention. --] 15:50, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
			::It is incontestable that WorldTraveller said that he would work to get Inshaneee demoted, but that is '''not''' what Fred proposed. Fred proposed that he "feuded" "with the intent" to achieve this end. There is no indication anywhere in any evidence that there was a feud (unless you count Inshaneee blocking as a feud, or WorldTraveller asking for an explanation a feud), much less that these things were done '''with the intent''' of getting a demotion. They were done, as has been alledged above in other findings of fact, to get an apology. That WorldTraveller would work to see Inshaneee demoted came late in the discussion, and he is entitled to do that work, so long as he does so within policy and decorum. If he wants to keep an eye out forever for more controversial actions by Inshaneee, that's his business. Lord knows we have enough people looking for reasons to bust each other already. I don't like it, but it's not something ArbCom generally takes up -- this measuring of intentions, gazing into souls, and correction of characters. ] 01:16, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
			::Morven, you say above "there is no evidence that this was his goal at the beginning or at any time up to that statement." Actually, there is. That was just one of several similar statements starting very early in the dispute. --] 12:19, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
			::: Those statements don't really state intent, but (in a very crude and insulting way) question InShaneee's administrative competence. Although the manner in which that is done ''is'' a problem, the action of questioning administrative competence isn't by itself evidence of a feud or vendetta, nor is it inappropriate.
			::: I think these were simply personal attacks, basically, and the mitigating circumstance at least in the early stages were twofold: that Worldtraveller had unquestionably been abused through a bad block, and that InShaneee had sat on his hands, and even made a misjudged (apparently sarcastic) comment, when he could have defused the situation he had caused.
			::: The problem for me is that the attacks went on so long, but I'm tending to the view that this was due partly to the failure of the dispute resolution process. While I don't condone Worldtraveller's attacks, I can see evidence of mounting frustration. An experienced editor like Worldtraveller should not have behaved in this way, but I think I can see why he did. --] 12:33, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
			::::No, they weren't 'statements of intent', but the stated 'belief' that InShaneee should not be an administrator would explain why Worldtraveller continued to pursue this even after apologies and acknowledgments of error were given... especially as Worldtraveller then ''did'' say explicitly that he would do everything he could to get InShaneee de-sysoped. --] 13:46, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
			::::: To me, it seems that he probably continued because the reaction of one or two experienced editors led him to believe that his behavior was appropriate. Combined with the failure of the RFC and perhaps ignorance of alternative avenues, these led him to believe that he had no choice. I think this was avoidable, and I think he should have known better, but he was told that his activities were okay and that must have influenced him. --] 13:54, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
			===InShaneee unaware IP was Worldtraveller===
			18) At the time of the initial block, InShaneee was unaware of any connection between 81.178.208.69 and Worldtraveller, or between that IP and any other IP.
			:'''Comment by Arbitrators:'''
			:: Probably worthwhile to clarify this - also I don't believe there was any previous history between these two, under any usernames/IP addresses. If this latter is true, perhaps we need a finding of fact for that too. ] (]:]) 11:00, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
			:'''Comment by parties:'''
			::I can attest to this (again), for what it may be worth. --] 19:04, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
			::And I do not recall any interaction between us at any time before it. ] 15:59, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
			:'''Comment by others:'''
			:: Proposed. Mostly just procedural, some arguments of both sides seem to hang on it. --] 15:33, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
			:::Endorse. I was watching the noticeboard when this was all unfolding, and agree that no one realized that the 81... anon was Worldtraveller until the latter "outed" himself, seemingly by accident. ] 19:12, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
			===Disruption of arbitration by Giano II===
			19) Giano II has disrupted this arbitration by engaging in incivility and provocative behavior, ]. This is a continuation of behavior observed in prior arbitrations.
			:'''Comment by Arbitrators:'''
			::Proposed ] 16:59, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
			:'''Comment by parties:'''
			::Thank you. I was wondering when someone was going to notice that he was not commenting on the case in any way, shape, or form. --] 18:58, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
			::Totally disagree. Giano's posts have had no disruptive effect and I don't believe they were remotely intended as such. ] 10:07, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
			:'''Comment by others:'''
			:: It's hard to consider him disruptive if we are able to ignore him so successfully. --] 19:07, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
			::Giano has disrupted his arbitration? How so? He has asked Tony to stop being disruptive a handful of times; meanwhile, Tony has made continuing references to "scoobies" or "pod people" (whatever he means by that, it is clearly not a compliment), alluded to some behind-the-scenes conspiracy to "entrap" InShaneee into blocking Worldtraveller in order to get him desysopped, and made this page almost impossible to follow by his continuous postings. In terms of heat versus light, Giano has been the very model of a modern fluorescent tube, and Tony is a tungsten filament.
			::But which "prior arbitration<u>s</u>" are your referring to? I take it you are thinking of ] (and, save for the rather mild "Giano's comments, while inflammatory, do not stand out" and "He is requested to avoid sweeping condemnations of other users when he has a grievance, more light, less heat.", I don't see any comment on his conduct there, but whatever) - but which other ones?
			::Meanwhile, as InShaneee points out, none of this has anything to do with InShaneee and Worldtraveller. -- ] ] 19:14, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
			:::*Don't worry I have said what I wish too, I shall leave you to wallow in your own verbage. I have made my point. I shall go and edit a few pages of the encyclopedia - some of you might like to try it sometime! ] 19:23, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
			::Horsefeathers! Fred has to realize this is nonsense. Making a motion that a person who has given no evidence of any connection to the case, any single byte of published discussion of the case, and who is ''not'' the sockpuppet of the person in the dockett removed from the list of participants is sane, legal, and appropriate. It is not incivil by any definition of the term on earth. The proposed finding of fact is without merit or logic. ] 01:19, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
			===InShaneee's failure to communicate greatly exacerbated the situation===
			20) Had InShaneee taken part in a sensible way in the discussion which took place on ] immediately following the expiry of the block, and admitted at that point that his block contravened policy, it is extremely unlikely that this case would have reached arbitration. His further failure to communicate over the following seven weeks inflamed the situation unnecessarily.
			:'''Comment by Arbitrators:'''
			:: Agree. ] ] 01:31, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
			:: Agreed as far as the initial seven weeks are concerned. ] ] 02:05, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
			::Per Musical Linguist, I have reworded the title in 20.1 below. ] ] 15:59, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
			:'''Comment by parties:'''
			::This seems to have been largely agreed on but is not made terribly clear in current findings of fact. ] 01:08, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
			:'''Comment by others:'''
			::Was it a "failure" or something stronger, such as a refusal? "Failure" leaves open the interpretation that he was very humble, very contrite, but because of a lack of understanding of how to deal with this, how to find the right words, he was unable to satisfy Worldtraveler, despite his best intentions. Desdemona's inability to cope is generally seen as a "failure", rather than a refusal to try to put Othello's mind at ease. I'm not at all sure that "failure" is the right word here. ]] 12:15, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
			====InShaneee's refusal to communicate greatly exacerbated the situation====
			20.1) Had InShaneee taken part in a sensible way in the discussion which took place on ] immediately following the expiry of the block, and admitted at that point that his block contravened policy, it is extremely unlikely that this case would have reached arbitration. His further failure to communicate over the following seven weeks inflamed the situation unnecessarily.
			:'''Comment by Arbitrators:'''
			:: This is more accurate. ] ] 15:59, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
			:'''Comment by parties:'''
			::
			:'''Comment by others:'''
			::I don't like this speculation on what "may" have happened. --] 20:33, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
			:: Yes, it was InShaneee's failure in the first instance. --] 18:07, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
			====InShaneee was not communicative and this led to an escalation of the dispute====
			20.2) InShaneee should have participated in the discussion which took place on ] immediately following the expiry of the block, and should have admitted at that time that his block contravened policy. Failing that, he should have communicated sooner than seven weeks later.
	:'''Comment by Arbitrators:'''		:'''Comment by Arbitrators:'''
Line 553:		Line 1,327:
	:'''Comment by others:'''		:'''Comment by others:'''
			::Proposed. --] 20:33, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
			===InShaneee acknowledged that his block was in error===
			21) InShaneee eventually acknowledged that his block was in error ( ) prior to the block on Worldtraveller for harassment and the filing of this RFAr.
			:'''Comment by Arbitrators:'''
	::		::
			:'''Comment by parties:'''
	===Template===
			::
	1) {text of proposed finding of fact}
			:'''Comment by others:'''
			::Proposed. Since people are claiming otherwise. --] 11:42, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
			::If that is adopted, it would need to have something in the wording that makes it clear that it was after ignoring it for several weeks. Otherwise, while technically true, it's actually very misleading. ]] 12:18, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
			::: I've added "eventually" to indicate that he didn't do so immediately (which is covered by other findings of fact). --] 17:57, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
			===The dispute escalated in part due to a lack of participation by others===
			22 No neutral party reviewed the {{tl|unblock}} request by 81.178.208.69. No second involved party certified World travellers RFC on InShaneee within the required time frame. And during the first six weeks of the dispute, even though many editors, including some experienced Wikipedians, were active on InShaneee's and Worldtraveller's talk pages, no party offered either disputant direction as to how to proceed in resolving this dispute according the ].
	:'''Comment by Arbitrators:'''		:'''Comment by Arbitrators:'''
Line 565:		Line 1,353:
	:'''Comment by others:'''		:'''Comment by others:'''
			::'''Proposed''' The first two are quite obvious. The last one I also feel is important, because I feel if one person watching that talk page had spoke up during the first six weeks and said "I think you should try another RfC", "I think you should answer that question", "I think you should let it go", or "I think you should enter mediation" a dialog would have started which likely would have led to the resolution of this dispute.--<i><span style="color:#9966FF;">Birgitte</span><span style="color:#CC99CC; font-size:small;">SB</span></i> 18:08, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
			::The facts as stated are true, but the implication that a neutral party should have volunteered is a little tricky. Standard practice is for neutral parties to wait for one of the disputants to ask for intervention first, and the disputants themselves may not think to ask, or may be reluctant to ask. We would have to change our culture to fix this. Note that I am not saying that this would be a bad idea. --] 20:39, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
			:::I know I have seen people pointed at RfC or mediation before, however whether this is standard practice or not is irrelevent. The lack of anyone volunteering to act as a neutral party first derailed the original attempt at dispute resolution and then contributed to the escalation in Worldtravellers behaivor. <s>He was ignored by the entire community not just Inshaneee.</s>--<i><span style="color:#9966FF;">Birgitte</span><span style="color:#CC99CC; font-size:small;">SB</span></i> 20:59, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
			::::As I said, the statement is true, but I think it should be noted that the lack of intervention is common.
			::::Your statement that he was "ignored by the entire community" is quite a bit stronger and is not supported by . --] 21:26, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
			:::::I was thinking more of the RfC being ignored there. But you are right that the above very general statement is incorrect. Full disclosure here, I actually read the RfC in the 48 hour window, as I try to follow all admin RfC's in general. My quick impression was that it was certain to be certified (although I did not feel ''I'' needed to jump in there) and I planned looking at it closer and writing and outside view later. Later it was gone and I did not look into why. So I certainly count myself amoung those that ignored Worldtraveller and am not trying be harsher on others any more than on myself here.--<i><span style="color:#9966FF;">Birgitte</span><span style="color:#CC99CC; font-size:small;">SB</span></i> 21:36, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
			:: That isn't the way RFC works, a neutral party isn't meant to certify it. --] 07:13, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
			::: That's right, I've fixed the wording so that it accurately reflects my understanding of the situation. Please fix any further errors. --] 15:44, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
			===Mixed signals played a part===
			23) During the course of discussion about InShaneee's complaint about what he perceived as ongoing harassment by Worldtraveller, statements by some experienced Wikipedians were worded in such a way that they could have been understood by Worldtraveller to condone some of his personal attacks ,
			:'''Comment by Arbitrators:'''
	::		::
			:'''Comment by parties:'''
	===Template===
			::This is patronising nonsense. A statement on 1 March somehow encouraged something that happened on 27 Jan? ] 15:12, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
	1) {text of proposed finding of fact}
			:'''Comment by others:'''
			:: Proposed. I'm surprised that this hasn't been entered as a Finding before now. The effect of this, I think, is to mitigate some of Worldtraveller's actions. If he thought he had a green light, this might explain his approach. --] 14:16, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
			::: The word is ''condoning'', not encouraging. Had Bishonen's comment been more even-handed, and recognised that you'd overstepped the mark, wouldn't it have helped you to understand why InShaneee thought you were only interested in harassing him? This is why I call this proposed finding "Mixed signals played a part". --] 15:25, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
			:: Ah, Worldtraveller - you see, up ''there'' he says "encourage" and "condone", but down ''here'' he just says "condone", and anything other than criticism certainly could be taken to "condone" your behaviour ("excuse, overlook, or make allowances for; be lenient with"). For what it is worth, Worldtraveller had apologised to InShaneee on 19 February for using the phrase "witless moron" on 27 January (late, perhaps, and not as fulsome as it could have been, but a relatively rapid 3 weeks compared to the period of over 6 weeks between InShaneee's block and his first half-hearted apology to Worldtraveller). Given that Worldtraveller had already recognised his error in this instance, I struggle to see how Bishonen could be taken to have condoned or encouraged a repetition.
			::But Tony's suggestion does slip in an important point about "harassment" - and that is the perception of the person who thinks they are being harassed. Are we going to allow people to squeal "harassment" when they are criticised, and then set the dogs on the person making the criticism, rather than the person being criticised, however justified the critisicm is? -- ] ] 15:35, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
			:::You know ALoan, I am losing respect for you. You think it's okay to label InShaneee's apology "half-hearted" but you object to the term "harassment"? I would appreciate it if you tried to make your statements more balanced. --] 15:40, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
			::::I am not sure there is much I can do about you losing respect for me, because I do consider both "apologies" made on 19 February to be half-hearted (I dare say Worldtraveller's partial apology simply reflected the nature of the one that he had just received from InShaneee - neatly demonstrating how a tiny bit of goodwill can be infectious and save us from killing each other) and I do object to Worldtraveller's behaviour being labelled "harassment". A handful of posts, over a period of weeks, is not harassment, IMHO. Six or seven insulting talk page posts on the same day, stalking someone across articles, that is harassment. So it is rather difficult for me to be more balanced - I have had a long and fruitful relationship working on articles here with ] and sympathise with his position (while entirely accepting that he is not without fault), whereas I little sympathy with the positions taken by ] or ] or ]. -- ] ] 16:20, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
			:::::You would do a lot to alleviate my concerns if you used the phrasing "what I believe to be a half-hearted apology" and "I do not believe that was harassment" and thereby acknowledge that your opinions are precisely what is being disputed here, instead of simply stating your characterizations as if they were fact. You do know the difference? --] 17:21, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
			::::::I am well aware that my thoughts, opinions, characterisations, interpretations, etc, are my own business, and are not "facts". I thought I used the word "I" rather a lot (I try quite hard to phrase my comments as "I think" or "I believe", even though I think that I end up writing text that looks a bit egotistical) but I will try to claim ownership of my thoughts and opinions more often (although it may be rather cumbersome constantly refer to "how I interpreted...." and "what I believe to be...").
			::::::It would be helpful in that regard if other people commenting here also formulated their comments to refer to, for example, "what I believe to be personal attacks" and/or "what I believe to be harassment", thereby acknowledging that their opinions are also being disputed here, rather than simply stating their characterisations as if they were fact. (I am sure they also known the difference as well as I do.) -- ] ] 17:39, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
			:::::::I can certainly agree with that. --] 17:48, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
			:::::ALoan, your assertion that "a handful of posts" do not constitute harassment is generally accurate (though depending somewhat on the content)... but, I'd hardly call the ''eighteen'' posts Worldtraveller actually made (not including his many comments on AN & AN/I) 'a handful'. --] 22:40, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
			::::::If it were 18 posts in a day, or even a week, that might be considered excessive and aggressive. But over ''two months''? One post every 3.5 days? Come on. If I genuinely wanted to harass someone I think I'd do a bit better than that. You're still looking at this as if InShaneee was completely in the right about everything and I was guilty from the start. Ask yourself why I would bother posting 18 times? Why did InShaneee miss 18 easy opportunities to put the damn thing to rest by simply being responsive and honest? Wasn't it tremendously rude of him to ignore me like that, much ruder in fact than my calling him a witless moron, especially given that I apologised for the latter but he has given no indication that he thinks there was anything wrong with the former? ] 01:22, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
			:::::::Are you suggesting that it was '''less''' 'harassing' because it went on for over two months? If you don't get an answer or don't like the answer you did get then you try another DR option... rather than continually returning to the same complaint over and over again for months. That isn't 'resolving' a dispute in any sense of the word. --] 10:46, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
			(outdent) I wouldn't be too happy seeing eighteen posts, even if it were over two months. --] 01:39, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
			:If you'd done nothing wrong, you'd surely not be too happy - no-one would. But if you'd done something wrong and you knew you'd done something wrong (as InShaneee now claims), and someone complained about it, even if in a very angry tone of voice, you'd probably reply to the first message, wouldn't you? That would just be basic courtesy. After all, you know you've made a mistake so why pretend it didn't happen? The only reason I can think someone would ignore ''eighteen'' messages over two months is that they didn't think they'd done anything wrong. But InShaneee has not thought to try to explain why he ignored complaints like this so we can only speculate. ] 08:26, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
			::If I didn't respond to the first message, why do you think I would respond to eighteen? --] 17:45, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
			:: I don't think I like this in its current form. It focusses too strongly one one (admittedly major) part of the harassment, which was the personal attacks. Now while there are obviously some people who htink it's okay to go on badgering someone for weeks on end, even after receiving an admission and an apology, I don't think that will ever be part of Misplaced Pages policy, for the destructive effects of prosecuting a dispute in that way are very much why we have semi-formal procedures to help people to conduct disputes in a less destructive way. Some parties gave Worldtraveller to understand that he had ''carte blanche'' to continue the badgering. Other findings focus on the alternatives (the RFC that failed, and how we could try to address that, and how other experienced editors--myself included--could have advised Worldtraveller and InShaneee better). This finding is intended to illustrate the destructive effects of bad advice. It probably needs to be reworded. --] 16:30, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
			:::There was no harassment. There was one mild insult during the dispute, one somewhat worse one when I decided I'd had enough. There was an admission that the block had 'jumped the gun', not that it was wrong, and an apology specifically only for that; there was no admission or apology for the extremely rude ignoring of all discussion for seven weeks. Do not presume to tell me what I was 'given to understand'. ] 16:53, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
			::::Quite - perhaps we should just ask Worldtraveller what he thought, how he felt, etc, rather than trying to impute understandings, motives, beliefs and emotions to him. -- ] ] 17:39, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
			:: Repeatedly calling someone "a witless moron", and following it up with the parting shot "fuckwits" is a pretty serious personal attack. Not a mild insult. There is some debate about whether "silly sausage" is a mild insult, it is true. But those other two are not in doubt. --] 23:09, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
			====Mixed signals 2====
			23.1) During the dispute, what little comment Worldtraveller received was largely devoted to defending or attacking his right to continue the dispute on talk pages. He was advised to follow the dispute resolution process by some editors ( ), but little support was given to his attempts to do so by those who supported his campaign.
	:'''Comment by Arbitrators:'''		:'''Comment by Arbitrators:'''
Line 575:		Line 1,418:
	:'''Comment by parties:'''		:'''Comment by parties:'''
	::		::
			:'''Comment by others:'''
			:: This is a complete rewording and a complete change of emphasis. My initial thoughts on this were unclear. Worldtraveller's problem behavior wasn't ''solely'' his personal attacks (for which he apologised) but his choice of inappropriate means to pursue his dispute. This should have been picked up, given the collective experience of those Wikipedians who got involved. I have added some extra items to the evidence page to support this. --] 16:57, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
			:::So Worldtraveller was at fault for trying to discuss the situation, when he should have come straight to RFArb? -- ] ] 17:39, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
			::::Following Tony's comments earlier, I think Tony believes that this actually lessens the blame on Worldtraveller, since he was given bad advice. --] 17:48, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
			::::: Ideogram has it right. I am in fact saying the opposite of what ALoan thinks I'm saying. I believe that some of the responsibility for Worldtraveller's inappropriate and destructive path was lack of good advice. While I normally would expect an experienced editor like Worldtraveller to know about the dispute resolution process, it's pretty obvious that he doesn't know much. That he did attempt to use RFC demonstrates that he was attempting to follow it as best he could. --] 18:11, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
			::Sorry, but I can't agree with the assessment that Worldtraveller wasn't pointed towards dispute resolution options. I listed four ( ) such notices in my evidence section. Heck, I cited his failure to follow that advice in my to him. There were definitely 'mixed signals' about whether his actions were proper or not... indeed, he and ALoan are both ''still'' suggesting that Worldtraveller didn't do anything too seriously wrong, but there was no failure to mention dispute resolution options. --] 22:33, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
			::: Yes, you're right. I've added the cases you cited, and changed the wording. --] 00:35, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
			====Mixed signals played a part====
			23.2) During the course of discussion about InShaneee's complaint about what he perceived as ongoing harassment by Worldtraveller, statements by some experienced Wikipedians were conflicting. The conflicting opinions led InShaneee and Worldtraveller to seperately feel vindicated in their actions and dismissive of criticsm. That Worldtraveller's behaivour was not clearly settled as being inappropriate at this stage was a large factor in the further escalation of this dispute.
			:'''Comment by Arbitrators:'''
			::
			:'''Comment by parties:'''
			:'''Comment by others:'''
			:: Proposed. I worked this out before Tony presented 23.1. I thought I would still offer it even though I agree with 23.1 as well. It has a slightly different angle. The AN/I thread should have determined where Wordtraveller had crossed the line into harrassment and put him on the proper path to dispute resolution. I don't think the conversation before the CBD's block did anything to help the situation. Neither did it appear to heading towards any clonclusion on the issue up to that point. Obviously Worldtraveller should still have stopped his behaivour unless it was made clear that it would be appropriate to continue. Filing and RfC on himself would have been a good step at that point to move things along, but it easy to say with hindsight.--<i><span style="color:#9966FF;">Birgitte</span><span style="color:#CC99CC; font-size:small;">SB</span></i> 17:50, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
			:: I like this. --] 18:13, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
			::It's not objectionable, but it is worth noting that both users are "big boys," as it were, and really can't be "lead astray" by comments from other users. E.g. Inshaneee is an administrator and should know well that blocks need wide discussion, esp. when aimed at long time users, and WorldTraveller is a long time user who knows well that there could be people on the other side. Both have strong minds and developed characters. Thus, yes, they encountered different opinions, just as these myriad "comments from other parties" show different opinions. I think the people advising WorldTraveller were much more neutral parties than was true on the other side, but I expect there is difference of opinion there, too. ] 02:43, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
			:::I don't really disagree with you. However this finding of fact I believe looks beyond the original dispute to CBD's block as well. If the thread mentioned above had come to the conclusion WT had crossed the line; CBD's block would likely not have been contested. Of course WT may have also changed tactics if that had been made clear; leaving no reason for a block. No offence to those who commented in that thread (This is a general problem beyond this incident) but these sorts of discussions are not given space on the project to give people an opportunity to simply pontificate their opinons without actually looking into the incident very deeply. These disscusions are given space so that a conclusion can be reached on ''how to handle'' the situation. The two comments in questions are not given with a conclusion in mind but more the angle of defending a particular party and this '''contributed to the escalation'''. I do not mean to imply those comments are amoung the worst decisions made during this incident. But let lay all the cards on the table. Let's list everything that contributed to the escalation here in the interests of gaining a full understanding of how a inappropriate 24 hour block became such a mess.--<i><span style="color:#9966FF;">Birgitte</span><span style="color:#CC99CC; font-size:small;">SB</span></i> 12:54, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
			::::I want to add that by "given space on the project"; I mean in general terms. I still believe the above mentioned thread did not belong on AN/I. Inshaneee should have followed dispute resolution when he felt WT crossed the line into harrassment. Posting a thread on AN/I can be seen as implicitly asking for WT to be blocked by someone else rather than a sincere attempt to resolve the dispute.--<i><span style="color:#9966FF;">Birgitte</span><span style="color:#CC99CC; font-size:small;">SB</span></i> 13:01, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
			::::: Reading between the lines, it looks as if the fuss over ] played into this. ] had blocked WorldTraveller on 15 February for breaking the ], and ] warned him over civility or personal attacks during the course of that editing the next day, over his harassment of InShaneee and his interaction with other users on the essay talk page. The two subjects seemed to get bound up in a "World Traveller as problem editor" paradigm, which is to be expected on Misplaced Pages. --] 13:37, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
			===InShaneee did not respond appropriately to Worldtraveller===
			24) InShaneee failed to respond adequately to Worldtraveller's repeated requests to explain or discuss the reasons for his block of Worldtraveller. In particular, he did not explain or discuss why he characterized Worldtraveller's edits as "vandalism" nor why he had felt it was appropriate for him to block Worldtraveller while he was engaged in a dispute with him.
			:'''Comment by Arbitrators:'''
			:: Proposed. ] ] 19:47, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
			:'''Comment by parties:'''
			::
			:'''Comment by others:'''
			::
			===Blocks by HighInBC===
			25) ] lengthened Worldtraveller's block for "personal attacks while asking to be unblocked" and argued on ANI that increasing the block is "standard when people are abusive while asking to be unblocked.". A little later, he also blocked ], an editor of four years' standing with a previously spotless block log, for arguing against the Worldtraveller blocks in a supposedly insulting way.
			:'''Comment by Arbitrators:'''
			::
			:'''Comment by parties:'''
			::
			:'''Comment by others:'''
			::Proposed. Although the affair was being actively discussed on ANI, and HighInBC is a newish admin (3-4 months), he sought no community input before placing the blocks, and showed no interest in the spontaneous protests from experienced admins (note especially ] ). Compare my evidence. ] | ] 21:15, 18 March 2007 (UTC).
			:I did lengthen the block for the reasons stated. I don't agree with the "supposedly", I provided plenty of evidence on the users talk page when I did the block. Please keep in mind that other admins were agreeing that the block was warranted.
			:I must say I a bit lost here, I do not know anything about the conflict regarding InShaneee's block of WT. My involvement in this matter was simply my response to the manner in which the discussion took place. If I did not have this page on my watchlist I would not even know the these things were being drafted against me, a note would have been nice. I attempted to talk about this before and was .
			:I don't know much about arbitration, I am not listed as on involved party, but I am being messed into this whole thing. What exactly is expected of me? <small>]<sup>(Need help? ])</sup></small> 21:47, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
			::You were ignored? By me? You say the thing which is not, I suppose from forgetting . I'm disappointed, as I put thought and care into it. Perhaps you'd like to strike through your erroneous statement. ] | ] 22:12, 18 March 2007 (UTC).
			:::HighInBC, don't worry about it. A proposed finding which rests on the 'fair and impartial' belief that "fuckwit" is only 'supposedly' an insult seems unlikely to pass IMO. --] 22:47, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
			:I was not aware that that message was a response to my communication to you, I thought it was a response to the post I made on BunchofGrapes' page. Regardless, I responded, ] and that seemed to be the end of it. At what point did communication break down to such a point that bringing it up in arbitration was needed? <small>]<sup>(Need help? ])</sup></small> 22:40, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
			===InShaneee's original statement contained significant inaccuracies===
			26) In his original statement in this arbitration case, InShaneee claimed that ''I've said on AN:I more than once that I would welcome intervention from MedCab or a similar body (to which no response was given)''. This claim is not backed by any of the presented evidence.
			:'''Comment by Arbitrators:'''
			::
			:'''Comment by parties:'''
			::Worth noting I think. He hasn't explained why he made this claim when mediation was never mentioned at any time during the discussions. ] 09:44, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
	:'''Comment by others:'''		:'''Comment by others:'''
Line 589:		Line 1,504:
	:'''Comment by Arbitrators:'''		:'''Comment by Arbitrators:'''
			::Appropriate for a minor incident ] 14:05, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
	::
			::I think this needs to be restated, even if as Irpen says all admins should already be aware of this, it's clear that not all of this message has got through. If this block was more recent or if there had been instances of similar behaviour since, I would be pushing for stronger remedies here; I hope InShaneee realises this, and that repetition would be most unwise. ] (]:]) 11:04, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
	:'''Comment by parties:'''		:'''Comment by parties:'''
Line 597:		Line 1,513:
	::Proposed. ] 03:56, 11 March 2007 (UTC)		::Proposed. ] 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. --] 06:10, 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. --] 06:10, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
			::::Some admonishing doesn't hurt, I suppose, though InShanee has already acknowledged his error and apologised. ] 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. ] 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. ] 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. --] 12:06, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
			:::::InShaneee apologised, vaguely, seven weeks late. He didn't apologise for the stonewalling, and that is what's brought us here. ] 15:58, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
			:::::: I do agree that it would have helped if InShaneee had said ''something'' constructive in the early days, when the block was discussed. However when I spoke to him in February he felt, and I agree with him on this, that the block was ancient history. Obviously InShaneee compounded a bad block by a failure to communicate. It's where you describe his failure to engage with you over a long period as "stonewalling" that you lose me. The block had been discussed and severely criticised. InShaneee showed no sign of repeating the error. Perhaps that ought to have been enough, though many people seem to think that it isn't. Leaving aside your inappropriate way of going about it for the most part, which I don't condone, I think you could have made your point well in an RFC and regret that your attempt to do so failed. --] 16:27, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
			:::I think it is fair for the first incident ] 06:54, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
			I have no involvement with this case - and don't know the facts, but a finding that insists "on only in strict accordance with the blocking policy" - seems quite out of line with how we operate. Of course, blocks shouldn't be used willy-nilly, but since when did we insist on acting only in 'strict accordance' with rules? We chose admins for their judgement and do so for good reason - rules will never cover every instance and sometimes common sense needs applied. Discuss it, confer, don't be a controversial and unilateral loan-gunman, but don't hold back from doing something obvious and uncontroversial because section 24ii(2.f) hasn't quite been followed. This turn of phrase is a charter for trolls and wiki-lawyers.--]<sup>g</sup> 10:48, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
			:There is no pride of authorship with the phrasing. If this is still deemed necessary at this point (I think the proceedings themselves already leave InShaneee reasonably well admonished), Doc's point can be taken into account in formulating the final wording. ] 19:57, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
	===Decorum in arbitration cases===		===Decorum in arbitration cases===
Line 602:		Line 1,527:
	:'''Comment by Arbitrators:'''		:'''Comment by Arbitrators:'''
			::Not an appropriate remedy for the nasty behavior we have seen here. ] 14:06, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
	::
	:'''Comment by parties:'''		:'''Comment by parties:'''
Line 610:		Line 1,535:
	::Proposed. ], 03:56, 11 March 2007 (UTC)		::Proposed. ], 03:56, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
	:::Support. That this even needs to be raised is unfortunate. --] 06:10, 11 March 2007 (UTC)		:::Support. That this even needs to be raised is unfortunate. --] 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. --] 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. ] 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. --] 12:03, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
			All the stuff about "Scoobies" etc? This didn't help things, Tony. ] 14:55, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
			:: Perhaps unfortunate, but there is no way that I could have predicted that my choice of the phrase would cause such offence. Even now I find this quite inexplicable, but I accept that I caused offence and I apologised for that as soon as I became aware that the objection wasn't just some ideosyncracy of Newyorkbrad's. --] 15:49, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
			::: Really? There was no way you could have anticipated that? It was just the choice of phrase, too, hmmm? Accusing every other person posting a comment (at that time) but the two real participants (oh, and yourself) of being a conspiracy was not indecorous? And you '''still''' haven't given anyone a reason for believing that you're a party of this dispute. ] 01:21, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
			: I'll answer Geogre's statement about my not being a party to the dispute, rather than rehash his other accusations. I have been a party to the dispute for some weeks now, working behind the scenes to advise him how to deal with ongoing harassment by Worldtraveller. I have referred to this several times, and so has InShaneee. --] 05:01, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
			::I haven't seen InShaneee mention this, and I've seen no evidence that this supposed 'behind the scenes' discussion took place. ] 01:14, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
			: No, you haven't. You'll have to take our word for it. --] 01:18, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
			::I also seem to have missed where does InShaneee mentions this. Perhaps InShaneee would confirm that you are acting as an informal adviser or - as it seems from your input to this page - advocate?
			::It seems a bit odd for a "behind the scenes" adviser to add themselves as a party to a dispute - I have not seen anyone do that in an arbitration case before. I am not a compulsive follower of arbitrations - perhaps someone could point me to another case where that has been done? - -- ] ] 17:58, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
			::: Could you explain why you find it odd? It seems natural to me that a person who has close knowledge of part of a dispute might join that dispute. Not doing so would, to me, seem a little strange. --] 18:10, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
			::::I am very happy to explain. Perhaps you would be so kind as to respond to some of my queries on this page.
			::::To my mind, the parties to an arbitration are the ones who are in dispute or against whom allegations have been made, and are the ones against whom sanctions could potentially be imposed. Would you agree with that? You are apparently advising one of the parties, but does not seem to me to be quite the same thing as being a party to the arbitration. Are you in dispute with Worldtraveller or InShaneee? Have allegations been made against you in relation to the dispute between Worldtraveller and InShaneee? Do you expect to have sanctions imposed against you for your actions in relation to that dispute? Perhaps it is an unnecessary nicety, but I am not aware of previous examples. -- ] ] 18:30, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
			::::: A party to a dispute may be someone who joins a dispute because of his experiences and makes statements advocating a point of view. I think it would be inappropriate for me to represent myself, by omission, as an uninvolved or neutral party. But I don't want to annoy anyone who may imagine that being a party to a dispute is something that comes with special rights, of which I may be suspected of taking advantage. So I removed myself. It means nothing to me, it's just a formality, a way of saying "actually yes, I hope everybody realises that I'm not a neutral party in this." I thought I was doing a good thing. Since this isn't true in this case, I happily undo it. If you really imagine that not being a party to a dispute makes me unlikely to be subject to remedies, well you're probably wrong. As one of those involved in advising one of the primary disputants, which despite my advice still led to arbitration, I would expect remedies to be applicable to me. At least one such proposed remedy enjoining "all parties (Remedy 6, proposed by Mackensen) certainly applies to me, even if I'm not any longer on the list of involved parties (why am I no longer there, again?) Had I researched the case appropriately and advised InShaneee correctly, then this arbitration would not have been necessary. --] 23:23, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
	===Worldtraveller===		===Worldtraveller===
Line 615:		Line 1,566:
	:'''Comment by Arbitrators:'''		:'''Comment by Arbitrators:'''
			::Phrased poorly, but yes, of attitude is wholly inappropriate. ] 14:09, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
	::
	:'''Comment by parties:'''		:'''Comment by parties:'''
Line 622:		Line 1,573:
	:'''Comment by others:'''		:'''Comment by others:'''
	::Proposed. ] 03:56, 11 March 2007 (UTC)		::Proposed. ] 03:56, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
			:::''Ultra vires.'' ] 10:55, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
	===Worldtraveller (alternative)===		====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.		3.1) 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 ''and that InShanee understands that it was inappropriate not to have engaged in a full discussion of the matter, and to put aside his grievances and drop the matter.''
	:'''Comment by Arbitrators:'''		:'''Comment by Arbitrators:'''
	:: This is sensible. ] ] 20:22, 11 March 2007 (UTC)		:: This is sensible. ] ] 20:22, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
			:: Acceptable ] 14:10, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
			:: Acceptable to me as well. ] (]:]) 11:05, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
			:: I've reworded this to address Worldtravellers real issues. ] ] 17:59, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
	:'''Comment by parties:'''		:'''Comment by parties:'''
			::This misses the point by implying that the block was what I have been aggrieved about. My grievance with the block was somewhat assuaged by the (seven weeks late) apology and certainly much more so by InShaneee's statement on that matter since this case started. What I'm still furious about, and what I think was far far worse than the block, is his ignoring of both my questions directly to him and the discussion on AN immediately afterwards. A one-off (if it was such) misuse of admin tools is something I can forgive; the follow up, his ignoring me and everyone else who criticised him for seven weeks, making one statement with no apology for the unaccountable delay in responding, then returning to stonewalling, is what I am still angry about and have yet to see any contrition for from InShaneee. ] 15:54, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
	::
	:'''Comment by others:'''		:'''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 Misplaced Pages have seen more fragrant blocks and blockers. --] 06:22, 11 March 2007 (UTC)		::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 Misplaced Pages have seen more fragrant blocks and blockers. --] 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. ] 11:25, 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. ] 11:25, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
			::::Sensible suggestion. ] 10:56, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
			:: I think this is agreeable to all, and the only satisfactory way forward. --] 05:06, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
			::<s>Well put. --] 05:17, 13 March 2007 (UTC)</s> I withdraw my support of the reworded version. The fact that those are Worldtraveller's real issues does not make them legitimate grievances. --] 00:48, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
			:::I still support the reworded version. The fact is that InShaneee made a very bad block and refused to discuss for several weeks. Although I don't condone WorldTraveller's actions after the apology was given by InShaneee, and I support the actions of CBD and HiBC, there is no escaping that the original block was not for vandalism. At most it was (rather low-key) edit warring over content, of which InShaneee was equally guilty. This was certainly not a blocking offence and any block for edit warring was both waaaaay premature and from the wrong person. Furthermore, although he overreacted, WorldTraveller is an enormously valuable editor. Although I've been critical of some of his conduct, his loss to the project is something it can ill afford. We should be encouraging him to come back and should make clear how valued he is. It is not a case of either/or, i.e. we can acknowledge his value and the wrongness of the original block '''and''' decline to give him a free pass or make excuses for his actions. ] 07:09, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
			::::InShaneee has stated he is willing to apologize for the behavior referenced in this reworded version if it will satisfy WorldTraveller. If both of them can agree on this wording then it would seem we have a solution. --] 07:52, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
			:::::::Great ] 06:56, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
	===InShaneee is desysoped===		===InShaneee is desysoped===
	5) For inappropriate blocking, InShannee is desysoped. He may reapply at any time via ].		4) For inappropriate blocking, InShannee is desysoped. He may reapply at any time via ].
	:'''Comment by Arbitrators:'''		:'''Comment by Arbitrators:'''
			::One inappropriate block is not sufficient grounds, however does raise serious questions. ] 14:13, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
	::
	:'''Comment by parties:'''		:'''Comment by parties:'''
			::In response to Fred above, and everyone else who mentioned that comment, that was intended to be sarcasm, although that obviously was not the correct time nor place for me to be making such a comment. I had been hoping that someone would respond to Worldtraveler's tone in some fashion, and when no one did, and indeed some condoned and encouraged it, my worse nature got the best of me. I certainly do not believe that, and in fact find it to be an absurd concept. --] 16:14, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
	::
	:'''Comment by others:'''		:'''Comment by others:'''
	::Proposed. (first arbcom comment, please don't ], thanks). &mdash; ] <sup><i>(])</i></sup> 04:36, 11 March 2007 (UTC)		::Proposed. (first arbcom comment, please don't ], thanks). &mdash; ] <sup><i>(])</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. ] 04:39, 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. ] 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. --] 06:12, 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. --] 06:12, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
Line 652:		Line 1,613:
	::::::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. ] 13:06, 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. ] 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages not harm it and when an administrator place an unjustifiable block, he is harming Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages. 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. ] ] 19:31, 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages not harm it and when an administrator place an unjustifiable block, he is harming Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages. 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. ] ] 19:31, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
			:::InShaneee 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. ] 11:05, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
			::::OK fine, then maybe you could tell me what was wrong with this answer? My first block by him of 24 hours was due to this.
			::::Second, the one of 72 hours. He first warns of a block for this statment. while later I have shown him that the person who I was conversing was making the same exact remarks. Since the warning as a consequence of that user report to InShaneee. Infuriated that the same administrator who unjustfully blocked me has the audacity to warn me again I answered:
			::::This cost me 72 hours of blocking. He never apologised for the unjustified 24 hours of block, yet had the audacity to warn me again. That this guy remains or not an administrator, I will never recognize his authority, as he never apologized. You can not understand how frustrating it could be to be blocked when you should not have been, you could only understand when it happens to you. On the IRC he claimed that he blocked me because I was calling others racist. When I corrected that in my userpage, he edited it and warned me of another block. ] ] 15:36, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
			:::::Do you intend to enter these (and anything else you have on this and/or other incidents) into evidence? If there is a pattern of behavior, this should probably be looked at. --] 15:45, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
			::::::The thing is that there is right now another Arbitration case in which I am involved and have no time for my own evidences. It depend how many times remain until the Arbcom comes with a verdict in this particular case. I will see what I can do though. ] ] 16:19, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
			This really needs to be pursued in another case, or perhaps in mediation. My comment was solely about the block to WorldTraveller, not about the merits of blocks to anyone else, or anything that might come out of the woodwork about his past conduct. ] 03:27, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
			::To strong a remedy for one isolated incident studied here. Warning is enough ] 07:02, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
	===InShaneee is de-sysopped (alternative)===		===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.		5) 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:'''		:'''Comment by Arbitrators:'''
			::Definitely a problem, but he has apologized for it. ] 14:14, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
	::
			::Yes a problem. He apologized for the block but I don't recall any apology for the lack of discussion. InShaneee, did you apologize for that? ] ] 18:08, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
	:'''Comment by parties:'''		:'''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. ] was de-sysopped for ''failure to relate appropriately with other administrators'' and to me that's InShaneee's biggest failing. ] 10:57, 11 March 2007 (UTC)		::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. ] was de-sysopped for ''failure to relate appropriately with other administrators'' and to me that's InShaneee's biggest failing. ] 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. ] 19:51, 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. ] 19:51, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
			::::Regarding Fred Bauder's comment - InShaneee apologised for the block. He's never apologised for his subsequent stonewalling. The block is not what got us to here, it was the refusal to take part in any discussion afterwards. ] 15:48, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
			:::::Was he obligated to do so? I'm not convinced on this point. ] ] 15:51, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
			::In response to Paul August above, no, I suppose I haven't, which is definatly an oversight on my part. I would be fully willing to, if anyone thinks it would help the situation any. --] 03:32, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
			:::If you feel actually do feel an apology is warranted, should it really matter whether it might "help"? ] 04:30, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
			::::It's not so much that. I'm just worried that it might be taken as disingenuous (as the last one has been accused of), and I'd really rather not exacerbate the situation. I say this because Worldtraveler has already said that regardless of any apology given at this point, he will not declare the dispute 'resolved'. I still say that if ANYONE would like to hear it, belated as it may be, I will give it. --] 05:38, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
	:'''Comment by others:'''		:'''Comment by others:'''
	::In his statement on ] when opening the case was being discussed, ] definitely acknowledged criticism and stated that he should have sought more discussion. For that reason, I would encourage rejection of this proposal. ] 11:19, 11 March 2007 (UTC)		::In his statement on ] when opening the case was being discussed, ] definitely acknowledged criticism and stated that he should have sought more discussion. For that reason, I would encourage rejection of this proposal. ] 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. ] ] 19:40, 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. ] ] 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. --] 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. ] ] 14:31, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
			:::::: I'm sorry I remember little of that period, except that probably Cool Cat was around, too. If you have evidence and can spare the time, you could post it to the evidence page or email it to the arbitrators. --] 19:12, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
	::::The edit referred to is . ] 19:57, 11 March 2007 (UTC)		::::The edit referred to is . ] 19:57, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
			This proposal should be roundly rejected. Despite making one mistake, InShaneee is a valued member of this community. ] 11:02, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
			;:Waring is enough. De-sysopping is over the top 07:03, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
			====InShaneee is de-sysopped (alternative 2)====
			5) For blocking a user with whom he was in dispute, refusing to interact sensibly with administrators or the blocked party during initial discussion of the block on the administrator's noticeboard, refusing to engage in dialogue with the blocked party, refusing to acknowledge any error at all until seven weeks had passed, having failed to offer any explanation or apology for his refusal to communicate, and for his intransigence having led to a case that could have been resolved over two months ago reaching the arbitration committee, InShaneee is de-sysopped.
			:'''Comment by Arbitrators:'''
			::
			:'''Comment by parties:'''
			:: Just thought I'd concisely summarise what I see as the main things InShaneee is guilty of. Given the failure to fully and frankly apologise for the block until this case was brought, and the ongoing failure to offer any explanation for the refusal to communicate with either the blocked party or fellow administrators, I don't see that a 'strong admonishment' will have any effect on this user. ] 11:59, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
			:'''Comment by others:'''
			::Very wordy, and an unnecessary pile-on, even if it's all true (I'm not really following). Just wanted to say that if this passes, I'll eat my own head. A more succinct version would be better. ] 12:26, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
	===All participants admonished===		===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.		6) 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:'''		:'''Comment by Arbitrators:'''
Line 678:		Line 1,672:
	:: Probably the most appropriate single remedy proposed here. --] 16:59, 11 March 2007 (UTC)		:: Probably the most appropriate single remedy proposed here. --] 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. ] 21:45, 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. ] 21:45, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
			:: Honestly, I'd prefer if this was clarified to include only myself and Worldtraveler. I don't see that CBC and HighinBC have done anything wrong, and would not like to see any implication that they have. Even if the Arbs do see that they have acted innapropriately, I hope they can at least concede that the scope of this case did not include presenting evidence against either of them in any meaningful capacity. --] 16:19, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
			::: S'ok. A less 'authoritarian' approach might have convinced Worldtraveller to stop. By the time I got involved (basically, the very end of the matter) there had already been unsuccessful efforts to resolve this gently. I saw that and assumed another attempt along those lines wouldn't fare any better... but it couldn't have hurt to try. --] 23:49, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
	:'''Comment by others:'''		:'''Comment by others:'''
	::Works for me. I know I was disappointed in my inability to conceive of a 'peaceful' solution to the matter. --] 16:56, 11 March 2007 (UTC)		::Works for me. I know I was disappointed in my inability to conceive of a 'peaceful' solution to the matter. --] 16:56, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
Line 690:		Line 1,685:
	:::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. ] ] 02:42, 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. ] ] 02:42, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
			::::Mackensen, I wrote some suggestions for improving the RFAr process on this page, addressed directly to you, . 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. ] | ] 03:36, 12 March 2007 (UTC).
	===Template===
			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. ] 10:59, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
	1) {text of proposed remedy}
			: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.--] 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. --] 14:03, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
			===Withdrawn===
			<s>7) InShaneee is admonished that the role of Administrators is not to rule over the community, but to help to maintain the community space and the encyclopedia.</s>
	:'''Comment by Arbitrators:'''		:'''Comment by Arbitrators:'''
			:: I suspect that InShaneee's comment there was sarcasm and that he does not actually believe it. ] (]:]) 11:11, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
	::
			:::I am willing to assume good faith and accept that InShaneee's comment was meant as sarcasm. I will say that when I initially read that remark I assumed he was serious. ] ] 19:01, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
			:'''Comment by parties:'''
			::That was ill-timed sarcasm. I don't think I 'rule' over anything or anyone. This is just a site, and I'm just some guy who happens to spend some time here, and have a certain flag in my account code. --] 16:21, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
			::It was your only input into the discussion. No-one had anything else to go on to judge your real intent. That was a failing on your part. ] 15:46, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
			:'''Comment by others:'''
			::Proposed, as a reaction to , which I think is the heart of the matter. I've never done this before, the wording might be awkward, anyone have any suggestions? --] 15:09, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
			::As a matter of wording, I think your proposal is fine; in any event, the arbitrators will feel free to reword it if they choose to adopt your concept for the final decision. Substantively, I don't know that another admonition is needed for a single ill-advised flippant comment from ten weeks ago ... although I was following the discussion on ANI very closely at the time, and I distinctly remember wincing when I read those words, and thinking "this is not going to be good." ] 15:12, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
			::When I think about it, this should probably be folded into the other admonition (which I actually think, along with this, should be directed at the community and at all admins as a whole, rather than specifically at InShaneee), I just didn't want to edit someone else's proposal. What's the right way to do this sort of thing? (I've never participated in an RFAR, even as an "other", before). --] 15:37, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
			::Withdrawn. I accept InShaneees explanation. --] 13:02, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
			===Tony Sidaway banned from arbitration pages===
			8) Tony Sidaway is banned for one year from participating in arbitration cases he is not personally involved in.
			:'''Comment by Arbitrators:'''
			::Proposed ] 16:55, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
			::I don't agree. Banning users outright is a major step. ] (]:]) 11:15, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
	:'''Comment by parties:'''		:'''Comment by parties:'''
			::I must oppose this, as I assume that this begins by referring to this case. Unlike Giano, Tony has some degree of involvement in this case (surely at least as much as Bishonen and George claim to), while I've never interacted with Giano before in the least, nor does it seem that Worldtraveler has. --] 18:53, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
	::
	:'''Comment by others:'''		:'''Comment by others:'''
			::This seems extreme. I believe Tony was contributing his views in good faith. ++]: ]/] 18:43, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
	::
			:::I didn't see this when I entered my thoughts on the same thing at Proposed temporary injunctions above. I'll just have to repeat myself, sorry. I support keeping Tony off arbitration pages, with regret. I believe that without a ban from THIS page, for example, this workshop will soon look like that in the "Giano case"—i. e. be unusable for practical purposes—from the sheer mass, repetitiveness, and exhausting persistence of Tony's editing. (Compare ], who I believe was community banned, arbitrated, and blocked for just such an inability to stop talking.) As for the content of his posts, I find it impossible to believe that Tony is editing this board in good faith. I would like to, but I can't. My concern is that the irrelevant attacks and the ] of rhetoric will drive away sensible editors, who could have enriched the discussion, but find it meaningless at such a level. ] | ] 18:47, 12 March 2007 (UTC).
	===Template===
	1) {text of proposed remedy}
			::World are you there? do pop up and say we have had interaction on more than a few occasions. I regard World as one of the few editors indispensible to the project. Regarding Bishonen's astute comment "THIS page, for example, this workshop will soon look like that in the "Giano case"" — I rather think that is the intention now in certain quarters - eh Fred? I only popped up here to tell Tony that this has nothing to do with him, if you check my contributions here, you will find that is still the case. World is big enough and ugly enough to fight his own battles - in fact wiki-wise he is very big! ] 19:00, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
			:::Sorry, been at work all day and didn't want to edit from a different IP address. Anyway, unlike the claimed interaction between InShaneee and Tony Sidaway for which there seems to be no evidence on the wiki, Giano and myself have had many dealings with each other over a long period of time, a lot of the time in the context of FAC where we've often commented on each other's nominations. ] 23:49, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
			:::Too extreme. The same applies to Giano. Whether or not either has helped here (and I've expressed opinions about Tony's participation), they are acting in good faith - and we do encourage such participation. This seems like a situation for admonishments about not inflaming disputes, not a situation for bans. ] 22:51, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
			::Both this and the next should pass together or not at all. --] 05:21, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
			:::"Not at all" being my strong preference. ++]: ]/] 15:11, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
			:::: Overkill for both Tony and especially Giano ] 07:05, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
			:: Tony hasn't been helpful here in the least. CBD, HighInBC, and the principals have been. I've pointed out illogic. Bishonen has offered massive amounts of evidence. Tony has simply said that he's involved by some secret means. InShaneee '''here''' says that he was (although why he was taking advice on dispute resolution from Tony Sidaway is a thing only he can know), but all of this is not evidentiary. ] 21:22, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
			::: InShaneee sought advice and support in a number of places. On dispute resolution, I'm usually a good bet because I know my way around Misplaced Pages better than most and I'm not scared to tell someone that he's been a naughty boy. There is nothing "secret" about means other than wikis. Email has existed since the 1970s, IRC and other chat formats since the 1990s, and then there are telephone, Usenet, forums, SMS, meeting at Starbucks, and a host of other "secret" (that is, relatively private) means of communication. Whether my contributions (including a substantial amount on the evidence page) have been useful is not for Geogre to say. --] 23:26, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
			:: If there is one thing that would have made this workshop page more focused and usable, it would have been to eliminate Tony's meandering and tangential snarkiness. Frankly, it does Arbcom no good to issue finger wags about "decorum" if they're not willing to back it up with a nice stiff smack when someone violates it as egregiously as Tony has here. We can quibble about whether a year is too much, but I urge Arbcom to seriously consider implementing this remedy for some time period, applied against Tony Sidaway and anyone else whom they feel appropriate. If nothing else, it should serve to help keep ''future'' workshop pages from becoming (as much of) a chaotic free-for-all. ] 14:45, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
			::: Well if it was just a matter of snarkiness, I'd say we had enough voices for a whole symphony. I don't think it would be correct to describe this workshop as in any way a "chaotic free-for-all." Your mileage may vary. --] 15:20, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
			===Giano II banned from arbitration pages===
			9) Giano II is banned indefinitely from participating in arbitration pages unless he is a party to the arbitration.
	:'''Comment by Arbitrators:'''		:'''Comment by Arbitrators:'''
			::Proposed ] 17:00, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
	::
			::I don't agree. Banning users from commenting on arbitrations is a step we should probably not take so lightly. ] (]:]) 11:13, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
			:'''Comment by parties:'''
			::I think this would be very useful. Not only have I (nor Worldtraveler, from what I understand) never interacted with this user, but he has said nothing about this case whatsoever. --] 18:55, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
			:'''Comment by others:'''
			::I can understand why the arbitrators may want to limit the side-tracks that are explored in this RFArb - ignoring for a second who started exploring those byways - but are you (Fred) really saying that Tony Sidaway and Giano are such ]s that you don't think there are any circumstances in which either of them could have anything useful to say in an arbitration, other than one in which they are a party (the former, for a year, and the latter, ever)?
			::And why this differential treatment (1 year for Tony, indefinite for Giano)? It is not Giano who has posted to these pages almost 150 times in the last few days. -- ] ] 18:24, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
			::::Giano has a history ] 18:40, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
			:::::Someone correct me if I am wrong, but I don't recall ''any'' previous instance in which Giano has participated in a case that didn't closely involve him. ] 18:44, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
			:::::: Contributing to arbitration cases by relatively uninvolved third parties is ''encouraged''. Enlisting more community involvement is one of the reasons for which the workshop pages were introduced by Fred Bauder in mid-2005. However this is not to say that Giano and I have much to be proud of about our contributions here. We have both been disruptive in different ways. --] 18:50, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
			::::::: Tony, please would you adumbrate how you and Giano have been disruptive here in your different ways? -- ] ] 19:34, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
			:::::::: I've expressed suspicions that, either by being expressed or by the manner of their expression, caused more heat than light. Giano has used the workshop for the sole purpose of personal attacks on Fred Bauder, myself and possibly others. --] 19:43, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
			::::::::ALoan, what did you mean by "Adumbrate"? gives "foreshadow vaguely", "give a vague outline" or "obscure or overshadow". Did Tony's explanation obscure or overshadow things? I may have missed the mark here but it seemed fairly clear as answers go, rather than vague or obscure. Or am I confused by your usage? Adumbrate is not a word one encounters all that often, and, frankly, I find myself perplexed by your word choice here, and I thought myself fairly erudite. Were you using the word to obscure or to enlighten the situation? ++]: ]/] 19:53, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
			:::::::::Outline. Tony understood. -- ] ] 17:52, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
			::: Edit count is never a measure of disruption. --] 18:29, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
			::::''What, never?'' No, never! ''What, never?'' Hardly ever!
			::::I'm sure you don't find it disruptive, Tony, in the same way that you so often seen to produce "inadvertent", "unintended" or "unnecessary" results, and then find yourself apologising for it. -- ] ] 18:36, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
			::::: As if it were necessary to underline: ''absolutely'' never. A lot of edits just means somebody has a lot to say. This is a ''good'' thing. Workshop pages are provided to enlist community input. --] 18:51, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
			::::::In that case I will have to respectfully disagree with you, Tony. I find that your pattern of multiple edits - and particularly your habit of inserting insults into your edits - disruptive. I can live with it, I guess, but I would rather not have to suffer it. I am sorry to have to say so. Enlisting community input does not mean giving one contributor free rein to monopolise the discussion, or send it hurtling off on tangents. Perhaps the number of times you have "apologised" for your comments so far is indicative. -- ] ] 17:52, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
			:::*Oh don't be so ridiculous Fred, you can't ban me for pointing out what every one is thinking and you and your Arbcom colleagues were too reticent to do. I athink your proposition is almost trolling for publicity and action - be careful you don't get it! - I just don't understand what it is with Tony that makes you all so timid, he doesn't worry or frighten me in the least. I suppose I shall have to go on the Arbcom myself and finally have this business sorted - we can't keep on having these pages run by Tony can we? ] 18:33, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
			::::::And here we are again - exactly what I said would happen - no one has a clue where they are - or where thay are posting, on this very page we have this - If only people would listen to me ] 18:44, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
			::This seems extreme. I believe Giano was contributing his views in good faith. ++]: ]/] 18:43, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
			::??? What for? If Giano has done anything else at this board than react to Tony's trolling, attempt to contain it, and enter pleas for the arbitrators to contain it, I must have missed it. ] | ] 18:49, 12 March 2007 (UTC).
			:::::* I don't want anyone else to comment here. Fred is trolling! We have all been ignoring and turning a blind eye to his daft comments in so many cases now for quite long enough. We all make allowances for respected editors etc, but I do think now the time has come to point out that Fred has been making odd suggestions on too many cases for quite long enough, or am I alone in thinking this too? ] 18:52, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
			===Tony Sidaway and Giano II admonished===
			10) Tony Sidaway and Giano II are admonished to be civil, particularly on arbitration pages, and Tony Sidaway is in particular admonished to refrain from removing comments by others.
			:'''Comment by Arbitrators:'''
			::<s>Yes. ] ] 19:03, 13 March 2007 (UTC)</s> I've changed my mind. ] ] 18:40, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
	:'''Comment by parties:'''		:'''Comment by parties:'''
Line 712:		Line 1,787:
	:'''Comment by others:'''		:'''Comment by others:'''
			::Proposed --] 12:51, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
			::I am in favor of this in principle, but there don't seem to be any consequences for misbehavior. --] 00:51, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
			::Surely we hope that all contributors are civil to each other at all times, although some may not always live up to that aspiration?
			::Presumably these particular contributors would be "admonished" if there is a finding that they both have been uncivil, supported by some evidence of their incivility? -- ] ] 16:50, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
			::Better than the prior two proposals. ] 23:21, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
			:::<s>Seems reasonable</s> ] 07:06, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
			::::On the second thought I would rather remove Giano from the remedy. Tony's behavior was much worse, he started to insert into the procedings irrelevant historical events first. Giano only answered on Tony's provocation ] 08:31, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
			:::::Even when provoked, civility is important. He should not have risen to the bait. --] 15:36, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
			: In my defence, the irrelevance of my unfortunate earlier proposals only emerged over time. Sometimes reasonable suspicions are wrong. I'm all growed up now and I know that I bear primary responsibility for the reaction.--] 23:28, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
			:: How many times now has Tony been admonished? At what point will there be consequences for his egregious misbehavior on RFArb pages? We like admonishments because we believe that reasonable people will internalize the admonishment and adjust their behavior accordingly. Tony seems to be either unwilling or unable to do that. The only things that seem to help him are direct instructions from Arbcom with consequences for violating them. I suggest that he be given that help. ] 16:16, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
			::: If I were admonished in this case (and I don't think it would be an unreasonable expectation) it would be the first time I had ever been admonished in any arbitration case. I think your memory may be playing tricks on you. --] 17:28, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
			===Requests for comment===
			11) The two-person endorsement requirement in personal Requests for Comment is abolished. Requests for Comment will be archived four weeks after the last edit. All experienced editors are requested to help others in expressing their lingering disputes in RfC form. All administrators are encouraged to respond to good faith RfCs in which they are a named party, irrespective of any failings of formatting.
			:'''Comment by Arbitrators:'''
			:: Interesting idea, with considerable merit, but not within the scope of ArbCom to mandate changes to the existing RfC procedures. The Committee could however invent it's own review process, similar to an RfC, but with different procedures, perhaps tailored to a specific case, and require that that process be followed before accepting a case, or even as a remedy in a case. I think we need to be more creative in our solutions to these kinds of problems. In particular, in this case I wish we could have summoned InShaneee and Worldtraveller into a room and forced them to talk to each other. I think that would have solved the problem long ago. ] ] 19:32, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
			:'''Comment by parties:'''
	::		::
			:'''Comment by others:'''
	===Template===
			:: This is one way in which the committee could help to nudge administrators in the direction of responding to good faith RfCs. I see no reason to believe that Worldtraveller would not have been satisfied with an RfC in which his grievance was aired and InShaneee acknowledged the damage. --] 16:44, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
	1) {text of proposed remedy}
			:: I'm not sure that ArbCom can mandate change in process this way... but this seems an idea with a lot of merit that interested parties might want to push forward in the appropriate place. The current RfC scheme seems more like a waypoint that you have to go through to get here than an actual process that works, at least most of the time. Support the idea if not necessarily the mechanics. ++]: ]/] 16:51, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
			::Concur with Lar that this is a policy issue that generally would not be resolved by ArbCom. I would welcome a broader discussion on a policy page as to how the user/admin-conduct RfC procedures could be improved. ] 18:52, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
			:Suggest you propose this at ] - the alternative would be to prompt lonely editors into getting an advocate from the ] or being adopted by the adopt-a-user programme and get the advocate/adopter to attempt to resolve the dispute and then if that fails, certify the basis of the dispute (and probably help with finding diffs for the RfC as well). ] 19:47, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
			: Although arbcom doesn't generally interfere in policy formation, this would be a small tweak to an existing procedure. Just a tiny little stick of dynamite here, carefully placed, would help dispute resolution (which is the primary responsibility of the committee), and arbcom exercising its delegated prerogative appropriately would serve to clear out a lot of sacred cows at the same time. I see little merit in constructing a duplicate process. --] 23:47, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
			::On the merits, the two-person requirement serves as at least a minimal barrier to completely frivolous, trollish filings. If it were abolished, something would need to be instituted to take its place. ] 23:53, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
			::: Trolls in RfC can be ignored, just as they are ignored on talk pages. The proposed change would by no means be a panacea, but it would help to steer things back on course. RFCs are currently a mess because half of Misplaced Pages regards them as some kind of punitive measure and the other half thinks they should be ignored. Let's make them into just another place for group discussion of problems, away from talk pages. This is what they're supposed to be. --] 00:04, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
			::::Trolls ''in'' an RfC can and should be ignored like always. But a troll ''creating'' an RfC that then sits on the page of "pending RfC's" for weeks could be a time-sink for people who follow that page, and a stress on a good user who has to deal with "there's an RfC pending against me" for, under your proposal, four weeks. ] 00:11, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
			::::If it keeps the troll off your talk page, I don't see the problem. Someone who plays silly buggers like this can in any case be blocked under existing policy (I hope). People who get stressed by trolls should probably avoid interacting on the internet. --] 00:18, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
			:::::Hmmmm ... let's see what the others have to say (although I still think this should wind up on a policy page rather than here). ] 00:19, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
			:I believe this is a good idea, but not for ArbCom to implement. --] 00:53, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
			====Requests for comment, alternate====
			11.1) The committee strongly recommends that the community make the following changes, and/or other changes of similar effect, to the policy surrounding the Requests for Comment process: The two-person endorsement requirement in personal Requests for Comment to be abolished; Requests for Comment to be archived four weeks after the last edit. All experienced editors are requested to help others in expressing their lingering disputes in RfC form. All administrators are encouraged to respond to good faith RfCs in which they are a named party, irrespective of any failings of formatting.
	:'''Comment by Arbitrators:'''		:'''Comment by Arbitrators:'''
Line 724:		Line 1,837:
	:'''Comment by others:'''		:'''Comment by others:'''
			:: Proposed, since jurisdictional issues were raised about the original version. --] 01:46, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
	::
			::Even this is problematic. The community defines policy, the ArbCom interprets it. A recommendation going the other way is a bit like the tail wagging the dog. --] 01:59, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
			:::A recommendation does no harm. Even an ordinary user can recommend anything - indeed, I can be said to implicitly recommend the passage of most of the proposals I've made on this page - those receiving a recommendation are free to choose whether or not to take the action described, based on what they think of the ideas themselves and the reputations of those making the recommendation. An "official" recommendation from the ArbCom would be useful not only in that the Arbitrators are highly respected members of the community, but that they in their official capacities and as a group felt it was important enough to be worth voting up. --] 15:42, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
			::ArbCom has in the past made recommendations, and in some cases even required participants in disputes to do things certain ways. (see the Highways arbitration case). That was not always necessarily met with open arms by all, but there is some precedent for a recommendation or stronger. What the community decides to do with a recommendation is of course the community's remit. ++]: ]/] 17:15, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
			:: There is no jurisdictional problem. The only issue would be whether an edict from the arbitration committee would be enforced (which is why arbcom does not in general intervene in policy formation). The proposed changes here are small and sensible, and enforcement simply comprises experienced editors taking notice of RfCs that, while incomplete, are made in good faith. Those who didn't do so would be on notice that, if subsequently the problem reached arbitration, their failure to respond would count against them. --] 17:28, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
			===The community as whole is admonished===
	===Template===
			12 The english Misplaced Pages community as whole is admonished for it's neglect of this dispute in early stages. The community is encouraged to shepherd any disputes in progress through the dispute resolution process and consider reforming the weakest points of this process.
	1) {text of proposed remedy}
	:'''Comment by Arbitrators:'''		:'''Comment by Arbitrators:'''
Line 733:		Line 1,850:
	:'''Comment by parties:'''		:'''Comment by parties:'''
			::While I appreciate the sentiment of this proposal, it seems far to wide in scope to do any real good. --] 05:29, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
	::
	:'''Comment by others:'''		:'''Comment by others:'''
			::'''Proposed'''--<i><span style="color:#9966FF;">Birgitte</span><span style="color:#CC99CC; font-size:small;">SB</span></i> 18:11, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
			:: Well intentioned, but vague and unlikely to have the desired reforming effect. Where the community fails, particularly when as here there is evidence of systemic failures, it is the duty of the arbitration committee to act to remedy the problem. --] 19:09, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
			:::It is certainly possible that this may not have the desired effect, but it could help and it does no harm.--<i><span style="color:#9966FF;">Birgitte</span><span style="color:#CC99CC; font-size:small;">SB</span></i> 19:55, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
			===HighInBC is urged to seek community input before blocking established users===
			13) HighInBC should have sought input, discussed, and been open to advice from more experienced admins on his supposed (quite novel) "standard" that blocked users need to be blocked some ''more'' when they are "abusive while asking to be unblocked". He is urged to be more ready to do so.
			:'''Comment by Arbitrators:'''
	::		::
			:'''Comment by parties:'''
			::Note that I was not, in fact, abusive in the least when asking to be unblocked . "Fuckwits" came after HighInBC took it upon himself to 'review' my block, and was just a final expression of my outrage at the ridiculous idea that it's better to block someone who is complaining about an administrator, than to look into the complaint. And for HighInBC's benefit I will make it clear that it was indeed his actions that made me finally decide that this was no longer a project I wanted to have anything to do with. And both HighInBC and CBDunkerson might benefit from considering whether blocking someone who was at the time working on raising another article to featured status was in fact far more disruptive to the project than whatever they thought I was doing might have been. Both freely admit that they did not bother to look into the actual origins of the dispute between InShaneee and myself before they decided to block me. ] 23:29, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
			:'''Comment by others:'''
			::Proposed. It's not standard to treat blocked users with extra harshness, it's standard to put up with defiance from a user reacting to the shock of a block. It's the wrong moment to block them some more for either real or supposed "Personal attacks". It's the moment for considering the extreme power discrepancy between an admin and a blocked user — confined to his/her talkpage, remember — and for looking away. Think and ''discuss'' before blocking. Listen to other people, please. The direct, immediate consequences of HighInBC's lengthening of WT's block, and his following block of DBuckner, were that WT munged his password, and that Dbuckner's previously unsullied block log of four years now has a smear on it. I note that WT is all grown up, and is himself responsible for the loss of his password. Yet a block for an angry insert in the unblock template surely falls under the heading of "kicking them while they're down". To my sense it's pretty predictable that such a power demonstration against the already goaded and already (with reason) angry, will lead to ''some'' dramatic gesture. Was it worth it? ] | ] 21:19, 18 March 2007 (UTC).
			:::Community input is needed when a situation is complex or controversial. The situation with the personal attacks was not complex. While after the fact by block was controversial, it did not seem to me at the time. The level of "establishment" has very little relation to the situation. Both people were warned numerous times. An admin can make a decision on a block with or without community discusion as long as he feels it is in line with community standards. I still think both of those blocks were in line with policy.
			:::The claims that WT scrambling his password because of my block are silly, it was his decision. I added 24 hours, he decided to "quit" Misplaced Pages. This sort of thing is a form of emotional blackmail, nobody is stopping him from coming back. I resent that this is being brought up in arbitration when were . <small>]<sup>(Need help? ])</sup></small> 21:35, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
			::::I suppose I'd better repeat my reply from above to your mistaken claim of being ignored, as I really don't like to have such a charge stand without comment. I to you with care, and am sorry you don't recollect it. ] | ] 22:21, 18 March 2007 (UTC).
			::In response to WT's comment above, while I may have been the reason you decided to leave, it was still your decision. I could quit right now saying that this mention of me in arbitration was what broke me, but that does not make it the fault of those who brought it up. The only direct consequence to my block was an extra 24 hours, your decision to leave was your decision. <small>]<sup>(Need help? ])</sup></small> 23:33, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
	===Template===		===Template===
	1) {text of proposed remedy}		14) {text of proposed remedy}
	:'''Comment by Arbitrators:'''		:'''Comment by Arbitrators:'''
Line 753:		Line 1,891:
	===Template===		===Template===
	1) {text of proposed enforcement}		13) {text of proposed enforcement}
	:'''Comment by Arbitrators:'''		:'''Comment by Arbitrators:'''
Line 766:		Line 1,904:
	===Template===		===Template===
	1) {text of proposed enforcement}		14) {text of proposed enforcement}
	:'''Comment by Arbitrators:'''		:'''Comment by Arbitrators:'''
Line 778:		Line 1,916:
	===Template===		===Template===
	1) {text of proposed enforcement}		15) {text of proposed enforcement}
	:'''Comment by Arbitrators:'''		:'''Comment by Arbitrators:'''
Line 790:		Line 1,928:
	===Template===		===Template===
	1) {text of proposed enforcement}		16) {text of proposed enforcement}
	:'''Comment by Arbitrators:'''		:'''Comment by Arbitrators:'''
Line 802:		Line 1,940:
	===Template===		===Template===
	1) {text of proposed enforcement}		17) {text of proposed enforcement}
	:'''Comment by Arbitrators:'''		:'''Comment by Arbitrators:'''
Line 895:		Line 2,033:
	==General discussion==		==General discussion==
	:'''Comment by Arbitrators:'''		:'''Comment by Arbitrators:'''
			:: To repeat what I wrote below: keep discussion relevant and civil. Take the rest elsewhere. ] (]:]) 00:21, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
	::
	:'''Comment by parties:'''		:'''Comment by parties:'''
Line 901:		Line 2,039:
	:'''Comment by others:'''		:'''Comment by others:'''
			:: Apology: I apologise for inadvertently inflaming the arbitration. I continue to believe that my reasonably held suspicions, which were easily allayed by Bunchofgrapes' forthright response, were a necessary part in the repairing of a serious and longrunning problem on Misplaced Pages of which this arbitration is a part. It is my opinion that there is no nice way to express such suspicions, but that one can avoid maintaining a festering grievance during arbitration by bringing them up and accepting assurances on good faith. I think that my acceptance of Bunchofgrapes' assurances and my honest and forthright abandonment of the suspicions demonstrates dispute resolution at its best.
	:: I think it would help to clear things up if Bishonen, Geogre and Bunchograpes would say just when it was that they first became aware that the "anonymous editor" who had shown up, edit warred and then complained about a bad block was in fact Worldtraveller, who had ostensibly departed Misplaced Pages some months previously. The strength of their criticism seems oddly out of place next to the comments of most the other established editors in the discussion. It is this that raises, I think, a reasonable suspicion that they knew more about the case than they're disclosing. I suspect them of taking their concern for Misplaced Pages to the level of vigilanteism, trolling and entrapment. I could be wrong, and it would help to clear things up if they could make a straightforward statement about this. --] 00:06, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
	:::Dear Tony, did you happen to notice the I left hours ago on your own talk page, providing a clear answer to the very question you ask? While I can't swear there was no orchestrated campaign to ingeniously snare some admin or other outside our sacred inner circle into a web they could never escape from (though I have my doubts), I can swear that I was no part of that campaign and I believe I was the first responder in that AN/I thread to sympathize with the anon. &mdash;] (]) 00:26, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
			:: There us another view, which I do not hold, which is that simply raising the suspicions, even though I had observed that similar suspicions were also held by other reasonable editors, I have poisoned the well. I do not hold this view, but '''I recognise that it has been expressed by other editors all of whom are due my respect and whose strong feelings on this I recognise.'''
	:::: Thank you. That allays my doubts satisfactorily. --] 00:33, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
	:::::Very good. In the spirit you offered your suspicions above, may I mention that your recent conduct has given me cause to suspect that you have been editing all this time from an insane asylum? I could be wrong, and it would help to clear things up if you could make a straightforward statement about this. (Apparently this form of rhetoric is not a personal attack, since Tony is allowed to use it. Who knew?) &mdash;] (]) 00:54, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
			:: I therefore apologise for what, in retrospect, I believe to have been unintentionally damaging behavior. I now believe that I should have kept my suspicions to myself, or else submitted evidence in private, because my actions have created a side-show or spectacle that threatens to disrupt the dispute resolution process. That was not my intention at all. --] 16:04, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
	:::::: Please stop abusing this workshop. --] 01:29, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
			:::I think Tony's apology should be accepted by all concerned. I commend him for making it. ] 00:32, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
			:::I accept his apology and agree everyone else should (of course, it's the parties and arbitrators whose acceptance really matters). --] 01:10, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
			:::I don't accept Tony's apology, since it covers only one facet of the wild personal attacks he has launched within this workshop page. He's yet to back off from: : ''"No. They've 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 respect Wikipedians, to the extent of demanding that they relinquish all duties on Misplaced Pages. That kind of behavior, in my opinion, is beyond belief. Absolutely beyond understanding. Vindictive, spiteful and I hope, one day to be foresworn."'' &mdash;] (]) 15:09, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
			: I'm sorry that I cannot apologise for holding certain opinions. I think the cold and calculated hounding off Misplaced Pages of Kelly Martin was one of the most shocking things I have ever witnessed in any forum, I hope that those who did it will come in time to recognise that what they did was absolutely unacceptable. But I won't continue in that vain because it would only further inflame matters. --] 15:26, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
			::How did Kelly Martin come into this case? What purpose does it serve to rehash old grievances here? — ] 15:47, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
			::: I've not intention of doing so. Just stating the context of an earlier statement that Bunchofgrapes took as a gratuitous attack. I had earlier been explaining the background to my suspicions that Bunchofgrapes or some of his close colleagues might have let their zeal overcome their better judgement--I have accepted his assurance that this didn't happen. --] 16:03, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
			:::: Your smearing without evidence is despicable. If you have evidence to support your bizarre allegations that there was a "cold and calculated hounding off Misplaced Pages of Kelly Martin", you should open an ArbCom case on that matter. Until such a time, I would thank you to ''stop making such unfounded allegations'' and ''stop with the personal attacks''. One day someone with a little backbone may just notice your underhanded tactics and enjoin you in a more forcible way from employing them, Tony. &mdash;] (]) 17:16, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
			: My apologies, I'd no idea that there was a dispute on the question of whether Kelly Martin was hounded off Misplaced Pages. I'll stop there because this is no longer relevant to the case. --] 18:15, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
			::Tony, having no idea that reasonable people disagree with you is what causes most of the problems we have around here. As for the case: everyone could use somewhat thicker skins and more minding of one's own business. ] | ] 12:43, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
			::: I agree with your comments, and can only apologise for the harm I caused here. I am surprised to find a dispute on this particular matter, but I of course accept that there is one and thus withdraw my harmful comments, which were merely intended to illustrate my reasoning. --] 13:25, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
			===The trolling of ancient grievances===
			No, Tony, you can't "only apologize", you can '''''give it a rest''''' with your "reasonably held suspicions" and your "honest and forthright abandonment of the suspicions" ("forthright"? have you no shame?) and your whole rhetorical artillery. A much more useful idea. It's beyond me how anybody who has followed this workshop has managed to ''not'' notice Tony's underhanded tactics for getting as much irrelevant venom as possible squirted at people he happens to hate, in the outrageously irrelevant context of an arbitration about something completely different. Ruining the workshop of that arbitration is apparently a small price to pay.
			<br>"I think Tony's apology should be accepted by all concerned. I commend him for making it." "I accept his apology and agree everyone else should". Pah! Dupes! Tony has "apologized" at least seven times on this page, and each time the supposed apology has served as a conveyance for more venom. Would you like me to accept ''all'' of them? Bunch quotes a notorious example. Here's another: "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 Misplaced Pages, 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." (See the apology in there? It's right next to our old friends the ''reasonable'' concerns. Wait, I'll bold the apology for you). That's the only one I've replied to (with a plea to Mackensen by name to end the trollfest— no reply ). <br>Not clear? Let me spell out what I mean. '''I mean that Tony's bizarre conspiracy theory aired above and now predictably sacrificed was a fake, "a fit-up" (good word, Tony, thanks), a rhetorical manoeuvre for saying something else, a wheelbarrow for conveying a pile of dung into the middle of this unrelated arbitration: his old, festering, ill-smelling grievances, his theory that I and Geogre (and, new idea, apparently Bunchofgrapes, too) "hounded Kelly Martin off Misplaced Pages"'''. And right here we have the latest: "My apologies, I'd no idea that there was a dispute on the question of whether Kelly Martin was hounded off Misplaced Pages." Ohhh, touché, good one! "I am surprised to find a dispute on this particular matter." "my harmful comments... were merely intended to illustrate my reasoning." I'm surprised too. I'm surprised that anybody falls for these cheap tricks. Even in ignorance of the background, I would have thought Tony's puppetstrings were visible and his demented chuckle audible there, and throughout. As for ''arbitrators,'' who obviously do know the ancient history Tony's pushing under their noses, and who must see his disgraceful campaign the more easily—you propose censuring ''Giano'' for trying to put an end to it ? (Btw, see Giano getting dragged here via another little conveyance of Tony's? Like me, Giano apparently came here purely to defend his good name against Tony's slurs, and now we're both being told we're superfluous here.) Fred thinks that while Tony needs to stay out of irrelevant arbitrations for a year, for his misuse of this one—Giano needs to stay out forever! (For "Giano has a history". Unlike ''Tony''? I see.) (No reply to Newyorkbrad's pointing out that Giano has never before commented in ''any'' arbitration where he was not centrally involved. Perhaps he needs to be banned from commenting in those, too?) Paul August wants to admonish them both together! Mackensen never replies to my pleas for stopping Tony's trolling. I'm depressed, I'm ashamed, to see such things. P. S. Why are peoploe so mystified by ]? We have an article on it. ] | ] 15:26, 14 March 2007 (UTC).
			: That's a very, very long piece, but I think I can see what you're driving at No, no, I made it plain at the time that my concern was with your ''recent'' behavior. Bunchofgrapes has cleared that up fine. I got over the Kelly Martin thing some time ago. The reference to "underhand tactics" and so on is somewhat off-beam but I'll ignore it. --] 15:31, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
			::Yes, long piece, isn't it? I must be positively clogging up this page with the masses of text I've contributed, mustn't I. You got over the Kelly Martin thing some time since 18:15, 13 March 2007 (UTC), did you? Good, keep it up. ] | ] 15:52, 14 March 2007 (UTC).
			::: I've gotten over it, but I still have an opinion on it. I've learned that my statement wasn't the universally perceived truth I believed it to be so I've stopped. Let's please put it to one side now. I had no intention of reopening any wound, but I clearly have and I can only apologise. --] 16:47, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
			:::: This is such a neat new technique you've come up with. ''You can launch any attack or spread any insult'', so long as you have in your back pocket a dubious claim that you thought it to be a "universally perceived truth". After, if told otherwise, you can say you were wrong about it being so, and apologize. (Presumably you're apologizing for being wrong about it being universally believed true, not about the attack! Neat!) I shall have to remember this technique for the next time I say you are editing from an insane asylum, Tony. I owe you one. &mdash;] (]) 17:08, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
			(outdent) I don't think this discussion is productive. Much heat, little light. I have many things I would like to say about Geogre, but I restrain myself in the interests of moving this case forward. I urge Bishonen and Bunchofgrapes to show similar restraint. --] 20:46, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
			:I'd never have edited this page at all if Tony Sidaway hadn't decided to use it as a platform for running my name through the mud. I didn't sign up for that when I made what I guess was the terrible mistake of standing up for an anonymous contributor. As long as the arbitrators think Tony's mudslinging sideshow is an acceptable use for this workshop page (which by their general silence on the matter they seem to) I reserve the right to not let Tony's wild-eyed accusations (yes, even the accusations with little embedded apologies) stand unchallenged. &mdash;] (]) 20:59, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
			::I guess I can't blame you for defending yourself, I've been guilty of that too. All I can do is ask you to try to defend yourself without attacking the other person (because then they will have to defend themselves, and it will never end). --] 21:11, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
			::: Sounds good. &mdash;] (]) 21:25, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
			: Giving Bunchofgrapes cause to believe that I'd act in the way he describes is not something I'd do willingly. I echoed deep feelings of unease about this case earlier, feelings that were expressed to me by other editors who were privately following this case. I aired them and thus enabled him to reassure me that they were wrong. I have accepted this and honestly believe him and the others I mentioned to be innocent, and the consequence is that I accept the responsibility for the very severe damage that this has done. For which I may be censured. But I ask Bunchofgrapes to leave that decision to the arbitrators. --] 00:11, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
			This arbitrator, at least, is not inclined to tolerate old grievances being aired if they're not directly relevant to this arbitration case. Keep discussion (a) relevant to the case in hand, and (b) civil. Take the rest to suitable forums, if you must. Thanks, ] (]:]) 00:20, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
			*In light of that: '''Move to strike Tony Sidaway from the list of parties.''' I also move to have his comments about anyone "defending" WT or "challenging" Inshaneee stricken. We started out trying to get him to explain how he was a party. He said he "was consulted" by Inshaneee, although he does not say when or where or how. Since several of us have, after defending the anonymous editor, been spoken to by WT, does that make all of those people parties, too? Does it make every person who was in the AN/I discussion a party? Do we get to name ourselves, say outlandish things about the conspiracy theory of IRC or whatever it may be and have that stand, have it degenerate, have it go to charge and counter-charge, and then get more people with axes to grind with any person speaking on the issue showing up to air ''those'' too? Way, way, way back there was a motion to strike Tony Sidaway from the list of parties. Let's reiterate it, and lets "refactor" out all those wild eyed accusations and red herrings in the process, too. ] 01:37, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
			**Tony's already taken himself off the list of parties, so that aspect is resolved. ] 01:42, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
			{{NOINDEX}}

---

Latest revision as of 13:50, 18 February 2023

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 here and development of proposed principles, findings of fact, and remedies, Arbitrators will vote at /Proposed decision. Anyone who edits should sign all suggestions and comments. Arbitrators will place proposed items they have confidence in on /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. --CBD 10:09, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Comment by Arbitrators:

I agree with Mongo and 81.179.115.188 (aka, Worldtraveller). Raul654 23:55, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

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. 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.--MONGO 10:19, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

I think the arbitrators usually decide the scope of the arbitration. They could make the decision before, during or after the workshop. In one case I recall, for instance, two arbitrations were merged into one when one of them was at the voting stage, because the subject of each was found to be a sock of the same person. No harm in clarifying, though. In the absence of further clarification, I assume that the proposals already endorse by some arbitrators are a good indication of their thinking. Some arbitrators have shown keen interest in the statements about the acceptability of blocking established editors, so I'd say that the later blocks of Worldtraveller are in scope. But listing parties is in my experience a pure formality. I for instance could in theory be listed as a non-party and at the same time censured and possibly subject to severe remedy for adding myself as a party. --Tony Sidaway 21:38, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree, I don't think people who are not parties should be involved in such a way, or if they are then they should be listed as parties. I was not even notified I was involved in this. _InBC 23:58, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

HighInBC, I'm sorry I didn't think to inform you that my evidence section, posted at he top of the page more than a week ago, contained a prominent plea to the arbcom to extend the case into also looking at your blocks of Worldtraveller and Dbuckner. Wrong place for it, I daresay—maybe the arbcom didn't pay attention to it either—but there it is. I didn't hide it from you on purpose. I guess I just assumed you'd have enough interest to read the Evidence. You did say you had the pages watchlisted. Bishonen | talk 03:24, 19 March 2007 (UTC).

I'm sure they're considering all relevant events already. While we certainly don't want to develop a culture that permits administrators to be freely harassed, the steps taken to deal with such harassment should be discussed. Some effort was expended trying to point WorldTraveller towards legitimate dispute resolution steps, but perhaps more should have been done and perhaps our approach should emphasize such steps (rather than the range of blocking and hand-sitting that went on) should be included. --Tony Sidaway 16:55, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Motion to dismiss the case in favor of reopening the RfC

3) The Arbitration Committee notes that Worldtraveller previously attempted to resolve this matter through an administrator-conduct request for comment against InShaneee, which was properly deleted as not having been certified by two users at that time. Based upon the discussion so far in this workshop, the parties seem now to be in agreement on some aspects of this matter, including that the initial block was unjustified and that there should have been greater communication between InShaneee and Worldtraveller. Other issues remain in disagreement and could benefit from broader community discussion, but not necessarily remedies ordered by the Arbitration Committee. Accordingly, this case is dismissed and the parties are urged to address their remaining areas of disagreement by reopening the RfC. All outside comments on the RfC should be civil, should address the conduct and policy matters in disagreement, and should look toward constructive change for the future rather than recrimination. Worldtraveller is also urged to reactivate his account and to resume contributing content to Misplaced Pages. Newyorkbrad 19:45, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Comment by Arbitrators:

I'm receptive to this, with the caveat that the RfC should actually focus on the matter at hand, and not get side-tracked into who actually threw the 1919 World Series. Mackensen (talk) 21:26, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

I appreciate the sentiment but the impression I have is that the only reason InShaneee has fully and frankly admitted his error in blocking is because of this arbitration case. He hasn't yet made any apology for the seven weeks of stonewalling and I continue to believe that some kind of sanction is appropriate for his failure to abide by the principles outlined above. I don't feel like repeating everything I've said here in another forum in another format and so I would like the arbitration process to continue. Unfortunately it is impossible for me to reactivate my account. 81.179.115.188 00:59, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

I have apologized before; this was not a first here. I support this idea, as I really would like to see if there is any other method to resolve this in a more peaceful fashion. And for the record, Worldtraveler, if I read the Giano decision correctly, it is unusual, but there may be a way for your account to be retrieved. --InShaneee 03:14, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Proposed. Newyorkbrad 19:45, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your good faith suggestion, however in my humble opinion, InShaneee should be desyopped. Accordingly, I would prefer this process continue. Addhoc 20:12, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

I am in favor of this. --Ideogram 00:22, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

It's a fine sentiment in principle, but a little silly in practice. There's already been plenty of comment here, and I presume the majority of interested people have said something. What's the point of replicating it all on yet another InShaneee RFC page? If no action is deemed necessary, simply close the case with a reminder to everyone to play nice. Also, WT can request an RFC at any time he chooses anyway — it's not really for arbcom to mandate whether there should be one, or what the subject matter ought to be. Derex 00:38, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

In fairness, much of what you have said represents the best argument against this proposal, and looking back I wish I'd proposed this 36 hours ago, rather than now, for that very reason. It might be that the new RfC page would peter out pretty quickly. Or, it might become a basis for moving forward and discussing some of the issues that remain open. No one would be obliged to comment who felt they have already said everything they have to say. I'm just suggesting it as a possible way forward, as opposed to continued formal proceedings and voting on remedies. Newyorkbrad 00:45, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Template

1)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed temporary injunctions

Tony Sidaway banned from this arbitration

1) Due to disruptive behavior Tony Sidaway is banned from this arbitration.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed Fred Bauder 16:55, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

I must oppose this. Tony is at the very least as involved in this case as Bishonen and George claim to be. --InShaneee 18:57, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree with this. In fact, I would even suggest that this whole thing would be far more productive if we simply started again, without Tony's conspiracy theories to bog us down. His actions here have been massively unhelpful in my opinion. 81.179.115.188 23:53, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

I'll say in my defence that I have consistently attempted to act within the spirit of Misplaced Pages, and I have apologised for the damage that I inadvertently caused. --Tony Sidaway 18:20, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Support, with regret. I believe that without such a ban, this workshop will soon look like that in the "Giano case"—i. e. be unusable for practical purposes—from the sheer mass, repetitiveness, and exhausting persistence of Tony's editing. (Compare this editor, who I believe was community banned, arbitrated, and blocked for just such an inability to stop talking.) As for the content of his posts, I find it impossible to believe that Tony is editing this board in good faith. I would like to, but I can't. My concern is that the irrelevant attacks and the quagmire of rhetoric will drive away sensible editors, who could have enriched the discussion, but find it meaningless at such a level. Bishonen | talk 18:29, 12 March 2007 (UTC).

(Edit-conflict, reply to Tony Sidaway:) This nasty attack was "inadvertent"? It appears to me you were not only exploring whether your so-called suspicions might be true, Tony, but clearly going far beyond such clinical benevolence to the point of accusation and harrying. I once again appeal to somebody to take up Tony on his request, please. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 18:32, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Nasty it may have felt, and I can't help that. It is never easy to confront such suspicions. I took no joy in it, and I apologise for the pain it caused you. --Tony Sidaway 21:51, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

How is your attack "confronting suspicions"? I quote: "No. They've 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 respect Wikipedians, to the extent of demanding that they relinquish all duties on Misplaced Pages. That kind of behavior, in my opinion, is beyond belief. Absolutely beyond understanding. Vindictive, spiteful and I hope, one day to be foresworn." No mention of suspecting anything, just "facts" and venom. Your apologies for one minor facet of your disgraceful behavior on this workshop are inadequate; you need to face up to the full measure of your apparently unintentional disruption, and knock it off. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 22:18, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

While I strongly support everyone's right to take part in an arbitration case... might I suggest that Tony, Bishonen, Giano, and the long list of others who are at best peripherally involved voluntarily reduce or remove their presence here? Most of the particulars of the case have been established. Different views have been expressed. The parties are more than capable of speaking on their own behalf. Heck, I was counting myself peripherally involved and staying out of it until 'proposed findings' about my actions started going up. There seems to be alot of stuff here which doesn't have much to do with the case at hand. I think we'd all agree that things will go more smoothly if that doesn't continue. Add any important info which hasn't been covered yet, but after that why not just let the arbitrators do their jobs? --CBD 00:01, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes please. Paul August ☎ 15:24, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

I do not support: Tony is free to be in the "Views by others," if he chooses to be, but removing the comments by other people is a blocking offense. There is no reason to give him no voice just because he has tried to silence others and shown extremely poor judgment and self-regard. Geogre 10:23, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Giano II banned from this arbitration

1) Due to disruptive behavior Giano II is banned from this arbitration.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed Fred Bauder 17:00, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

I can't see any disruption from Giano. A few pointed comments do not make a disruptive input. Tony Sidaway on the other hand has buried much of this page in conspiracy theories, done his best to get people angry and generally made this page far, far less useful and productive than it should have been. 81.179.115.188 00:00, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

? What for? If Giano has done anything else than react to Tony's trolling, attempt to contain it, and enter pleas for the arbitrators to contain it, I must have missed it. Feel free to enlighten me. Bishonen | talk 18:30, 12 March 2007 (UTC).

See Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_arbitration/InShaneee/Workshop#Disruption_of_arbitration_by_Giano_II Fred Bauder 18:43, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Absolutely not. Giano II hasn't been disruptive, but he has cried foul at Tony Sidaway, who isn't a party nor participant, trying to own the workshop page. Additionally, this is a workshop page, and all are welcome to the "other parties" views -- even people who never expressed an opinion or took an action until now, like Tony Sidaway -- unless all they're doing is trying to draw attention to themselves. None of that fits with Giano II. Geogre 00:34, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Giano's responses have been worded about as spitefully as is humanly possible, complete with allegations of "nefarious" schemes that would be laughable if he weren't acting so serious about them. While ideally neither of the pair should be banned from editing this case, if disruption is being used as the basis it quite clearly applies to both of them, since the core disruption here appears to be this case being turned into a vehicle for continuing the same idiotic perpetual feud 6 or 7 of you have been involved in for as long as I can remember. It seems that at some point you took vows of eternal war on one another and will use any incident, no matter how peripheral, that involves any of the other vowees as an opportunity to bring it up once more. --tjstrf talk 20:19, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Giano hasn't posted a word to this page in 3 days. Newyorkbrad 20:35, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Good, I suppose I'm a bit after the fact then. Just felt like adding my own little rant to the mix. --tjstrf talk 20:38, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

His focus was limited (myself and Fred Bauder) and he stopped. Taking more notice would probably only make things worse. --Tony Sidaway 21:44, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Also, he was quoting/parodying the language employed by Tony. The "nefarious" stuff was an echo to point out how the goose gets petted, while the gander gets cleavered. Geogre 11:32, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm sure his motives for intervening were of the highest. He did no real harm. --Tony Sidaway 14:18, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Fairly non-contributory statement, Tony. Perhaps you'll strike it, and I'll strike this? Geogre 21:30, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

It may help to mend fences, so I think it's constructive. Your statement is harmless so no need to strike it. If we're being nice to one another then I think the arbitrators will be happy. --Tony Sidaway 21:50, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Template

1)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Questions to the parties

Proposed final decision

Proposed principles

Administrators

1) Misplaced Pages administrators are trusted members of the community and are expected to follow Misplaced Pages'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 Misplaced Pages:Administrators, Misplaced Pages:Blocking policy, and Misplaced Pages:Protection policy.

1.1) Misplaced Pages administrators are trusted members of the community and are expected to follow Misplaced Pages'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 Misplaced Pages:Administrators, Misplaced Pages:Blocking policy, and Misplaced Pages:Protection policy. Established editors with an outstanding history of positive contributions while not immune from blocking if acting disruptively deserve the benefit of the second thought and the benefit of courtesy from the administrators.

1.2 Misplaced Pages administrators are trusted members of the community and are expected to follow Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines. Occasional lapses may be overlooked, 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 Misplaced Pages:Administrators, Misplaced Pages:Blocking policy, and Misplaced Pages:Protection policy. All editors, especially established editors with an outstanding history of positive contributions, deserve to be treated with the utmost respect by administrators.

1.3 Misplaced Pages administrators are trusted members of the community and are expected to follow Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines. Occasional lapses may be overlooked, 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 Misplaced Pages:Administrators, Misplaced Pages:Blocking policy, and Misplaced Pages:Protection policy. All editors deserve to be treated with the utmost respect by administrators.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Yes. Paul August ☎ 16:27, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

I've proposed a new version (1.2) that changes the wording "Occasional lapses from optimal behavior are acceptable, but …" to "Occasional lapses may be overlooked, but …" and rewords the last sentence per Ideogram's and ALoan's comments below. Paul August ☎ 19:30, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

1.2 has fundamental implications in the last sentence and I'm not comfortable with them. Editors deserve respect, period. There is no need to make a subjective distinction. What about administrators with an outstanding history of contributions? I'm sure Geogre, for example, still thinks of himself as an editor despite being an administrator. So do I, for that matter. These aren't hard-and-fast boundaries. Mackensen (talk) 19:41, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Not sure I understand what you mean by "hard and fast boundaries"? In my view everyone is an editor. Administrators are simply editors which have the sysop bit turned on. Paul August ☎ 19:51, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

However, we're specifically calling for "administrators" to show extra deference to "established editors." Why make any distinction at all? Who defines what an "established editor" is? What if they mainly edit light subjects? Can a dedicated RC patroller or vandal fighter be an established editor? Mackensen (talk) 20:00, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Reply to Tony: I removed the phrase "while not immune from blocking if acting disruptively", precisely for the reason that it goes without saying. We could add it back, but to me, it sounds silly to say: All editors, … while not immune from blocking if acting disruptively, deserve …". But I'm happy to add it back if we really think it is important. Paul August ☎ 23:45, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Proposed 1.3, which is the same as Paul's but removes the "especially..." clause. As a rule I dislike adverbs, but that clause doesn't add to the statement: we're still treating all parties with the utmost respect, and that's how it should be. Mackensen (talk) 00:36, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Yes to 1 and 1.1. Serious reservations about 1.2. --Tony Sidaway 03:48, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Proposed. Adapted from Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Seabhcan. 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. --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. ++Lar: t/c 13:49, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Policy doesn't provide for any such exemption. Mackensen (talk) 15:00, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

But perhaps sensitivity does? I can see that the ArbCom wouldn't want to make a policy against blocking established users or FA candidates, but admins with little block buttons should think more of what a slap in the face it is to an established editor who has contributed a lot to have his block log stained. As far as I know, the only personal attack block I ever made was for this. The editor was just a silly kid, who wasn't contributing to the encyclopaedia at all. If, as a result of the block, he had decided he wanted to start again with a new identity, he wouldn't have had to abandon all the credit for the work he had done, or the respect he had gained, because he hadn't done any, or gained any. People who argue that good contributors, admins, etc., shouldn't get special treatment seem to forget that a stained block log is generally much more painful and humiliating for such users than it is for Conrad-14 year old socialist. Therefore, treating them the same actually means treating them worse. Leaving aside the question as to whether or not Worldtraveler was behaving badly, I'll just state that I have never seen a situation improve through the block of a good user who was behaving badly. Musical Linguist 01:52, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

I find it odd how those opposed to blocking established editors for the reason that they may feel humiliated are generally the same who argue that all editors should be thick-skinned enough to ignore virtually any personal attack. Isn't it also painful and humiliating, for most people, to be harassed/cussed-out/etc.? In such a case whose feelings should be taken more into account, the person who did the harassing or cussing, or the victim? - Merzbow 02:02, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

No, not to ignore "virtually any personal attack". I just don't think that Worldtravel's behaviour fell into the category of something that an administrator who carried out an abusive block and refused to discuss it properly is entitled to complain about. I've never been blocked, but I have had personal attacks and obscenities directed at me on Misplaced Pages, and I really didn't find it hard to cope with them. I'm quite sure that I'd find a stained block log much more painful and humiliating. By "stained", I really mean an entry like harassment, personal attacks, etc. I don't think that a 3RR block is terribly humiliating in itself. Musical Linguist 12:39, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

An established contributor should know better and deserves stricter treatment on that basis alone. It should go without saying that they wouldn't be blocked if they weren't doing something wrong. If there are no consequences to their inappropriate actions, why should they stop? If a block won't get the message across, what will? If they can't stop the inappropriate actions, what exactly should Misplaced Pages do? Suck it up since they are such "good contributors"? --Ideogram 02:06, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure that an established contributor "should know better" than anyone else when it comes to harassment and personal attacks. I know a lot more about NPOV, NOR, etc., than when I joined Misplaced Pages, but I don't know more about treating other people with respect, because I didn't learn it at Misplaced Pages. I learned it from my mother. I remember FuelWagon, who used to hurl "fuck off" and "asshole" language at all his opponents, argued that it was when he was new and didn't understand Misplaced Pages policies. Nonsense. I'd have a lot of tolerance for a new user who breaks 3RR; but if a new user behaves like Conrad-14 year old socialist, I don't say that he's not to blame because he hasn't been at Misplaced Pages for long enough. A new user who makes POV or original research edits deserves more tolerance than an established user. A new user who attacks other users with obscenities and aggression on his first day of editing does not. Musical Linguist 12:39, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

(outdent) That's an interesting point, but I don't think it supports the comment I was responding to. At best you can claim that harassment and personal attacks should be treated with equal severity regardless of who it comes from. I'm also tired of people wringing their hands over the damage done by having blocks on your "permanent record". Having your block log stained is a lot like losing your virginity: it seems like a big deal until it happens to you. --Ideogram 12:58, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

If a block won't get the message across, what will? Civil and respectful discussion of the issue by neutral parties? ... just a crazy thought. Derex 02:12, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

The block would be used when civil and respectful discussion had been attempted and was obviously impossible. --Tony Sidaway 13:35, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Do you really think blocks are routinely applied without such methods being attempted? Do you realize that policy states that blocks cannot be applied except by neutral admins? If you have any evidence of these things happening, bring it and the guilty admin will be promptly sanctioned. --Ideogram 02:23, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Isn't that why we're here? And yes, it's quite common anyway. Do you really think otherwise? Derex 02:29, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

(outdent) Has anyone defended Inshaneee's initial block? And where is your evidence? --Ideogram 02:32, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

There's the crux of the matter. What constitutes a neutral party? Put another way, the definition of a neutral party becomes broader as the willingness of the editor in question to assume good faith increases. In situations where the latter approaches zero, you have people who agree with the editor's position and then you have everyone else. This needs to avoided at all costs. Mackensen (talk) 02:17, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Oh, agreed. It should never come to the point where an administrator even considers that a block might be necessary. You tell me how to tell an enraged content editor to cool it. I've tried it before and seen others try it as well. The results are less than encouraging. We're all editing the same encyclopedia here. At some point we have to cooperate with each other. Mackensen (talk) 02:10, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Derex, you suggest that we are here because 'blocks on established contributors were applied without civil and respectful discussion of the issue by neutral parties'. What could you possibly be talking about? InShaneee's block was on an unknown anon, and thus not subject to this 'special status' various people seek to apply to 'established contributors'. My block and HighInBC's came more than two months later... after two extensive civil discussions with neutral parties on AN & AN/I had been completed... and a third discussion was in progress where Worldtraveller had been repeatedly told he needed to stop and refused. Worldtraveller got his civil and respectful discussion. He declined to listen to it. Three times. Then he was blocked. If we should not block 'special users' even after two months, three extensive discussions, and more than a dozen warnings then what... they just continue disrupting ad infinitum? It doesn't work. --CBD 10:47, 14 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. 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? ++Lar: t/c 20:40, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Small point, the blocking policy says not to use blocks in "content disputes", the proposed principle says "disputes". _InBC 15:31, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Proposed 1.1 per Irpen's concerns Alex Bakharev 08:47, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Everyone "deserves the benefit of the second thought and the benefit of courtesy from the administrators", not just "established editors with an outstanding history of positive contributions". This is dual standards and free passes all over again. --Ideogram 09:10, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree with the sentiment of "Occasional lapses from optimal behavior are acceptable" but not the wording. We should expect administrators to display the highest standards of personal behaviour, but we are all human (well, I am, anyway), and departures from optimal behaviour certainly are understandable and excusable, particularly if there are extenuating circumstances. However, saying that lapses, however occasional, are "acceptable" makes it sound like an admin gets one of those sainted "free passes" for a lapse every other month. One of the qualities we should expect from an admin is the ability to see all sides of an argument, and to freely recognise and admit that they may be - or indeed are - wrong.

Secondly, I agree with the first part of Ideogram's comment immediately above: surely all contributors should be treated with respect and courtesy - there is always a flesh and blood person, with ideas and opinions and emotions, behind the screen username. The extent of that respect and courtesy may be limited for editors with no contributions other than serial vandalism, and may be somewhat greater for "established editors with an outstanding history of positive contributions". If you are vandalising, and I ask you to stop, and you don't, I will block. If you are a long-term productive editor and you are being disruptive, I will give you every opportunity to stop being disruptive. Only if I see no other solution but to block will I do so. That is not a "free pass" (honestly, has anyone ever demanded such a thing? the term is just another loaded and emotive epithet that polarises the argument) - it is common courtesy and common sense. -- ALoan (Talk) 17:05, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't like the look of 1.2. "While not immune from blocking if acting disruptively" should be absolutely uncontroversial, and removing it at this stage makes it look as if established contributors cannot be blocked. . --Tony Sidaway 19:47, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't understand why people keep trying to sneak in "special" treatment for established editors. I'm not going to be mollified by reducing the strength of the statement, I'm opposed to any statement of this kind in principle. Here's a subtle distinction many may have missed: it is undeniably true that someone who has an established relationship with Misplaced Pages provides more context to evaluate their actions and more room for AGF, but this practical difference should not be enshrined in policy. --Ideogram 20:12, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Shouldn't and shouldn'ts don't concern us here, and in arbitration we're not, generally, making policy but clarifying it. I'd say that it's uncontroversial to state that the community is more respectful towards established contributors, and far more indulgent towards their failings. Insofar as the community makes policy, this is Misplaced Pages policy. --Tony Sidaway 20:18, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Change 1.1 from "may be acceptable" to "may be overlooked" but totally agree with Tony that cutting the "if acting disruptively" is a Bad Idea. Too Free Passish. ++Lar: t/c 20:15, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Tony that it's uncontroversial to state that the community is more respectful towards established editors with significant contributions. Obviously, contributions include not only article writing but RC-patrolling, developing, admining, you name it. When blocking an editor for disruption the admin states that whatever contributions the editor usually do in the block period has lesser value than the disruption the editor causes. It might be a selfevident statement if the only contribution of an editor was the word penis written in a high-profiled article or if the disruption is really strong, but if the disruption is mild and contributions usually amount to tens of hours a day of productive work it is a great insult. I would think it is trivial and obvious but I am not sure if all the blocking admins understand it Alex Bakharev 00:17, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

In blocking, if it's true that "the admin states that whatever contributions the editor usually do in the block period has lesser value than the disruption the editor causes.", then the admin is doing it wrong. Applying that kind of cynical calculus could only be destructive to the community. --Tony Sidaway 00:34, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Paul, thanks for saying "We could add it back, but to me, it sounds silly to say". Should this pass, and ever subsequently be abused to imply a false interpretation of policy, then we can look at this discussion and see that the Principle here is not to be interpreted as a proscription of the blocking of established, respected, exceptional or otherwise highly prized editors. But all the same it might save some bother if it was restored, because there are clearly some editors in this discussion who are very, very concerned that it might otherwise be abused for that purpose. --Tony Sidaway 00:24, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Support 1.3. --Ideogram 11:32, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Controversial blocks

2) The blocking policy states that blocks against established editors may be seen as 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"

2.1) While blocking policy permits blocks for vandalism, vandalism is narrowly defined as an edit made in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Misplaced Pages. Further, blocking policy states that "blocks should not be used against isolated incidents of vandalism."

Comment by Arbitrators:

Alternative version. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 23:26, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes. Paul August ☎ 23:52, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed--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. --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.--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. --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.--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. --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. 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. --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. Geogre 21:38, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

WP:BLOCK should be rewritten from "logged-in users" to "established editors"...logged in users is vague.--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. Metamagician3000 10:11, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

'extreme abusive behaviour' is wildly inaccurate. 81.179.115.188 00:02, 13 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. --Tony Sidaway 12:34, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

This is one thing that this user has said in this discussion that I can agree with. I would take it even further, to say that admin action, and adminship itself have, in general, become much more of a "big deal" over time. If I recall correctly, Jimbo once (jokingly? seriously? Who knows?) proposed to randomly sysop established accounts with no process, just to prove it's not a big deal. That would never fly today, because we attach a lot of significance to the sysop flag and to the powers that come with it. The block log transforms from a simple record of the blocks themselves to a de facto rap sheet of the actions that were the cause of the block. Whether anything should be or even can be done about this is clearly beyond the scope of this action, but I think it does need to be examined in the future. --Random832 14:59, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Courtesy

3) Misplaced Pages users are expected to behave reasonably and calmly in their dealings with other users. Insulting and intimidating other users harms the community by creating a hostile environment. Personal attacks are not acceptable.

3.1) All Misplaced Pages users are expected to behave reasonably and calmly in their dealings with other users. Administrators are expected to lead by example in this area rather than criticizing inappropriate behavior. Further, administrators are expected to keep their cool even when dealing with editors who disregard policy and community norms. While personal attacks are prohibited by policy, administrators are expected to endure them without retaliating.

3.2) All Misplaced Pages users are expected to behave reasonably and calmly in their dealings with other users. Administrators are expected to lead by example in this area rather than criticizing inappropriate behavior. Further, administrators are expected to keep their cool even when dealing with editors who disregard policy and community norms. While personal attacks are prohibited by policy, administrators are expected to endure them without retaliating. Any response to a personal attack should come from a member of the community who was not a target of the attack.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed. It shouldn't be necessary to make this finding, not with the collective tenure of the participants. Mackensen (talk) 14:48, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Alternate version. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 23:12, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Prefer 3.1. Paul August ☎ 02:10, 13 March 2007 (UTC) Prefer 3.2. Paul August ☎ 21:13, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

3.1 is reasonable enough, but I'm left with the same quandry. To state that something is unacceptable while providing no real recourse save "sticks and stones may break my bones" is empty and will lead to much trouble down the road. Personal attacks hurt, else we wouldn't ban them. Mackensen (talk) 14:29, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

I see your point and have added 3.2. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 17:11, 13 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. 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. --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. 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. --Tony Sidaway 22:51, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

3.1 is ill-worded. Of course it is always better for uninvolved rather than involved admins to block (or unblock) - "retaliating" for personal attacks would fall under this. But I very strongly disagree that anyone, including admins, should be "expected" to endure personal attacks, and I don't think this was the intended meaning of this proposal. Endure for how long? Indefinitely, heck no - twenty times? Ten times? Maybe a couple times? Any more than a handful of attacks from one source I think clearly rises to disruption, and should be halted. - Merzbow 23:14, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

The remedies in the Giano case involved the demotion of Tony Sidaway and his dismissal from being a clerk, and now Tony is clinging to that. What is proper action? Sometimes it is logical (and therefore "reasonable") to escalate the calls for an answer, although one should not lose one's poise. Sometimes it is improper to use polite words and yet harbor a grudge and show up at an unrelated case trying for a retrial, as I personally think Tony is doing, because it is not reasonable, not logical, and not designed to get a positive result, but rather an emotional response and an effort to get revenge (to make the other guy suffer as much as you think he made you suffer). Being logical and always focused on the community and encyclopedic good is what we need, and yet there are times when both sides can have those views and end up shouting. In other words, shouting is not evidence of unreasonable behavior, and a calm tone is not proof of reasonable behavior. Geogre 00:42, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Any chance we can get the soft wording tightened on this one? While I'm reserved in my opinion of the statement, if this now fixes to say "Blocking in response to personal attacks is a form of retaliation," it should at the very least do so clearly. And if the lack of nebulousness calls for additional qualifiers, I would tend to think that they would be helpful to see explicitly. Bitnine 13:50, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

3.2 seems loads better than 3.1, which seemed to admit of no possible exit to a situation where a user is being nasty, short of arbcom. It's also in the spirit of meatball:DefendEachOther, one of my favourite pages from that wiki. ++Lar: t/c 19:23, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Good principle. I agree that 3.2 is better Alex Bakharev 08:19, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

While 3.2 is a great principle, we will need to develop a culture in which neutral parties spring to the defense of admins who are subjected to personal attacks, or else no one will want to be an admin.

The small percentage of dogs that bite people is monumental proof that the dog is the most benign, forgiving creature on earth. ~W.R. Koehler

(found on User:KillerChihuahua) --Ideogram 08:36, 14 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. Mackensen (talk) 17:08, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree with the sentiment here. But I do not want to enshrine and encourage the notion of higher versus lower standing. I will go this far, admins have more responsibility than non-admins — arbiters, bureaucrats, stewards also have more responsibility. Paul August ☎ 16:33, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

And those with low standing? Derex 05:35, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

...cannot reasonably be expected to know better, unlike those who have been around for a while. Guy (Help!) 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. Mackensen (talk) 21:03, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes. Paul August ☎ 16:33, 12 March 2007 (UTC) prefer 5.1 below. Paul August ☎ 15:44, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Absolutely. 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. --Tony Sidaway 21:51, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

5.1) Administrators must be willing and prepared to discuss the reasons for their administrative actions in a timely manner.

5.2) The consensus editing model upon which Misplaced Pages depends is based on editors' willingness to explain, discuss, and compromise. Because page protection, deletion, blocking, and their converses are capabilities available only to administrators and are rarely reverted except for the best of reasons, there is a particular expectation for administrators to explain, discuss, and compromise when using these features. Simple, one-word reasons left in the block log are not a suitable substitute for discussion.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed alternate wording. Does this really apply for actions in the course of normal editing, or is this for use of their admin tools only? Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 10:27, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

While we should have higher expectations for administrators to behave well in all their actions, the emphasis on administrative actions, which can include non-tool actions per Random832 below, is the appropriate one here. Paul August ☎ 15:44, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Added 5.2, another alternative. UninvitedCompany21 21:26, March 13, 2007 (UTC)

Re 5.2, I agree with Bitnine below, if we are going to give reasons for this, accountability seems more to the point, also the timeliness is important. Paul August ☎ 23:55, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

I think "administrative actions" can apply to a certain limited set of non-tools-requiring actions - closing a deletion as keep, denying an {{unblock}}, etc. There were certainly some non-tools-requiring actions considered in the recent wheel war. --Random832 12:35, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't think 5.2 is applicable. The issue under question does not stem from the reversibility (or lack thereof) of the action in question. In fact, one of the few things agreed upon here is that the substantive portion of this matter took place well outside the expiration of the administrative action. A rewrite that instead examined such actions in the context of recourse, accountability, or channels for dispute would seem much more on-target. Bitnine 22:13, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

I think 5.1 is the best wording. 5.2 is to long and nebulous. 5.0 missed an important point that if the administrators act in a user's hat they have responsibilities of a user Alex Bakharev 08:24, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

5.1 is better than 5.0. "Timely" is tough to work with though. If a block is discussed at AN/I long enough to get outside comment, and a 24 hour block is given, the acting admin could be in a different timezone than the blocked editor, leaving essentially no window for timely comment during the block. Admins are humans (not bots), need sleep, and have lives. We shouldn't create an expectation that no admin will act unless they are going to be around for the next N hours for any N. The above is potential wiki-lawyering that should be cut off at the knees. The real spirit is obviously that admins should be willing to discuss in a reasonably timely fashion, and probably shouldn't take potentially controversial actions just prior to going on an extended wikibreak. GRBerry 22:25, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

I think 5.2 is too weak as it stands, because "must" is more useful to the community here than "there is an expectation that". I think we should go with "must". We should not let the other issue in this arbitration, harassment, blind us to this requirement of administrators. --Tony Sidaway 22:03, 16 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. Mackensen (talk) 18:46, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes a slippery slope. However we do need to allow for robust and civil criticism of another editors actions, especially official administrative actions. Paul August ☎ 16:39, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

To be sure; I think the important question in this case is not that such criticism is good and proper, but where one draws the line. Also, a quibble: what is "official" in this sense? (And what would be unofficial?) Mackensen (talk) 16:48, 12 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. --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. --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 . 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. 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. 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, "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. --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... ++Lar: t/c 20:05, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

And yet you continue to use phrases like "acting the prat" and "acting like prats" when discussing cases, even after people have pointed out that it IS insulting, and even suggested alternatives. RoscoHead 22:19, 15 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.--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. --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.--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? --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 this is blockable harassment, half of Misplaced Pages ought to be blocked. Hell, half of the commentors in this Workshop ought to be blocked under that standard, including me. 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 Misplaced Pages:Misplaced Pages is failing and suspect that might have influenced you. 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. --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? 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. --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. 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 above, but not very much. —Cryptic 23:13, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Worldtraveller did both. Indeed, his stated goal was not to get InShaneee to reform, but rather "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. --CBD 23:51, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Oh yes, my stated goal... like I set out with that intent from the start. InShaneee could have avoided it coming this far incredibly easily by simply discussing. He has never offered any explanation of why he blanked me for seven weeks, and even then showed no interest in discussing but just in posting a half hearted 'apology' and then resuming his unfriendly and deeply unhelpful silence. All I wanted was dialogue, and I find it really offensive that you consider attempts to seek dialogue harassment, but you apparently think it's fine for an administrator to block outside policy and then stick two fingers up at everyone by not bothering to take part in the discussion which followed, because he 'apologised' seven weeks later. InShaneee obviously wasn't suddenly going to start discussing his illegitimate blocks, and obviously didn't think he had to. When that became clear, I stated my belief that he was rude, his attitude was appalling and I didn't think he should be an administrator. It's a shame you have a special dislike for harassment (to the extent that you perceive it when it's not there) and not a special dislike for admins thinking they don't need to explain themselves to anyone. 81.179.115.188 00:31, 13 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. 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 Misplaced Pages as a battleground between good and evil. --Tony Sidaway 12:39, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Are you saying that it's just one of the worst metaphors on record? Scooby Doo had nothing to do with good and evil. It was, instead, a group of trivial teenagers who made correcting problems a hobby. It comprised individuals of limited intelligence and high buffoonery. Critically, the metaphor was a strike, as you explicitly said, at why these users would care about this case. It was about motive. Given the fact that each of these "odd" people were heavily involved on AN/I during the discussion of the block, while you were nowhere to be seen, and then showed up after being notified on their talk pages, while you were not, and then that you would call all of their assemblage a conspiracy without any possible reasonable explanation but a gang beggars the imagination. Geogre 00:46, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

In all fairness, it's rather more likely that he was referring to Buffy the Vampire Slayer, which most emphatically _does_ have a good vs evil theme, than to Scooby Doo. --Random832 01:10, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Maybe Geogre might benefit from reading this, to which one of last week's Featured Articles links from the lede. (Isn't it a good thing we have this wonderful encyclopedia with which to investigate pop-culture references to check whether someone is actually being insulting or comparing us to something which they hold in high favour? And isn't it a good thing that pop-culture articles can make it to the Front Page even without major involvement from those whom we are led to believe are essential to the survival of Misplaced Pages?) HTH HAND —Phil | Talk 09:52, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Ah, how joyful that you have shown up! You're always helpful and raise the level of discourse immeasurably. It's quite important to remember that Misplaced Pages's use by students and researchers the world over is due to its exemplary coverage of cartoons, "footballers," trading cards, and "what you already know" of fictional universes. Indeed, the project's core is articles like falling and serious regurgitations of last week's TV schedule by those in short pants. I'm not surprised that you read such things and accept their blinkers as the horizon, but you can't trust things you read in Misplaced Pages. An article in Biblical Literary Society online from a few weeks ago had this interesting assessment. It said that junk is everywhere in Misplaced Pages, but some serious scholars are there, and so you have to get past all the fart jokes, fetishists, dimwits, and hope that one of them has contributed. I would HTH, but I know it won't. Given the dull-witted and gullible reading you exhibit, though, I would suppose that you always HAND. (See? Nice words don't mean one is being nice.) Geogre 10:31, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

I waited the better part of a day to respond to this, in hopes that it would become clear what point you were making other than to display your ability to be nasty in an erudite and well phrased way. I'm afraid I'm still not clever enough to see it. Can you elaborate what point you actually were making? I found Phil's comment to be helpful at moving the discourse forward. ++Lar: t/c 14:16, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Looks to me like Phil was less than respectful toward Geogre, and Geogre escalated. I'm not in much of a position to lecture anyone, but hopefully if you both realise that even I can see this then both Phil and Geogre will trim their wicks and the result will be illumination rather than smoke. --Tony Sidaway 15:08, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Pretty much. Phil came in with no comment on anything except a negative observation about me and a catty remark about how replaceable such persons as I am. I chose to be nasty back. If we're looking for reprimands for being bad, there are two to be handed out. At least I had a reason for being here and had a reason to be talking about your metaphor. Phil just wanted, seemingly, to fling a ... an object ... and go on with his business. Which one is worse? I'd have preferred not to hear from Mr. HTH HAND at all, myself, but I didn't get to choose. No one wanted to remove his comments as puerile sniping. Geogre 01:20, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

'All Wikipedians in good standing have a reason for being here in this arbitration. Phil explained the meaning of the unfortunate epithet, but the main impression he gave was that he didn't like you very much, which was unfortunate and probably read too much like an invitation. --Tony Sidaway 22:02, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

A rhetorical cue for speaking = "reason for being here." If some slumbering drunk sticks his head up and says, "Damn Nazis!" in the middle of a party, we tend to regard that comment as being unnecessary and unmotivated. Someone who "drops by" just to say, "You stink!" is without cause. Had Phil been here to talk about the arbitration, that would have made sense. He wasn't. He was here to be sarcastic and to play to the crowd. I can't imagine why that would engender a nasty response from me. (Remember that I opposed the "ban from arbitration Tony Sidaway.") I wonder what Phil has to say about the issues? Oh, right: that would require saying something rather than just making fun. Geogre 11:37, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

(outdent) This post by Geogre is not helpful and irrelevant and I ask everyone to ignore it. --Ideogram 17:41, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

That post by Ideogram was not helpful. I ask everyone to ignore it, too. ("Last word" childishness is tiresome.) Geogre 21:33, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for proving how childish you are. --Ideogram 21:51, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

De nada. I can see why you find it enjoyable. Geogre 02:24, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

You both ought to stop, as one of you is dragging the other one down to his or her (lower) level. However I'm not sure which one of you that is, actually, as I have trouble distinguishing these sorts of levels when they are very low to start with. In general, this arbitration seems to have had rather too much "why are you here?"ism relative to the amount of value actually added by those asking why people are here. Before anyone brings it up, I'll include myself in the group that probably shouldn't have asked. ++Lar: t/c 17:31, 17 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.

7.1) 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. Controversial blocks of established editors and failure to explain them might be considered as a form of personal attack.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed. --InShaneee 21:00, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

To comment on Metamagician's statement below, no, this has nothing to do with my initial block. Rather, it is meant to address the fallout thereafter, or, more precisely, the opinions of some during the AN:I discussions of it that regarded them as both trivial and unactionable. --InShaneee 16:26, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Agree. Not that this justifies the initial block in any way - but InShaneee has ackmowledged that. It is relevant to other events. It is important that Misplaced Pages maintain high standards of politeness and respect, and not degenerate into flaming, and that it be seen that this will be enforced if needed. 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. Geogre 10:43, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Proposed 7.1 follow Geogre Alex Bakharev 08:29, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

What constitutes a personal attack is already poorly defined, there's no need to muddy the waters further. We already know that controversial blocks of established editors and failure to explain are bad. This rewording seems like an attempt to sneak in another slam at InShaneee ("oh, and you are guilty of personal attacks too"). Not to mention it is classic "weasel words". --Ideogram 08:48, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

The reworded version is most unhelpful. Metamagician3000 04:11, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

On 7.1, conflating one form of offence with another isn't useful here. Making a bad block, against blocking policy, in itself is more damaging to the community than a one-off personal attack (and a series of harassment and attacks is another thing). But they are offences of a different nature.

7 is reasonably well put and perhaps has a place in the final ruling because personal attacks were made and we don't want to foster an impression that it's okay to ignore the dispute resolution process and badger an unresponsive administrator. --Tony Sidaway 22:16, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Disruption

8) 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.

8.1) 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. Blocks for the user conduct should be administrated sparringly with the great care that the blocking de-escalates rater than futher escalates the disruption.

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 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". - 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. Geogre 10:47, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

I think it is clear to everyone that blocking "for" personal attacks/insults is actually to block "for" disruption; all blocks should be to prevent disruption. But you and Bishonen personally seem to have a very high bar for classifying attacks as disruption, and sometimes this distinction doesn't come through in your (plural) comments. You say or strongly imply that personal attacks aren't a blockable offense when in fact current policy gives some latitude to block for what is almost always the immediate effect of personal attacks - disruption. - Merzbow 18:03, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

That's because your rationale gives the recipient of the "attack" the ability to create the block. I have had my share of insults in my time at Misplaced Pages. I generally (not universally) shrugged them off. If, on the other hand, I knew that I had merely to begin screaming and making a mess to get the other person blocked, then that would be to validate all content disputants. It would immediately turn administrators into feeling police. I do not trust anyone to go around assessing when a comment is hurtful enough for a block as opposed to hurtful enough for a reprimand or hurtful enough for a retort or hurtful enough for ignoring. We cannot put peoples' emotions in the pans of a scale, and so we can't take "how much did you feel disrupted by that comment" into account. I have personally seen, "You are wrong" called a personal attack. Disruption is disruption, and it's not being hurt or insulted or discomfitted. Disruption is the community, not the individual. Geogre 00:51, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Blocking to stop ongoing personal comments is our alternative to allowing flame wars on this site. Anyone who resorts to insults and other personal attacks should expect to be warned against it and blocked to prevent further such behaviour if the warning is not immediately heeded. A culture of requiring strict politeness and respect in all discussions, with consequences for people who do not comply, distinguishes Misplaced Pages from the many noticeboards and such where flame wars are the norm. Accordingly, this principle should be supported. Metamagician3000 02:01, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. Flame wars do not erupt the moment an insult is proferred. It takes two to have a flame war. In other words, for there to be a flame war, the recipient has to be as guilty of loss of decorum as the speaker. If we substitute, "I'm going to AN/I and getting you blocked!!!!" for "I hate you too," have we stopped flame wars? I would say that we would be sublimating it only. We would opt for a tattle-ocracy. The best defense against a flame war is calm discussion. The ultimate defense is what Carlyle referred to as the "Center of Indifference" (or was that the Buddha? or was it the author of The Cloud of Unknowing?). In other words, being the bigger woman or man is the answer, not ranting or tattling or throwing templates. Geogre 10:39, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

I think you are making two wrong assumptions here. The first is that you assume that just because you are unusually thick-skinned, everyone should be that way also. Certainly there is a point below which a person would almost universally be considered too thin-skinned, but people are different, and above that point I think someone can reasonably claim that his experience in Misplaced Pages is being disrupted by attacks directed just at him, and expect redress. Second is that you assume that even if the target of the attack is not "disrupted", the community isn't also. I think the simple presence of these attacks serves to create a hostile environment, which is de-facto disruptive to the community; other editors involved in the same articles/discussions feel free to up their level of incivility, editors without the skins of trolls are scared away from the vicinity, editors peel off into warring camps, etc. I've seen this many times. Almost always the situation becomes much better once the attacking editor(s) is/are convinced not to attack or are removed. Almost always their presence is not missed, no matter how "valuable" their previous contributions. - Merzbow 17:53, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

I disagree with you entirely. First, yes, if we convince people to play nice, things are better. Of course that's true. "Removal," though, does not make nice. If you are speaking of a permanent ban (not a block), then it is possible that a community continues with more peace, but not necessarily with greater productivity. Let's imagine an expert on an obscure subject, like Russian history, and then that he, acting according to his culture, speaks frankly (and insultingly) when people who know much less try to change what he knows to be correct. The ignorant person can begin hollering about it, and, sure enough, the expert spoke harshly. Boom. He's gone forever. Now there is calm on those articles, and there is much less truth and much less quality and a proliferation of mediocrity and very amicable spreading of overheard misstatements. Calm is not our goal, although it is desired. Our goal is encyclopedic content and effective presentation. Calm is usually necessary for that goal, but it is not a goal by itself. I'm sure that Klansmen are very much in agreement with each other on their message boards, but they are not an ideal for that. Second, most of these blocks are blocks, not bans, and they result in angrier people. The person so frustrated and angry that he called someone a naughty word is now slapped in the face, pinched on the bottom, pounded on the head, and expected to be contrite? In what universe is that true? Intimidation is not peace: it is coercion only. Geogre 01:30, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

You're making the mistaken assumption that any editor is irreplaceable. We have millions of editors now, we're all replaceable, and this is not in the least because expertise is not nearly as important here as it is in academia. We're not publishing original research, we're not publishing opinions - nobody's edits stay on Misplaced Pages because of the strength of the editor's credentials, they stay because the edits are cited to someone else with credentials. Literally ANYONE can pick up a book on Russian history, turn to the relevant chapter, and cite and edit. As on any subject. I've seen people who knew jack squat about the subject of an article join the talk page, and within months, they are making edits as high-quality as I've seen. I'm astonished to even see this argument being put forth. You are not advocating for Misplaced Pages; you are advocating for Citizendium. - Merzbow 02:16, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Except for the minor problem that, as far as I've been able to discern, the admins at Citizendium (they have a different name there... constables... sort of connotes a policing role but you need to be logged in to see it) apparently have much more sweeping powers to remove those acting the prat than we do here. So, perhaps Geogre wouldn't be very happy there either. I could be wrong about how things actually are there though. Or about how Geogre prefers things be done. ++Lar: t/c 03:18, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Addendum. This Constabulary Policy page is particularly instructive. Again you need to be logged in, but Citizendium constables are empowered to (among other things) block a user the second time they use an initialism. Quoting (content is promised to be available under a free content license, TBD, so quoting is clearly allowed, with attribution, and I'm giving attribution by referencing the page): The Policy pages of the Citizendium may not contain any three-letter “initialisms.” For example, “IAR,” “NOR,” and “AFD” are three letter initialisms. These expressions are a considerable problem for new users who are unfamiliar with them. The first time a user introduces such an expression in a policy page, he/she will be warned and the expression removed. The second time a user repeats this offense, he will be banned for a suitable amount of time. Now I can't speak for anyone else but as an IBMer, I'm very prone to lapse into TLAs at the drop of a hat! I'd really have to stay on my toes there. The point is though, things might be a bit more draconian there than many of us might be comfortable with, so... the reverence of experts there comes with a cost. ++Lar: t/c 14:06, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

What dreadful things you guys are saying! My view reflects Misplaced Pages 2003. Back then, I was considered too block-happy. Now, just as Nixon thought Reagan was too conservative to be elected and Bush is farther to the right than Reagan, so "liberal" today is "arch conservative" of 1972, so too my "block itch" of 2003 seems to you folks to be valuing the editor too much. I'm sorry, but you're wrong. Once you take the absurd position (and it is absurd, as you'll soon see) that there are "millions" of editors (and there aren't), then the question immediately arises, "Why block the person making the insult instead of the person who provoked it?" Why block Ghirla instead of you? Why not block the person tying up AN/I with complaints -- after all, that's the person messing with our peace and quiet? Why block any one particular person instead of another, except that you have some reason to think there is greater or lesser value to one. If you set "value" as "says nice things," then you can get a Cub Scouts den mothers' wiki and be pleased. Misplaced Pages is still an encyclopedia, and value is "makes the encyclopedia." Once both sides "make the encyclopedia," then we get to "makes it better." That leads to the expert editor being valued much more than the shrinking violet with a minority point of view to push. Trying to say that I should be at Civipedium is a horrible thing to say about Misplaced Pages, and trying to suggest that we need more ruthlessness is a license to have an empty project. If all it takes is my personal feelings to block someone, I have quite a list of names to go after. Geogre 01:03, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

We're not saying that "value" is "says nice things". We're saying that "behaves civilly" should be a necessary precondition of being a member of this community. I'll point out two wrong assumptions I see in your latest response - first, that this is just an encyclopedia, and not a community, and therefore a priori anything which improves the community at any expense to the encyclopedia is bad, and second, even granting your first assumption, that pulling back on civility standards will result in an improved encyclopedia in the long term. As I think I've pointed out in previous forums, the prototypical "disgruntled genius" editor who is a master contributor but a malcontent is actually much rarer than many people believe; they seem much more common than they actually are because they are the ones that consume so much of the community's effort at dispute resolution. In my opinion, the loss of such editors is outweighed by the gain in editors who stay because the level of civility is that much higher. - Merzbow 04:37, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

And there we have the crux of the matter. Misplaced Pages is a community by accident and by necessity, not by design. It is an encyclopedia that grew a community, and not a community organized around an excuse of encyclopedia writing. An analogy to web forums is inappropriate, because, unlike them, the "disgruntled genius" can contribute for years without once having to talk to the chattering group. Misplaced Pages is not at all like a forum, because people do not have to speak with any portion of the project they do not wish to. To have an intersection of a chatty group with an editing group can be jarring, especially if the rules of chatting happy are applied to the editors or if the rules of writing well are applied to the chat sections (e.g. if a person or group began going to AN and such and demanding footnotes and NPOV). When it comes to "personal attacks," there is a world within a world and a world without the world. I would submit that, if we have to choose worlds, there is no choice at all: we're an encyclopedia with a community only so long as it is completely about building an encyclopedia. Geogre 10:37, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

I really don't agree that the "disgruntled genius" is valuable to Misplaced Pages. I'd rather not say more at this time. --Ideogram 11:37, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Nor do I, at least not without a flapper, because no particular genius is indispensable, and I would rather not say more than that at this time either. ++Lar: t/c 13:05, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

It does look like we've come to a philosophical impasse here. Nonetheless, I think the discussion has been useful. - Merzbow 21:03, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Proposed 8.1 Alex Bakharev 08:33, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't see the need for this. At best it says what everyone already knows. At worst it opens the door to blackmail, "you blocked our friend and now we are all mad it's your fault for escalating the disruption". --Ideogram 09:05, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Vendetta

9) Conducting a vendetta against another user is a disruptive violation of Misplaced Pages:Assume good faith, Misplaced Pages:Civility, and Misplaced Pages:No personal attacks.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Should go without saying Fred Bauder 15:00, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes. But being persistent in trying to right a wrong, is not necessarily a vendetta. Paul August ☎ 17:41, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

We need more willingness to discuss disputes openly, not less. Trying to find someone who will listen does not a vendetta make. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 21:28, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

It's a matter of how far you take it, and perhaps how you respond when the user apologises, and when he makes it plain that he thinks you're harassing him. I think Worldtraveller was encouraged to believe that his behavior was acceptable, by other experienced editors who should have known better. However he isn't a child or a new editor, and he himself should have recognised when he had gone too far. It counts very much in his favor that he made an honest attempt to pursue dispute resolution. The failure of that step indicates a problem with that part of our processes, and doesn't reflect on him. --Tony Sidaway 18:40, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it goes without saying as a general principle. So, the only reason to say it here is to imply that someone has in fact conducted a vendetta in this case. Has someone? Who? Derex 02:55, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps it's just that word. I'll try a different version. --Tony Sidaway 04:45, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

What's a vendetta? One person's vendetta is another person's campaign for justice. Sam Spade felt he was fixing Misplaced Pages by edit warring. Geogre 10:42, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

I think most of us agree that particular vendetta was rather ill advised so I'm not quite clear on what point you are making. ++Lar: t/c 14:07, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Since I don't know what "that" refers to I certainly can't know "us" are. I don't acknowledge that there is a clear finding that a vendetta took place, or even a feud. As I said, to one person it's an attempt at justice, and to the other it's harassment. I thought it was more the former than the latter, but I'm sure WT was unhappy, too. Geogre 01:08, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Sorry for the dangling antecedents, I thought it was fairly obvious what I was referring to (your own proffered example, since I was responding directly to you), at least to anyone not deliberately trying to misunderstand me, but apparently I was mistaken, my apologies. Rephrased: I think most of us in the community as a whole agree that particular vendetta (of Sam Spade's) was rather ill advised so I'm not quite clear on what point you are making.... Better? (by the way, if I have only the choice of "campaign for justice" or "vendetta" to describe the actions of Sam Spade (your example person, not mine) I choose vendetta. If those are the wrong choices perhaps your example wasn't the best) I await clarification of your actual point. ++Lar: t/c 17:54, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Oh! That's quite true. Sam's vendetta was very, very long and went by with immunity and impugnity for quite a while. He did his without insults, generally, or only insulted IP editors, and so he was able to escape oversight for far too long a time. I chose that example partly as an illustration, but I wasn't trying to get in a zinger. I think everyone agrees that "IP editors are scum" is wrong, just as everyone agrees that insulting each other is wrong. The question is when and how these things work out, and I didn't like the emotionally loaded and presumptive language of "vendetta" applied to someone whom a number of us believe was standing up against IP abuse. Geogre 11:43, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Dispute resolution as a weapon

9.1) Attempting to use the dispute resolution process to punish an editor in a dispute is a disruptive violation of Misplaced Pages:Assume good faith, Misplaced Pages:Civility, and Misplaced Pages:No personal attacks.

Comment by Arbitrators:

I'm not sure what this is meant to accomplish. Mackensen (talk) 17:11, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

I fail to see the point this is making, as worded. I am completely mystified as to how a statement that I believed someone was a terrible administrator and I wanted to do what I could to get a terrible administrator de-administrated could be a bad thing to say. Obviously, InShaneee doesn't like being told he's a terrible administrator, but what was I supposed to say? You're a mighty fine administrator even though you ignore simple requests for discussion, and I think you should carry on being an administrator for ever although you might want to follow policy a bit more closely? Is it really the case that one is not allowed to call someone a terrible administrator? 144.82.240.93 17:05, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

There's a middle ground there that you didn't follow. You don't have to think he's a fine administrator, but after admitting wrong-doing was his refusal to discuss the matter further grounds for trying to get him de-sysoped? That's the salient point here. Was he obligated to discuss further, and is a failure/unwillingness to do so serious enough to warrant de-sysoping. If so, why? Mackensen (talk) 17:11, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

You yourself proposed the 'responsiveness' principle above. It depends how seriously you think a failure to abide by that principle is. I personally find it astonishingly rude when someone ignores me, and I am sure many people feel that way. A month or so ago I saw an administrator threaten to block someone for reverting vandalism, and I questioned his behaviour . His response was to my mind totally inadequate and pretty rude but the fact that he did respond was at least something. Leaving someone hanging on, unable to tell whether you've even read or understood their question, is a terrible way for an administrator to behave. 144.82.240.93 17:32, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Rewording to remove the V-word. This would need a separate finding of fact. Was Worldtraveller's statement of intent to have InShaneee desysopped disruptive, or simply and expression of frustration? --Tony Sidaway 04:45, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

It looks awfully like a vendatta to me. I see no reason not to call a spade a spade. Metamagician3000 06:57, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't think this is a "vendetta" or a "feud" (vendetta redirects to feud, and dictionary definitions for vendetta mostly refer to a bitter feud with murders on both sides - this is something short of that).

Sometimes one may call a spade a shovel, or vice versa, but it is usually best to avoid labelling situations or people with emotive epithets. (As Gwendolen said to Cecily, "I am glad to say I have never seen a spade. It is obvious that our social spheres have been widely different.") -- ALoan (Talk) 16:25, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Disagree: Bringing action at ArbCom is not a weapon or a tool, as ArbCom has to accept a case on merits. If they accept, there is at least something present that needs addressing. Geogre 01:08, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

In reply to Mackensen's query, I was attempting to see if I could make sense of Fred's Vendetta proposal by removing the V-word. I thought it was worth trying but I don't think it works. --Tony Sidaway 22:06, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Rights of non-logged-in users

10) Users who do not get an account or do not log in are not entitled to the same processes, protections, etc as users who do regularly log in.

Comment by Arbitrators:

We should do our best to address our deficiencies with respect to this issue. Fred Bauder 15:35, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

A can of worms. Paul August ☎ 17:03, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't propose this as an arbitration remedy; it is just a general comment. I aspire to follow my own advice. Fred Bauder 17:11, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

If it helps the situation, I support this. While I don't necessarily think it's the best way to conduct this site, until Jimbo says otherwise, it obviously is something we all need to strive to enforce. --InShaneee 16:28, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Very distasteful IMO, but evidence has been presented that Jimbo himself holds this view, and I think it's important that ArbCom affirm or reject it. Unfortunately proposed. --Random832 15:29, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

This should not be expressed as a principle. There are many regular editors who do not log in, and in principle they are entitled to the same rights as all others. That we may fail in delivery in many or most cases is a practical matter related to the difficulty of reliably identifying editors who use changing IP addresses. --Tony Sidaway 16:31, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Then Jimbo shouldn't have said it the way he did: "Sorry, but anon ip numbers do not have the same civil rights as logged in members of the community. If you want to be a good editor, get an account, make good edits.". Better to have this out in the open than as a hidden double-standard waiting to bite people when they least expect it. For the record, I strongly oppose this, but it exists, and should be decided one way or the other by the committee. --Random832 16:37, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Sounds like policy-making to me. Derex 02:57, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

To me, using Jimbo's comment here is taking it a bit out of context. Jimbo was confronted with a person who had been hit by an autoblock triggered by a vandal account. The complaint was written in a very rantish fashion and full of nonsense. That Jimbo replies with a somewhat terse comment does not mean that he disapproves of anonymous accounts in general. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:42, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree that we shouldn't take Jimbo's offhand comment as policy-setting, but included it in the evidence because it has become part of a standardized 'welcome' template to anons and a site-wide trend. Jimbo may not 'disapprove of anonymous accounts in general', but some users clearly do and the simple fact is that anons are almost routinely blocked with impunity. My evidence also included other cases of blocks on anons for 'vandalism' which just... wasn't. Does anyone seriously think we'd be here if this particular anon IP hadn't turned out to be Worldtraveller? Do we get alot of other ArbCom cases over improper blocks of anons? No, because while we officially say it is wrong, anyone trying to fight for the rights of an unknown anon against a respected admin has an uphill battle on their hands. --CBD 12:38, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Rights of non-logged-in users (rejection)

10.1) It is important to ensure, whenever possible, that even users who choose not to log in receive the same protections as any other user.

Comment by Arbitrators:

I don't like the way this is put, but it is important to be civil and responsive to anonymous editors Fred Bauder 16:50, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed. It just occured to me that "rejections" as such (that is, committee votes against something) don't make it into the final decision, or likely into the proposed one. Here's the opposing side of the coin, which I do support. Note that this is on its face a rejection of something Jimbo has said, but it's not clear if he was speaking in any official capacity. --Random832 16:45, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Everybody should be treated kindly. However, we can't both show special solicitude to logged-in, well-established users with good records (as we are frequently admonished to do, probably for good reason) and show equal solicitude to everybody. That's a contradiction. Some people will, in fact, receive more solicitude than others, based on their known record of contribution, and that's not a bad thing as long as it doesn't lead to a "free pass" mentality. Even the most valuable users should follow standards of civility, etc. But if you are a logged-in, well-established user with a good record, a bit more allowance might properly be made for you. I don't think any finding needs to be made about this - especially because the anonymous user concerned didn't really do anything wrong in any event- but we should all be aware that it's how things work. Metamagician3000 00:31, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Totally disagree that people not logged in deserve less consideration. They do not get the full process (per Jimbo) because they can't. (An IP can't vote, can't do AfD's, can't do DRV, can't get notices about pending RFC's, etc.) These are software limitations and by no means community standards limitations. Beyond the limits imposed upon us, I believe that IP editors deserve and should receive as much consideration and "process" as any editor. The long time editor gets more benefit of the doubt when there is doubt, but IP's don't get a lack of etiquette or politeness or consideration. Geogre 00:54, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

For the record, an IP is as free as anyone else to express their opinion, an AfD is not a vote. What part of DRV can't an IP do, IIRC that doesn't require a subpage. And there are plenty of people more than willing to complete an AfD nomination. An IP is as able to get notice of a pending RFC as one is able to receive vandalism warnings. --Random832 01:10, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

IP votes are regularly discounted from AfD. It's one thing to say that it's not a vote and another thing to say that IP opinions are given credence. At least my experience of the process from its old VfD days to its current status, IP comments are sometimes stricken and almost always ignored. An IP is not able to get into the dispute resolution world unless his/her IP is static. In other words, these are things where the IP editor is deprecated or denigrated by the system. Geogre 10:46, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

This whole dichotomy is bogus. The distinction is between established editors, and new editors, not logged-in users and IPs. (Although being established does not given an editor carte blanche to spite policy.) An IP can be a long-standing established editor. However, in this case, the IP WT was editing under at the time of the block had no edit history, and was indistinguishable from a new IP editor, most of whom appear to be vandals/trolls/socks/etc. - Merzbow 18:08, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Yup, when Jimbo said "civil rights" I guess he meant IPs don't get equal 'votes' in AfDs and RfBs etc. I certainly don't believe he meant that it was ok to be rude, block if they dare revert you and ignore their requests for an explanation. Addhoc 19:12, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

The actual context was, though, in declining to show any concern about collateral damage in an autoblock, not in anything about voting. However, as his word so often is, it's been taken as gospel by the community and expanded in scope at every opportunity for every agenda, which is why I asked him for clarification. --Random832 23:11, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Geogre's statement that IP "votes" are regularly discounted when closing AFDs is in some ways true, some ways not. The usual reason is that such anon votes are hard to distinguish from sockpuppets or meatpuppets. Another reason is that such votes are often made with a failing or irrelevant rationale. However, they should not be blanket discounted, if we look at WP:GD, we find "note that verifiable facts and evidence are welcome from anybody and will be considered during the closing process." This at least should be the way anon votes are handled in theory, whether it actually is the case in practice is a different matter of course. In general, good contributions are welcome whether they are from admins, regular users, bots or anonymous accounts. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:47, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't want to have a detail hang the whole of the statement. My point was that IP accounts get deprecated by virtue of the limitations of the IP system, and we can't help that. However, we do not discriminate against them otherwise and must not. I have an IP editor in the 72 range who is doing fantastic things helping out 18th c. British literature articles. She or he keeps catching generalizations I made (a weakness of my writing) and paring them down. Another editor in the 72 range is adding "poo" everywhere. One cannot say "most" IP editors are one way or another. One can say "most vulgar vandalism comes from IP accounts" but not "most IP accounts are useless." Geogre 01:12, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Good point, I'll agree with that. :-) Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:10, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Rights of non-logged-in users (compromise #1?)

10.2) Users who have brand new accounts or who do not log in are in limited areas not entitled to the same processes, protections, etc as users who are log in on accounts of long standing. These areas include measuring the consensus of the community, editing of semi-protected articles, auto-blocks of IP addresses used by vandals, being given administrator rights and other limited-acccess rights, and software driven limitations. In other areas, they have the same process participation and protection rights that any other editors do.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed (Please add any other areas where by policy we do limit their rights.) I think this is better than a blanket statement that they have reduced privileges, but recognizes the reality that in certain areas they do. I include measuring the consensus of the community, as with the exception of a few IP editors with a stable address, we have a tough time knowing whether they are a new voice to the discussion or an old voice with a new label. Semi-protected articles should be obvious, and is a software limitation. Auto-blocks is the specific Jimbo example, and they do hurt IP editors that decline to create an account. Giving an IP address the administrator bits would neither fly at RFA nor actually give the bits to a particular human editor. Software driven issues was put in as a catch-all in case I forgot some. GRBerry 22:46, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Too prescriptive, and not really relevant to this case. --Tony Sidaway 22:07, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Disruption of arbitration

11) Users who disrupt arbitration by provocative behavior or habitual incivility may be banned from participation, in extreme cases from participation in any case not directly concerning them.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed Fred Bauder 15:35, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

I think the core problem here is that there are some perennial disputes being brought up that are at most tangentially related to the matter at hand. Better that we encourage third parties to limit their comments to the matter at hand. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 21:48, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Agree with UC on this point. Mackensen (talk) 21:51, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

That Fred rather depends on who you are referring to - Tony? - or anyone who dares to point out this case has nothing to do with him. It is quite apparent that he is just hijacking the page with his comments to ensure it becomes as unreadable as possible - then surprise! surprise! it can be split into three even more unreadable pages just like another highly publicised and controversial case I well remember. I see right through him and his games. Giano 15:57, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Remedies regarding disruption

12) Remedies regarding disruption of arbitration may be proposed regarding any user, including users who are not parties, who significantly participates in an arbitration case.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed Fred Bauder 15:35, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

It's worth noting that he's apologized, and I think I agree with his belief that while justified, the offense taken at the term "the scoobies" was unforeseeable. ("pod people", however...) --Random832 16:49, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't want to make a bigger deal of this than it is, but for anyone unfamiliar, the term "Scooby Gang" or "Scoobies" comes either from here or from here and I think it is readily foreseeable that this metaphor would be considered inappropriate. Newyorkbrad 16:58, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

As the person who coined the term, I'm still non-the-wiser as to what particular offence it caused, but I accept that it did. --Tony Sidaway 19:00, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Could someone explain why this is 'readily foreseeable'? Because, even if it is offensive, it's less obvious to some here than others seem to think, and an explanation could be useful in averting future use of metaphors that offend on similar grounds. --Random832 19:38, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

I've posited elsewhere on the page that any metaphor or slang term applied to a group (or supposed group) by anyone other than the group members themselves has the potential to be viewed as a inappopriate term. ++Lar: t/c 19:43, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

That's absurd, and it actually looks like attempted intimidation. If you want to strike Tony from the list of parties, Fred, the section is above. If you don't want to read what Giano II writes, don't be an arbitrator or get a full case going about this disruption. I see disruption by Tony Sidaway and very little anymore going on (since his arrival...is he the alternate account of Inshaneee? are they they same person? do we need an RFCU?), but not by others. Geogre 01:00, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree with this, but don't think a separate principle in this case is necessary. The Arbitration policy is pretty clear that the Arbitrators have a more or less free hand. --Tony Sidaway 11:50, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

The role of arbitration

13) The role of arbitration is to resolve disputes or, failing that, eliminate the source of the dispute. It is not a vehicle for the perpetuation of disputes or the creation of new ones. Editors who do not recognize this will be fed to Bishzilla (talk · contribs).

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed. Mackensen (talk) 18:59, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

I was actually preparing to write something to this effect. However, Mackensen, I'd like to know if something could be added onto this, or if I should create this as a separate note. I'd like something to be said about how, while policy may be shaped through the course of Arbitration, it is not a vehicle to be used explicitly to do only that. I fear that some of the commenters in this case may be here to effect a policy change regardless of the participants of the situation, and if nothing else, I'd like this spoken to. --InShaneee 19:03, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Arbitrators differ on the extent to which arbitration dictates policy and vice-versa. My own view is that arbitration can clarify policy, but barring extreme situations new ground shouldn't be broken here. Mackensen (talk) 19:12, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

The little arbcom overestimate Bishzilla appetite. Bishzilla | ROAR 21:24, 12 March 2007 (UTC).

Maybe only very small editors? ++Lar: t/c 22:02, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Maybe Bishzilla not like flavor. --Ideogram 00:49, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Participation in arbitration process by uninvolved individuals

14) Participation in arbitration cases, in particular, in the evidence and workshop subpages of each case, by individuals not directly connected to the case is encouraged. However, such individuals must be careful not to disrupt the proceedings, or they will be asked to remove themselves.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Otherwise, why not strike the header directly above this very comment? proposed. --Random832 19:34, 12 March 2007 (UTC) Note: This is specifically a reaction to the idea (on InShaneees part) below that mere participation by Giano is evidence of intent to disrupt, and in particular the protestation that he has nothing to do with this dispute.

Without reference to any specifics of Tony or Giano's participation, agree as a matter of principle. It should be implicit that the amount and nature of such participation should not rise to the level of disruption, but maybe it should be said specifically? - Merzbow 20:27, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Modified. this comment used to say something else. I'll note that despite his rather astonishing level of incivility, in my opinion Giano's actions don't rise to the level of deserving to be banned forever. That's an extremely harsh action to be contemplating. --Random832 21:29, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

The social obligation to accept apologies

15) To apologize fully and frankly can be very difficult, and is not an action that can be imposed by force. However, neither can users be obliged to accept reproachful or passive-aggressive or self-serving statements as "apologies" merely because the statements formally contain the words "I apologize".

Comment by Arbitrators:

Given that InShaneee did not further the dispute after offering an apology/explanation, however weak it might have appeared to Worldtraveller, I am unconvinced that he owed Worldtraveller anything further. Mackensen (talk) 02:45, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Support. I have been completely baffled by the suggestions that InShaneee's 'apology' should somehow have put an absolute end to the disagreement. 81.179.115.188 00:34, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Frankly, I'm offended at the implication that my apology was 'self-serving'. --InShaneee 03:43, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Proposed. Please see my evidence, where I protest against the assumption that any reproachful, self-serving, partial and direly belated statement must have miraculous healing properties just because it contains the words "I apologize". Please compare InShaneee's apology to Worldtraveller here. Bishonen | talk 00:20, 13 March 2007 (UTC).

Support: Anyone who has ever had a romantic relationship break up and heard the dreaded "I'm sorry you're upset" apology knows how weak they can be. (Anyone who has ever made that speech is a person I don't want to talk to.) Geogre 01:02, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree with the sense of this. Whether a person refuses to accept a good faith apology or not may have a bearing on subsequent events, the health of the community and so on, so it doesn't do capriciously to reject apologies, nor does it do to continue to badger and harass in search of a "satisfactory" apology. But obviously an apology could be used as a figleaf for further attacks, or a kind of "get out of jail free" card, and that isn't on.

But I don't see a finding of fact, or evidence in this case, that has a bearing on this. The evidence section Bishonen cites seems to be an argument by Bishonen to the effect that the apology offered wasn't enough. Well it ought to have been, really. There's no getting around that. If we see evidence to support a claim that the apology was false, or in some other way inadequate, then this principle may apply. --Tony Sidaway 01:12, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Here's your evidence. Textual analysis. Close reading. Use your eyes. Bishonen | talk 04:17, 13 March 2007 (UTC).

Let's take it as read that I've used my eyes. What I'm saying is that you've yet to turn your stated opinions into evidence, or raise a finding of fact. One person might read that piece and agree with you, another might disagree. This is why I say that I think that this principle, with which I generally agree, is somewhat adrift in this arbitration. As a defence of badgering, in any case, it's not really much use. Nobody should be harassed. Ever. --Tony Sidaway 04:35, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Regarding the apology and whether or not it was self seeking, it's not possible to be certain one way or another, but considering it was only given after several weeks, and after it had become obvious that Worldtraveler did not intend to let the matter drop, it's inevitable that some Wikipedians will see it as a "so that won't eventually wear me out with coming" motive. That may be fair or unfair, but it's a natural consequence of not having apologized when he should have. Considering also that the apology at the time was rather weak, and it was only when an arbitration case was opened shortly before an arbitration case was opened that Inshaneee finally acknowledged that the block was completely inappropriate (and not just that he "jumped the gun"), it's inevitable that people will wonder if that admission is a sign of being contrite, or of hoping to avoid sanctions. I've seen this kind of thing happen before, for example when it's brought up at an RfA that the candidate was abusive to another user months before, and the candidate then goes to the other user's page and apologizes. There's nearly always a comment from someone to the effect of "what a pity you didn't apologize before your RfA." Inshaneee unquestionably performed a very inappropriate block, and then left the victim feeling frustrated by his refusal to adequately discuss it, until it began to seem that there might be consequences. His acknowledgment now may be completely sincere — it may even be that the acceptance of this case jogged him into a realization of how abusive the block was — but because of his earlier refusal to acknowledge his abuse, he's not in a strong position to be offended if people wonder about the sincerity of his apology. Deathbed conversions are often sincere, but they're not usually impressive. Musical Linguist 03:11, 14 March 2007 (UTC) (Post modified by Musical Linguist at 12:02, 14 March 2007 (UTC) )

It is not accurate to say that, "it was only when an arbitration case was opened that Inshaneee finally acknowledged that the block was completely inappropriate". How is, "I fully accept that I was in the wrong", not an acknowledgment? You can quibble over whether, "I will admit that I jumped the gun with the block, and it was something that I should have sought outside input on", or even "my error in judgement" 'fully acknowledge' the mistake, but that other one is hard to argue with... and three acknowledgments, even with 'quibbles' thrown at them, ought to have been good enough reason to stop. --CBD 11:35, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Noted, and corrected. The basic point, though, is that Inshaneee did not apologize until it became obvious that what he had done could no longer be just brushed aside. Musical Linguist 12:02, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Administrative blocks of established users

16) In the absence of community consensus, blocking of an established user who engages in a sustained pattern of disruptive or inappropriate behavior is unlikely to be effective. If consensus cannot be reached the process of dispute resolution should be utilized.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed Fred Bauder 15:41, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

I think there was a failure of logic in the block concerned. Was I ever noted for my disruptive habits and foul mouth? I don't think so. When I started being accused of harassment, did those who believed that was the case think it was out of character, or not? I hope they did. So, did they think "what has made this previously always calm and friendly person get angry enough to do things that some people are considering them harassment?" Did they see my growing anger as a malady in and of itself that needed to be treated, or did they (as I think they should have done) see it as a symptom and investigate the underlying cause? It seems to me that they did the former. I didn't see CBDunkerson anywhere saying that InShaneee was in the wrong. I didn't see HighInBC saying that either. I certainly didn't see either of them suggesting to InShaneee to say that if he actually started talking then I'd no longer need to post to his page every few days in a vain attempt to get answers from him. In fact, when CBDunkerson first started accusing me of harassment he was unclear enough about the situation to think it somehow referred to the fallout from WP:WIF - see this, this and this.

So, if we take it as read that someone who's been around for two and a half years, been an administrator, and written several FAs won't suddenly start getting angry enough to be accused of harassment for no reason, then it's failure of imagination and of WP:AGF, I think, to threaten them with blocking and then follow through on that threat, without actually having looked into the cause of their anger. Perhaps this is generally applicable and is the reason why other blocks of established users have proved inflammatory. 81.179.115.188 10:03, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm responding in 'the wrong section' so it doesn't get lost in the mess below. I said at the time I warned you that I didn't know the details of the dispute with InShaneee... it was so long before, and not on your primary account block log, that I couldn't even find it until I set aside an hour to go digging. I also said it didn't matter, and I stand by that. Since learning the details I have agreed that he was wrong, but that doesn't make what you were doing any less wrong. As I, and others, told you, we have procedures for resolving disputes - continuing to insult and badger someone indefinitely is not part of those procedures, and your insistence on continuing that rather than following dispute resolution is why I blocked you.

The stuff about me 'thinking it somehow referred to WIF' is incorrect... I originally didn't know (or assume) anything about the InShaneee matter at all. I just responded to a query about 'where have I been uncivil' (or somesuch) by pointing out that you'd called someone "stupid" (not in evidence here because it was unrelated) just a couple of paragraphs above that. You then conflated the two because the 'stupid' comment was about WIF rather than InShaneee - which was irrelevant to me as I was at that time warning you against incivility in general. --CBD 10:47, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

The first part, I agree with. The second part, I think is not complete. I think the committee should bite the bullet and endorse very short blocks. This would help to dispel the unfortunate developing trend within the community to regard blocks as a big deal. An editor who doesn't recognise a block as a sign that he needs to stop and revise his behavior is probably beyond hope anyway.

While the committee cannot and should not force a consensus on this, it can allow for such a development. Dispute resolution certainly has its place, but it is not useful for dealing with the acute effects of bad behavior. In time I think a consensus is likely to emerge to the effect that a short block early in a developing situation can help. That consensus isn't there, yet, but I think the committee should take the long view and allow for the development of more flexible means of handling bad behavior. I would add, therefore, a statement to the effect that blocks are useful and possibly underused due to lack of present consensus on the issue. --Tony Sidaway 15:59, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Tony's assessment. --Random832 16:08, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Not to say that I think a short block would have helped in the current climate. There may be a future time, however, when all users recognise and accept that a brief block when they're overheated is a reminder--not to stop engaging in Misplaced Pages--but to stop doing so in a damaging way. --Tony Sidaway 16:17, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

I understand the concern, but am not sure about the implementation. First, at the time of my block it wasn't clear that "consensus cannot be reached"... to all appearances there was consensus agreement that Worldtraveller's actions were incorrect. Do we need a longer discussion period? Or some sort of, 'I now intend to block for this behaviour - please respond with thoughts during the special 24 hour delay period for blocks on established users'? Had something like that been in place and/or people objected prior to the block... what then? Should I have filed an RFC? If that fails then what... 'established users' can never be blocked by admins, only sent to RFAr for an ArbCom ruling? Frankly, I don't like it. An established user "who engages in a sustained pattern of disruptive or inappropriate behavior" ought to have known better... especially after they've received more than a dozen warnings. Further, isn't 'established user' a euphemism here? There are users who have been here longer, with tens of thousands of more edits, than Worldtraveller (thus, surely qualifying as 'established') who are blocked without any sort of issues or concerns at all. Aren't we really saying that if a user and/or their friends are likely to be very disruptive about a block, then we should not make one? If not, then how exactly are we defining 'established users' here? Are we going to stop blocking everyone with a thousand edits or more? --CBD 16:39, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

What is the purpose of this kind of "short" or "very short" block in a "developing situation"? To shock the recipient into a spasm of repentance? I find it difficult to believe that a smack in the mouth is ever very effective as a way to make an an angry or upset person think again, but YMMV. -- ALoan (Talk) 18:16, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

If blocks are, as you say, 'never an effective way to deal with an angry or upset person' then why do we use them for such at all? Why is this just a bad way to deal with 'established users', and not a bad way to deal with all users? As to 'developing situation'... it had been going on for two months. That's not 'developing'... it's 'dragging on interminably'. If you want to talk 'block philosophy' - mine has always been that we should block people only when they are doing something improper and it seems clear (after several attempts) that there is no other way to get them to stop. --CBD 20:28, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Firstly, I would appreciate it if you did not purport that your paraphrase of my comment was a direct quotation.

But, on the substantive point, Tony is avocating "short" or "very short" blocks to deal with the "acute effects" of "bad behavior", "early in a developing situation". I am not sure when, in the current case, Tony would have blocked Worldtraveller or InShaneee, or for how long (1 second? 5 minutes? an hour? 6 hours?), or how it would have helped. It is clear that the blocks that were actually employed have not solved the "problem", whatever it is perceived to be. I don't see how such an insult (essentially saying, "shut up: you have nothing useful to say") can help in this sort of situation. Did your block make Worldtraveller stop? -- ALoan (Talk) 23:51, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm not concerned about the effect on this situation (since no consensus for the block emerged a short block would have been inappropriate). My comment is on general long term thinking about blocking. I do think that short blocking can be very effective in the presence of a consensual support for this kind of block. and I wouldn't like to see the arbitration committee unnecessarily box in thinking about blocking just because it sees no circumstances under which there would be consensus for short blocks at present. --Tony Sidaway 17:48, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

On 'direct quotation'... actually the use of single quote marks in this way is a fairly common convention for indicating that the statement so marked is not entirely accurate or... a paraphrase. We have a passable article on it at Scare quotes. As to the rest, did my block make Worldtraveller stop? Um... yes? Yes it did. I told him he needed to stop harassing InShaneee and take the matter to RFC or RFAr or he'd be blocked. He refused. I blocked him. We now seem to be in RFAr... where the matter can hopefully be resolved rather than the harassment continuing indefinitely. No, this result has not come without further attacks / incivility / disruption, but frankly the likely inability of various people to remain civil about a block should not be a reason to allow someone to continue being disruptive. That is, we should not encourage abusive behaviour by delaying blocks where it is likely to increase or taking its actual occurrence as a sign of anything except the bad conduct of the perpetrators. That I've been called "fuckwit", "ignoramus", "twit", and the like over this matter should IMO reflect badly on those who said these things... not on me for their inability to be civil. Criticize me for a 'hasty block' if you think two months / more than a dozen warnings is 'too soon', but the tendency of some to be incivil should never be allowed to strengthen their case. --CBD 11:17, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, starting a comment "If blocks are, as you say, '...' " sure makes it look to me like the part in '...' is a direct quotation, but whatever.

Yes, some of Worldtraveller's comments were uncivil - calling someone a "fuckwit" is never civil, even if they are being a fuckwit (a term, incidentally, which is on the milder end of the scale of incivility in the UK, arguably less so than "fuck", and I suspect that part of this debacle derives from this kind of cultural issue; and, correct me if I am wrong, but I believe Worldtraveller did not use that particular word until after you had blocked him for "harassment"). Yes, Worldtraveller should not have used naughty words, and it reflects badly on him that he fell into the trap of being goaded into using such language by being on the receving end of a bad block, then ignored for over 6 weeks, then given a half-hearted apology, and then ignored for a few more weeks, meanwhile being told that he would have to be satisfied with the "apology" that he had been given and that seeking any further explanation for the block was "harassment" and would lead to a futher block. He should have been the bigger person, and simply maintained his composure in the face of the stonewalling, the harassment towards him, and the second block to stop his "harassment". But he didn't. Oh dear. Human after all.

Perhaps the second block did lance the festering boil of this dispute (to recall a metaphor) but a cure that kills the patient is not much use. As you point out, your block was not "early" in a "developing situation" - it was late in a situation that had developed because an admin refused to explain his actions, and upon which a number of people had commented more than once.

But Tony has not answered my questions above - when, in the current case, would he have blocked Worldtraveller or InShaneee, and for how long (1 second? 5 minutes? an hour? 6 hours?); and how does he think it would have helped? -- ALoan (Talk) 17:33, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Am I the only one that finds it ironic (and indicative) that CBD, of all people, is saying that remedies other than blocking had apparently been exhausted? To me that's a strong indicator that there was no other recourse apparently available, because CBD is (dare I say it?) notorious for assuming good faith, even about folk than 99% of the rest of the community has written off, and when he finds himself without other remedies... ++Lar: t/c 13:58, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Pfffbt! :] 'Notorious' I may be, but we can all be too hasty at times. Let us say that I concluded that no other recourse was available because various had been tried unsuccessfully... but trying something, other than a direct warning, again before blocking wouldn't have hurt. Besides, there's a big difference IMO between a 24 hour block and 'writing someone off'. I'm nowhere near the latter with Worldtraveller. --CBD 16:54, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

(outdent) I do not think ALoan's extended partisan description of events is helpful. --Ideogram 20:24, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Disagree. If the user is disrupting Misplaced Pages, a block will stop him from doing so while blocked, and the editors whose work is affected by his/her disruption can get on with editing. VERY effective, I say. If the user starts up again after returning from a block, back they go into the block. If the cycle continues, then dispute resolution is needed to either convince the editor to change his behavior or to lock in a ban if it's obvious the editor cannot change. We don't run a social services clinic here; if you can't play well with the other kids, then please leave. - Merzbow 18:20, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Disagree, the subject is well covered at WP:BLOCK#Controversial_blocks - ArbCom should generally avoid modifying/creating policy. Addhoc 20:49, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

I guess I am looking for some message (which Bauder has come close to here) that reinforces the controversial blocks section of the blocking policy. However, if an "established editor" won't seek dispute resolution, then what do we do? This is a very tough call...and any findings on this delicate issue need to be worded without ambiguity.--MONGO 11:32, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree with MONGO, some statement from ArbCom about thinking on blocking policy would be helpful. Not looking for new policy formulation per se, but more a read of how things will be treated in future. Because civility blocks generally do't work. But ... sometimes there appears to be no other path available. Whether this was one of those times is a large part of what is being contested, in my view. ++Lar: t/c 13:58, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Dispute resolution process

17) The dispute resolution process is a semi-formal set of procedures intended to aid in the resolution of interpersonal problems that develop within the community. Requests for Comment and Mediation are two examples of mechanisms that exist to facilitate dispute resolution where direct communication fails.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed. Please feel free to refine the wording. See my proposed remedy. --Tony Sidaway 16:37, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

The responsibility of the Arbitration Committee

18) The Arbitration Committee is responsible for resolving conflicts. Thus users who behave in a constructive way, contributing to the solution of problems and conflict should be encouraged, and those who create conflicts and exacerbate them should be discouraged.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed Fred Bauder 01:07, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Added a word, fixing what I think was a typo, but Fred please check. Newyorkbrad 01:38, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

I wholly support this. If any arbitrator warns me that I am not behaving constructively, I will immediately admit my error and stop the disruptive behavior, since of course I cannot be objective about myself. If they decide I should be sanctioned, I will accept the sanction as fair and impartial judgment of my actions.

I also want to note that I feel that there are many people participating here who are not behaving constructively. Geogre, in particular, loves to rant at great length about issues that are peripherally related to this case, if at all, and occasionally throws in some gratuitous nastiness such as "Given the dull-witted and gullible reading you exhibit" which does not belong anywhere on Misplaced Pages and should be condemned in the strongest possible terms. --Ideogram 01:44, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Someone once said something like "If we all got what we deserve, not one of us would escape hell." We've none of us been on our best behavior but I don't doubt that every single editor here has as his primary goal the resolution of this conflict.

During the course of the dispute that led to this arbitration, there was some taking of sides. During the course of this arbitration, those sides have dissolved, and a resolution is now in sight. While it seems that some parties may have unnecessarily prolonged the dispute by supporting the harassment while not seeming to take notice of Worldtraveller's attempts to use dispute resolution processes, this could be due to their other commitments. Other parties have been criticised for the blocking of Worldtraveller, when other avenues had not been explored.

For myself I think if I'd realised that this might end up at arbitration I would have researched the situation more, because a superficial examination showed no good reason for the harassment. So although undisclosed at the time my personal failings also may be at fault here. There were no trolls here--I deeply regret that unwise but, at the time, seemingly plausible suggestion. That other entertained the thought does not lessen the harm done. I realise that my offence is far greater than the one that led to this arbitration, and perhaps that's cause for a remedy far harsher than any proposed to date.

But focussing purely on this case, I see no reason to support this particular principle. Arbitration is something that can succeed because it makes us confront our failings. Mediation is a more formal and less costly way to achieve the same means, but mediation was not invoked here so arbitration will have to do. --Tony Sidaway 00:05, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Community participation in dispute resolution

19) When participants cannot privately settle a dispute, the resolution depends on the participation of the community as a whole to act as neutral parties. The policy on resolving disputes reads: "Misplaced Pages works by building consensus. To develop a consensus on a disputed topic, you may need to expose the issue to a larger audience."

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed.--BirgitteSB 18:00, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

I've tried to follow this policy for a long time. --Ideogram 20:18, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Not happy with the wording because it conflates written policy documents with Misplaced Pages policy. But the application to this case is spot on. A little more emphasis on dispute resolution rather than excusing misbehavior, a little more mentoring and guidance of two very experienced editors who were however lacking in specific knowledge and insight, would have helped here. --Tony Sidaway 23:30, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Repeated pestering is not a form of dispute resolution

20) While Misplaced Pages's dispute resolution process encourages communication, the refusal of one party to communicate should not be taken as an excuse for incivility or repeated comments demanding they do so. If a user, while otherwise remaining active, fails to reply to a few requests then other dispute resolution options should be explored. If an answer is given, but considered inadequate, that again should lead to other dispute resolution options rather than continuing the dispute indefinitely.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Mediation can hardly be feasible when the person who's conduct is being questioned refuses to respond to anything. How would mediation work with one silent party? CBDunkerson's apparent assertion that I posted 'one incivil comment after another' appears to take the position that saying someone is a terrible administrator is somehow uncivil. I called InShaneee a witless moron (and I think most people will agree that's a pretty tame insult) - nothing else I said to him was insulting, unless you take the position that saying someone is rude, has poor judgement and shouldn't have access to the administrative tools on Misplaced Pages is somehow an insult. I had stated my intent to seek arbitration ("whatever I can do to get your administrative tools taken away from you, I will do") and yet some people decided that was harassment. So basically despite some sane voices agreeing that InShaneee should have been responding since the very beginning of the whole thing, and that his failure to do so was a discredit to the whole process, I got piled on and eventually blocked for trying repeatedly to simply start dialogue, filing and RfC and making it known I would be filing an RfA. And now this proposal seeks to enshrine the principle that stonewalling is an OK way to avoid facing the rap for violating policy. 144.82.242.95 15:37, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Proposed. People keep going back to, 'Worldtraveller had the right to an answer'... which is true, but not in dispute. Surely we all agree that posting one incivil comment after another isn't the way we want people to go about getting that answer? Isn't that why we have different stages of dispute resolution... so users don't continue insulting each other ad infinitum? --CBD 10:19, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

This is what I've been driving it with the attempts to make RFCs more effective. Worldtraveller did try RFC, and he might also have tried mediation but perhaps did not know about it or did know how to initiate it. In earlier days the arbitration committee might have ordered or requested that mediation be attempted before taking on a case. This might have been appropriat here, although I think the arbitration has itself been rather inclusive and (to me at least) illuminating and helpful in moving towards consensus. --Tony Sidaway 15:15, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

In reply to the suggestion that this principle endorses stonewalling, that isn't true in any way. Once one has tried talk pages, third parties, RFC and mediation, go straight to requests for arbitration if the party is completely unresponsive. I don't think this was really made clear to you, and I think it should have been. --Tony Sidaway 16:41, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

I didn't need it to be made clear. After the RfC, I returned to seeking dialogue. Briefly, I thought this was going to be successful but InShaneee after his half-hearted apology resumed silence. If I hadn't been blocked and walked away in utter disgust, I'd have filed an RfA. 144.82.242.95 16:45, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

I can only speak for myself, but I don't consider "witless moron" a tame insult. It's far from the worst one can say but it's not "tame". At least not in this part of the world, although I am not a world traveller like some. ++Lar: t/c 17:45, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Worldtraveller, let's see; childish, witless moron, terrible administrator, fuckwits, petulant, utter bullshit / witless moron, utter bullshit / witless moron, dishonest, dishonest, terrible administrator, shat on the blocking policy, You really shouldn't be an admin, worst sort of administrator / immature, dishonesty, incredibly petty, incredibly petty / childish / shat on the blocking policy / witless moron / utter bullshit, et cetera. Seriously, if you can't see where you've engaged in more than one "pretty tame" example of incivility... the mind boggles. Though I suppose your admission that "witless moron" is a "pretty tame insult" is 'progress' (of a sort) over when you claimed it wasn't a personal attack at all.

On your 'declared intent to file a RFAr', oddly it didn't mention RFAr and looked rather like a declared intent to continue harassing. Several people responded to it with suggestions that you instead file an RFAr , but you disputed those and said that if what you had been doing was harassment then you would "keep on harassing". You also then continued to post to InShaneee's talk and other pages about this, but made no mention of anything about an RFAr. Indeed, you didn't say anything about RFAr until after you had been blocked and Geogre, Bishonen, and ALoan had suggested it . And there you described it as something you were now considering. Had you gone to RFAr you would not have been blocked. However, the truth is that you made more than a dozen comments (over several days) about this after that, 'I will do anything I can to get you de-adminned' bit... and none of them said anything about following RFAr even though people were urging you to do so.

Finally, on 'enshrining stonewalling'. Not at all. This principle says that the proper response to stonewalling is to seek other dispute resolution options, not to engage in harassment. --CBD 12:14, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Right, so you are one of the people who believes that 'terrible administrator' is an insult? What is uncivil about saying 'you really shouldn't be an admin? This makes my mind boggle and looks like a concerted effort to prevent criticism of admins, or to allow blocks for 'disrespecting' the mighty office of admin. Dishonest - well, was the block for vandalism or was that a lie? Am I not allowed to describe someone who lies about a block as dishonest? Perhaps if he finds it insulting to be described as dishonest, he shouldn't be dishonest. I honestly don't know if you just don't understand the difference between criticism like 'you're a terrible administrator' and unkind words like 'you're a witless moron', or if you just don't care about the difference because you're determined to make your 'harassment' charges stick. 81.179.115.188 12:21, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Read WP:CIVIL. It forbids exactly the kind of behaviours you are claiming to be appropriate. How can you seriously believe that calling someone a liar isn't incivil? Both the civility and personal attacks policies directly state that it is - even when you are certain the charge is true. You were warned about it at the time. Yet you still insist that there was nothing wrong with your behaviour. Calling someone a 'terrible administrator' is obviously an insult. Yes, it is also criticism... but then you won't find alot of insults which aren't critical. What you can find, if you try at all, are civil ways to criticize without insulting people. Are you saying that you really can't tell the difference? --CBD 10:52, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Could I suggest in the context of ArbCom members voting, continuing this discussion isn't worthwhile? Personally, I think InShaneee has on occasions been slightly oversensitive to criticism, and this was covered in his RfC. However, proceeding with dispute resolution, such as filing this ArbCom case is always more productive than calling someone a "terrible editor" or similar. Addhoc 12:39, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

User Accounts and Identities

21) Users have the freedom to contribute using a pseudonymous identity that obscures their real identity, or of using an ID closely linked to their real identity, or even (within the limits of sock policy) to use multiple identities, linked together or not, as well as to use IP address based accounts. Each type of account has advantages and disadvantages, and users may choose among them as appropriate based on editing needs. User credibility and reputation often is associated with a particular account. Users also have the right to vanish, and have the right to discontinue using an account at any time, including by scrambling its password. However, it is not appropriate for users who use multiple mechanisms to expect the community to discern connections that are not obvious, nor is it appropriate for users to expect the community to afford status and recognition earned on one account to automatically accrue to other accounts, for after all, the idea of multiple accounts is to have multiple identities and it is not the responsibility of the community to keep them straight.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed. This may be blindingly obvious. However, I think there has allegedly been a bit of muddying of the waters by WT and the IPs allegedly belonging to WT (including about whether the IPs ought to be given the same automatic consideration (of being an "established editor", for example) as WT was when it was to WT's benefit, but that the IPs were to be treated as new users when it was beneficial to be so treated). Others have introduced evidence to that effect and I offer no comment as to the validity of it, but for the evidence to have meaning, some primciple along these lines might be useful. Note that my identity is closely linked to my real name, and that I have multiple disclosed socks. ++Lar: t/c 18:13, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

While I think I see what you are tring to say, the point can only apply to the period during which InShaneee and Worldtraveller were edit warring and InShaneee inappropriately blocked Worldtraveller. What InShaneee did then was inappropriate no matter who he was in dispute with. Once the complaint started and Worldtraveller's identity became known, then even if one can argue that such a complaint from an anonymous user should have been ignored, the argument (already weak in my opinion) would not hold. --Tony Sidaway 18:22, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Conflict Resolution Systems

22) The essential underlying aspects of each segment in a set of resolution processes is the efficiency with which they can resolve disputes, their ability to transfer issues upon exhaustion, and their ability to comprehensively acquire issues from exhausted processes.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed. This is probably the broadest underlying principle that can be observed at work here. I'd say that the systemic aspects of problems in this case arise from failures to resolve disputes, to properly handle their transfer, and for other processes to meet and transition so that issues don't "fall through the cracks" and enter an increasingly problematic state. Focusing on this principle is probably a good guideline for policy development and implementation. (And for my next act I'll prove myself the biggest geek in the world by drawing all this up as some sort of UML model. Kidding. I hope.) Bitnine 18:39, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Nice work, but it needs a more concrete expression to be useful to the uninitiated. --Tony Sidaway 19:29, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Administrators noticeboard/Incidents is not part of the dispute resolution process

23) The noticeboard clearly states: "Dispute resolution: This page is not part of our Dispute Resolution process. "

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed. This is tricky becuase this page does accept complaints about administrative actions. However I am more thinking of InShaneee's thread on harrassment here rather than Wordtraveller intial complaint when the block expired. InShaneee should have been aware there was an actual dispute (RfC filed and all) between him and Worldtraveller. The "Harrassment" thread can not be seen as a general incident notice of an editor who is simply keen on harrasing editors.--BirgitteSB 18:53, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure this really goes anywhere, but it might be useful to say this for a few reasons. 1) AN/I historically sucks at issues which should be in dispute resolution instead. 2) This principle might possibly act as a reminder for people to respond to future such issues with advice on which step of dispute resolution they should enter, rather than with their personal opinions of who is right or wrong.--BirgitteSB 19:02, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Normally I'd say "too prescriptive", because sometimes simple disputes are resolved there (particularly disputed blocks). But yes, that statement is essentially correct. --Tony Sidaway 19:27, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Disagree: It is not part of mediation, but it is part of conflict resolution, when that "conflict" is with policy and policy implementation. As the first stop in establishing consensus for the need and fitness of an administrative action, it is necessarily part of any dispute resolution process where administrators are involved. Further, since there are blocks available for "community patience," it is clear that AN/I is a necessary part of blocking. Geogre 11:48, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

I think that's similar to my reasoning about the page. It is part of discussion and consensus formation, particularly with relation to disputes involving administrative action. But I think the sense of Birgitte's motion here is that it isn't a substitute for the more formal processes, and I would add that it may actually be harmful by promoting polarization. Some editors nudged Worldtraveller in the direction of dispute resolution a few times, but he doesn't seem to have read the dispute resolution page, or if he did he didn't get much out of it. Others explicitly condoned his continuation on talk pages, even in the face of clear statements of distress by InShaneee (see the proposed finding titled "Mixed Signals 2"). The dispute really didn't progress towards resolution here; rather it polarized (Birgitte covers this in her own Mixed Signals proposal). It is in this sense that ANI was counterproductive with respect to dispute resolution. --Tony Sidaway 14:50, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism

24) The concept of vandalism as understood in Misplaced Pages is defined at Misplaced Pages:Vandalism. This policy defines vandalism as: any addition, removal, or change of content made in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Misplaced Pages.

Comment by Arbitrators:

This finding is already covered in 2.1 above. I also prefer 2.1's wording is slightly better. However "Vandalism" is a better title than "Controversial blocks" (which helps to explain why Guy didn't notice it. Paul August ☎ 20:18, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Since the original block was supposedly for vandalism, we ought to be clear what vandalism is. Guy (Help!) 19:58, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Lengthening a block

25) Avoid lengthening a block for rudeness towards the blocking admin. Don't block for rudeness towards yourself.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed. This principle is relevant to both InShaneee's behaviour in the LinkTothePast case and to User:HighInBC, who lengthened Worldtraveller's block for "personal attacks while asking to be unblocked".. Far from it being standard to treat blocked users with extra harshness, it's standard to put up with defiance from a user reacting to the shock of a block. It's the wrong moment to block them some more for real or supposed "Personal attacks". It's the moment for considering the extreme power discrepancy between an admin and a blocked user — confined to his/her talkpage, remember — and for looking away from displays of anger. Bishonen | talk 19:07, 18 March 2007 (UTC).

Shouldn't this belong on WT:BLOCK? The blocking policy forbids against using blocks when involved with "Content disputes", it goes short(intentionally I think) of saying all disputes. This seems to me an extension of policy without a proper community discussion. _InBC 21:49, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Template

26) {...}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed findings of fact

Worldtraveller has edited from several IP addresses

1) Worldtraveller (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has also edited from 81.178.208.69 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), 81.179.115.188 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), 81.179.150.16 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) and 144.82.240.93 (talk · contribs · WHOIS).

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. --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. — 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. --Tony Sidaway 14:43, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

(Withdrawn)

2)

Inshanee blocked Worldtraveller inappropriately

3) The block of User:81.178.208.69 by Inshaneee, purportedly for vandalism, was not supported by the blocking policy because 81.178.208.69 had not engaged in vandalism. Further, even if 81.178.208.69's edits were, hypothetically, construed as vandalism, they were not frequent or numerous enough for policy to support a block.

Comment by Arbitrators:

I can't find anybody who disagrees with this, least of all me. Mackensen (talk) 20:47, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Needs more detail Fred Bauder 14:25, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Expanded. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 23:24, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes. Paul August ☎ 02:24, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

I don't think anyone seriously disputes this. Inshaneee fucked up and realizes he fucked up. --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. --InShaneee 20:37, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

My word, I wish you'd said that two months ago. 81.179.115.188 20:51, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

I did several weeks ago. --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. 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. --InShaneee 02:24, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Which was what, exactly? 81.179.115.188 08:43, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Is there some point at which you will accept an apology? I'm a bit at a loss now. Would it not be better to accept and move on, in the spirit of WP:FORGIVE than to hold out for an apology that is precisely in the form and manner you wish it to be? ++Lar: t/c 14:46, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

InShaneee did nothing at all to resolve the dispute for seven weeks. Then he made an inadequate 'apology' which didn't include any mention of why he'd blanked me for seven weeks. He has yet to explain why he made no comment whatsoever on the block, and no response whatsoever to my questions, back in January. Without an explanation of why his conduct fell so far below the standards expected of administrators, nothing is resolved at all. He's admitted the block was wrong - great - but it's not the block that got us to here, it was his behaviour in the aftermath, and he has not said anything about that. 81.179.115.188 00:40, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

OK, if Inshaneee apologised again, along the lines of "1)It was a bad block, and I'm sorry for making it 2) I should have explained my actions more fully and more promptly and I'm sorry it caused you distress 3) I will be more careful in future" would that satisfy you? If not, what is missing? If so, would you in turn make a more adequate apology to Inshaneee than the one you've made and then consider the specific matter closed?... because, frankly, I fervently hope that you are in a very small minority if you continue to think that this incident merits Inshaneee's desysopping... ++Lar: t/c 16:39, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

I probably would accept such an apology, particularly if he recognised that ignoring all criticism was pretty much the worst way to proceed, was never going to make the situation better and was bound to be perceived as rude. However, whether he should be admonished or sanctioned for his behaviour is not something I can decide on and should still be considered by the arbitrators now, whatever happens. 144.82.240.93 17:42, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Endorse (the proposal, not the phrasing of the comment). Fixed a typo. Newyorkbrad 02:15, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but it was not the block itself, but the aftermath that led us all here. --Irpen 06:25, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Inshanee blocked Worldtraveller inappropriately

3.0) The dispute originated in a revert war over the removal of {{WikiProject Paranormal}} on Talk:Red rain in Kerala.

3.1) While in dispute with User:81.178.208.69 over talk page content on Talk:Red rain in Kerala, and reverting rather than discussing (dialogue by edit summary), Inshaneee blocked the user, contrary to the blocking policy which forbids the use of blocking to gain the upper hand in a dispute. In the discussion he initially responded provocatively and offered no explanation or apology.

3.2) While in dispute with User:81.178.208.69 (Worldtraveller) over talk page content on Talk:Red rain in Kerala, and reverting rather than discussing , , , , , , , Inshaneee blocked the user, contrary to the blocking policy which forbids the use of blocking to gain the upper hand in a dispute. The block immediately follows InShaneee's third reversion of the editor's removal of the template.

Moreover InShaneee entered a block summary of "vandalism" , however Worldtraveller had not engaged in vandalism. Further, even if 81.178.208.69's edits were, hypothetically, construed as vandalism, they were not frequent or numerous enough for policy to support a block. In discussion InShaneee initially responded provocatively and offered no explanation or apology.

3.3) Inclusion of the paranormal project, supported by InShaneee and opposed by 81.178.208.69/Worldtraveller is at least debatable (). The stated reason for the block, vandalism, does not apply to a content dispute. The fact that it was a content dispute is demonstrated by the edit summary comments. Dialogue on talk would have been strongly preferred to dialogue by edit summary. A standard WP:3RR template warning for 81.178.208.69 would have been acceptable. No such warning was given (). A WP:3RR report by InShaneee would have been acceptable, but would likely have been rejected due to lack of formal warnings. No evidence has been presented that Worldtraveller, by whatever name or IP, had been made aware of policy regarding WP:3RR, or had been made aware of blocking policy. A block for WP:3RR by an uninvolved admin would have been defensible, had 81.178.208.69 been duly warned, however InShaneee's block of 81.178.208.69, an editor with whom he was involved in a content dispute, for a stated reason not consistent with the specifics of the dispute and not supported by either the accepted definition of vandalism or the blocking policy, and in any case related to content on a Talk page not in the main encyclopaedia, was clearly inappropriate. InShaneee now freely admits this.

Comment by Arbitrators:

I've combined 3 and 3.1 into 3.2, reworded slightly and added some diffs. Paul August ☎ 18:33, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

In a sense we both discussed, using edit summaries. I think it should also be mentioned here that WP:BP specifically proscribes blocking someone you are in dispute with. 81.179.115.188 00:40, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

If there isn't something in written policy warning about the dangers of conversing in edit summaries, there should be. The purpose of an edit summary is to explain an edit, not to give justification for repearting a move that you already know has been opposed. --Tony Sidaway 22:18, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

On 3.3 - mention of 3RR would not be appropriate, because the three reverts we each made occurred over three days. A block by any party would not have been supported by the blocking policy because no blockable offence at all had been committed. 81.179.115.188 11:46, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Proposed in response to Fred's request for more detail. --Tony Sidaway 14:52, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

3.2 seems to be about the state of it. --Tony Sidaway 22:15, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

I endorse this, and have added a minor point re the actual text disputed (WP:LAME applies) and added 3.3. Guy (Help!) 19:51, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

3.3 goes into far too much detail. Findings are supposed to contain a strong element of summary, mainly in the interests of the sanity of editors who may need to read the final decision. --Tony Sidaway 22:47, 16 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. Fred Bauder 14:30, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to know if this happens frequently or if this was a rare instance. Are we short of admins? Do people consider that appeals by IP-address users are of little value and do not review them? (comments mostly directed outside this arbcom case's scope, but answers I'd like to know). Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 10:37, 13 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. --Tony Sidaway 02:47, 11 March 2007 (UTC) Struck. --Tony Sidaway 14:20, 16 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. 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. --Tony Sidaway 14:40, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Responding to Fred, we just need more administrators who, among all our other chores, remember to keep an eye on the "requests for unblock" category, and of course to review the requests with an open mind. (That includes me; I wasn't an admin at the time of this block, but I am now.) Sometimes everyone is distracted, and CAT:RFU requests linger longer than they should. You are right that a block is a severe thing—it replaces "everyone can edit" with "everyone can edit, except you"—and a blocked editor is entitled to a prompt review by an uninvolved administrator upon requesting one. Newyorkbrad 14:55, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

General comment, pertinent if not directly on-topic. The unblock requests are not monitored enough. My entire campus, a major university, got shut down as collateral block damage recently. Multiple emails to admins and an unblock template got no attention for hours. There ought to be a place where blocked users can post that is watchlistable for admins, which I surmise doesn't work for membership in Category:Requests_for_unblock. Derex 05:07, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

The bot generated page User:Cyde/List of requests for unblock can be watchlisted and is updated by the bot within 20 minutes of a new unblock request. Someone could review the history of this page to analyze how quickly requests are handled. NoSeptember 11:41, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

A bit long winded perhaps but here goes. There is a bot which reports on entries to the unblock category in a couple of IRC Channels (can be expanded if need be). The category and the mailing list are both relatively new, a year or so ago the option would have been for an anon that you had no review process beyong the main mailing lists. I would suspect part of the problem in some cases is that (1) People are loathe to get involved in the more complex cases, if that be a time constraint or otherwise I guess is an individual question. (2) Part of the time element of 1, Wheel warring no one wants to undo another admins block unless it is very very clearly wrong. Our basic standards are such that before unblocking discussion should occur with the blocking admin and indeed instances where this hasn't happened have cause their own drama, this can extend the time to properly evaluate an unblock request taking the full context the blocking admin may have had (e.g. Other IP's/Users following the same pattern, now deleted articles etc.) (3) Without looking at this particular case, some of the unblock requests (many) essentially don't help themselves, being quite uncivil or in some cases outright personal attacks. (4) As an extension of 3 many of the unblock requests are little more than trolling, this can be quite disheartening when trawling through the category, for example Mike Garcia is his Johnny the Vandal fantasy guise frequently lists up dozens upon dozens of his socks with identical unblock messages often including general abuse. Similarly Blu Aardvark has done likewise, this can be a huge time wasting effort. I would suspect the category is the least effective of the methods primarily due to level of anonymity and instantaneous nature offered attracting more of the (3) and (4) listed above. --pgk 11:15, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Could the bot also make an entry on a watchlistable page? I suspect the great majority of admins pay more attention to watchlist than IRC. There may be complex cases, but it's a bit frustrating to see ANU get shut down by accident and see no admins paying any attention. Derex 11:38, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Can you please take this discussion elsewhere? --Ideogram 11:40, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Certainly, wouldn't want to distract from important matters like the Scoobies debate. Derex 11:56, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

And your attempt to have the last word is a big help too. --Ideogram 11:58, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Attempt? Derex 11:59, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

What exactly are you trying to accomplish in this conversation? --Ideogram 12:01, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Could you please take this discussion elsewhere? This is really not the place. Derex 12:04, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

(outdent) You name the place and I'll follow you. --Ideogram 12:05, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

An arbitrator asked the question, so discussion right here is fine; moving this to the talk page (with a link) would also work. Ideogram and Derex, please remain civil; the last exchange between you was ridiculous. Newyorkbrad 12:46, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

(aside) The unblock-en-l mailing list ( list info )has been doing fairly well as another place to bring blocks, including those from anons, and is good at getting them reviewed quickly. It could use more help, interested admins and trusted users are invited to join. ++Lar: t/c 16:41, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Actually, ending his post with "Pull the other one" strongly suggests that Tony did jump to conclusions, and expressed them in a rather unfortunate way. I saw the discussion on the noticeboard at the time, and while I knew (and know) little of Bunchofgrapes, I found it to be perfectly in character for Bishonen and Geogre to take up the cause of an anonymous editor who had been abusively blocked. Isn't that what we all should do, including me, including Tony? Musical Linguist 02:23, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

The terms in which they took it up might have been more constructive, but it was understandable. Later involvement, encouraging personal attacks on InShaneee, was not at all helpful and I'm at a loss to explain why they engaged in that way. --Tony Sidaway 17:51, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Diffs for this encouragement? I don't recall that. It's easy to be at a loss to explain something that didn't actually happen. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 17:59, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Nobody said, 'yeah, go curse that guy out'. However, Worldtraveller makes the case in his evidence section that his behaviour must have been appropriate because people said it was. I assume that's what Tony was getting at. Worldtraveller was doing things which were clearly improper (blatant personal attacks, edit warring to keep those attacks on another user's talk page, repeated incivility, et cetera) and there were people saying, 'no, he hasn't made any personal attacks or done anything wrong at all'. That's a problem. People stormed in here denouncing one thing after another which never happened... basically having little understanding of the facts of the case and taking sides seemingly based on who the disputants were. Also not good. People are responsible for their own actions, no matter how many people voice support, but it's certainly easier to think you are fully 'in the right' when others are saying so. --CBD 09:59, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Actually that's a good point. We haven't seen much in the way of findings concerning the encouragement of Worldtraveller's personal attacks by third parties, and I think that's a key omission. The statements I'm thinking about are particularly this kind of thing:

• "And before somebody does start talking about personal attacks and warning WT on his page (as several people did last time WT used the phrase "terrible administrator"), I'd like to stress that there's nothing personal about criticizing somebody's use of admin tools, even in strong terms." (Bishonen 23:02, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Read by Worldtraveller, that must have seemed like a green light for his personal attacks, because here apparently Bishonen was saying that Worldtraveller's conduct was okay (I think we're all agreed now that in fact WOrldtraveller's conduct at times was far from okay).

I don't know how closely Bishonen had followed Worldtraveller's conduct so it isn't plain whether she actually did condone attacks such as the following:

• "You're clearly just a witless moron" (81.179.150.16, 19:50, 27 January 2007) ,
• "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." (81.179.150.16, 23:00, 12 February 2007)

We can (and should) give Bishonen the benefit of the doubt on motive, but the effect can only have been to solidify Worldtraveller's belief that such attacks constituted valid and acceptable criticism. --Tony Sidaway 14:07, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

We can (and should) give Tony the benefit of the doubt on his motive for implying that Bishonen encouraged Worldtraveller to make personal attacks. Even if we try to peer into Worldtraveller's mind to work out what his beliefs and motivations were, and how they were influenced by statements by Bishonen (as opposed, say, to his being ignored by InShaneee, or accused of "harassment" by others), absent a time machine, I don't see how Worldtraveller could have taken any statement by Bishonen at 23:02 on 1 March as encouragement to indulge in any "personal attacks" in the previous two months since this incident began. Are you saying that Worldtraveller's made "personal attacks" after 23:03 on 1 March that were "encouraged" by Bishonen's statement? Which ones? The reflexive (and, I accept, uncivil) insults after he was blocked by CBD, perhaps? I doubt whether anything that anyone said had a stronger influence on his response to that action than the block itself. -- ALoan (Talk) 14:40, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

My motive for implying that Bishonen encouraged Worldtraveller in his bad behavior is obvious--there is evidence to support the statement. --Tony Sidaway 14:45, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Evidence? Where? Which "personal attacks" by Worldtraveller were "encouraged" by Bishonen? Are you contending that criticism of somebody's use of admin tools is perforce a personal attack? -- ALoan (Talk) 14:53, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Tony's motive is transparently obvious, but it is not the motive he states. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 14:59, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Amazing! That statement by Tony simply beggars imagination. If he read the diff he offered, I can't see how he could form that conclusion. This, I believe, is the sort of "personal attack" that could warrant a block, if any could. Planting seeds like that, trying to get a respected editor maligned widely (and little Ideogram has gone to do just that) is a strike at a person's reputation. That's repugnant. Geogre 11:51, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

(outdent) Do you want to talk to me? Do you have any idea how much effort it takes for me not to respond to every stupid thing you say? (Note by your own definition calling what you say "stupid" isn't the same thing as calling you stupid so it's not a personal attack.) This statement of yours, like most of them, is nothing more than a personal venting that does not serve to advance the proceedings. It is inflammatory and frankly egotistical, as you seem to think your brilliant words deserve to be posted regardless of whether they are productive or not. --Ideogram 17:56, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

(outdent first) No, I don't. You are not the subject of this arbitration, not a party to it, not involved with it, and therefore I do not wish to speak to you. I wish you felt the same. Geogre 20:59, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

You claim to not want to talk to me while talking to me??? Here's a clue: don't insult me while talking to someone else and I won't talk to you. --Ideogram 21:55, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

(outdenter more) I didn't insult you while talking to anyone. If "little" is an insult now, then you're living in a very bad place. I was talking about what a genuine personal attack is, and you obviously know what it is. A genuine personal attack is an attempt to spread lies about a user, to "trash" someone. Tony's secret evidence that there is some complicity of everyone is a personal attack. Your attempt to spread that to AN/I is a furtherance of that. If I call you a chowderhead, or even (gasp) a troll, people will either agree or not, but it won't do much. If I say that you're a POV-pushing edit warrior and claim to have private evidence, or if I link to a diff that shows nothing much, I can seriously weaken your ability to edit cooperatively with others. Tony introduced a side-swipe at a thoroughly helpful user here. Furthermore, Brigitte did much the same by saying that "no neutral parties" were involved. Tony's mysterious fretting over why I would be involved, why Bishonen would be involved, and why Giano would be involved can be easily answered without conspiracies. Bishonen is one of the staunchest defenders minority point of view and IP editors have. She regularly helps out the "little guy" who is bewildered by the coercion of admins. I am 100% consistent in thinking and speaking out on the issue of "NPA" blocks. Giano has always, always stood up for the people who write articles. In WorldTraveller there is an editor who strikes a chord with the three of us. If any of the people promoting dark conspiracies and mysterious mutterings bothered to read honestly, you'd see that each of us gets involved where our concerns and issues are at stake. I stay far away from many that the others are interested in, and they in those that I find intriguing. This is a case where all our interests intersect. That said, I cannot for the life of me see why Tony Sidaway has decided to go so aggressively here. As for you, Ideogram, you just like to follow me around and try again to get redress for harms you feel you've suffered. I regard your participation as never helpful and generally vindictive, but I also find it relatively minor. When you lose your cool altogether, though, you throw rules and caution to the wind. You shouldn't do that. The central issue in this section of this section is the allegations of "complicity" that are an outrage to the accused. The real subject, though, is supposed to be WorldTraveller and Inshaneee. Don't mistake yourself or me for the star of the show. Geogre 02:38, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Oh my god, that is just too long to read. You always were incapable of being concise and to-the-point. --Ideogram 03:45, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

There was no "secret evidence". I do think that Geogre's explanation covers his and Bishonen's behavior. Although it doesn't to my mind really explain the fairly consistent defence of the harassment or pestering that took place in this case, I think this is consistent with our quite different perceptions of what is and isn't harassment.

If I notice a wronged party persistently going after the person he thinks wronged him, "oh that's perfectly okay, then" is absolutely the last thing that enters my mind. I'm more likely to be concerned at vigilanteism, which is what it amounts to when it goes on for months. Seeing other experienced editors condone that kind of behavior (which is what I saw when I reviewed the evidence in this case) worries and puzzles me. On the other hand my own advice to InShaneee (at a time when I was ignorant of the involvement of anyone other than CBD, InShaneee and WorldTraveller) didn't prove useful to him. I was not among those who advised WorldTraveller, but perhaps I should have made that step.

One thing I've learned from this is not to ignore cases where grievances against administrators are being pursued by means inconsistent with the dispute resolution policy. --Tony Sidaway 09:45, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

(outdent) I strongly suggest you not speculate on anyone's motives unless you want this proceeding to descend into incivility hell. --Ideogram 15:04, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

About comment removal. I see Bunchofgrapes and Bishonen, surprise, surprise, think that Geogre's comments deserve to be placed here while mine do not. It would seem to me any rational creature would realize that either we all have the right to remove comments or none of us do. It beggars the imagination that these two people could arrogate to themselves the right to make an "objective" judgement on what belongs here and what does not. --Ideogram 18:38, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

• None of us do. Clerks may, under extreme duress. Warring with removing, screaming, inserting, removing, etc. should result in a block. As I pointed out, several places, Tony Sidaway was warranting a block for removing "puerile sniping." It's why I said that I didn't know he had made himself a clerk. Geogre 21:11, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
  • In view of the amount of obvious pain it causes, I do now think that messing with content should perhaps be left solely to clerks. I've been a clerk and I don't like the idea of making their work harder, but removing sections that one thinks must surely be seen as deliberately inflammatory does still cause pain, and arbitration workshops should seek to reduce that pain where possible. I've been in enough arbitrqtions that I should have learned that lesson. It pains me to say that I have not yet got it off by heart. --Tony Sidaway 22:55, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Worldtraveller deliberately misrepresented his identity

5) For unknown reasons, Worldtraveller misrepresented his Misplaced Pages status, referring to the "four edits I've made" " ., "It really won't take you long at all to assess whether I vandalised anything - I've got very few edits." ,

Comment by Arbitrators:

Rather disingenuous Fred Bauder 14:32, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't see any misrepresentation here, rather I agree with Derex's interpretation below, i.e. Worldtraveller was correctly representing the edits made by IP 81.178.208.69. Paul August ☎ 02:50, 13 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 Misplaced Pages 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. --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? 81.179.115.188 09:02, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Tony Sidaway should stop trying to speculate on what my thoughts at certain times might have been. Inevitably, when you've had no substantial dealing with someone, you'll probably just be projecting what you yourself might think in a given situation onto them. It's not accurate or useful. 144.82.242.95 18:42, 15 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. 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? Geogre 02:50, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

The words were clearly disingenuous and misleading, and create the suspicion that the user was fencing with InShaneee 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. Metamagician3000 10:21, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

It certainly doesn't justify the block, but this case isn't about the block. --Tony Sidaway 12:47, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Disagree as worded. For the purpose of an unblock request, making it known how little evidence there is to look at should make it more likely that another admin would be willing to investigate. Admins are reluctant to dig into the complex cases, probably especially when the block is short, because the benefit/cost ratio is lower in short blocks than long ones and in complex cases than simple ones. GRBerry 23:00, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

I think I agree with that. While there was an element of play-acting here, which isn't constructive behavior for a blocked user, the lack of detail could be put down to embarrassment at being caught edit warring. --Tony Sidaway 17:57, 15 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 .

Comment by Arbitrators:

Added diff illustrating intent. Fred Bauder 14:44, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't think this claims that InShaneee's failure to respond is the ONLY thing that lead to this arbitration case, but I don't think it can be denied to have been a factor. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 10:39, 13 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. --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. 81.179.115.188 10:25, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Proposed. 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. --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. 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. --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. 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: . Why is this statement insufficient? Put another way, what was so insufficient about this statement that we're all here? 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. 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. Metamagician3000 10:24, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

But by the time any fault at all was admitted in terms of the block, the more significant failing of a refusal to communicate and discuss has emerged. That's what caused things to escalate. 144.82.240.93 16:49, 13 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 Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/InShaneee#Statement by InShaneee. See also, prior to this arbitration case, a similar 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:

I think this is important. I suspect that InShaneee has learned a lesson from this prior even to the opening of an ArbCom case. The block in question was several months ago and if there have been any further questionable blocks by InShaneee I have not heard of them. However, I believe that the case illustrates that some precedent needs to be set as to appropriate behavior and expectations. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 10:44, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

InShaneee apologised weeks ago but Worldtraveller continues to hound him. Do we have an expectation that Worldtraveller will cease his harassment? --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. 81.179.115.188 21:37, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Also, InShaneee has expressed no contrition for his seven weeks of silence following the block. Is there a reasonable basis to suppose he's learnt that that wasn't on? Will he discuss his actions promptly in future? 144.82.240.93 16:47, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Proposed. 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. 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 Misplaced Pages such a high traffic site, which is all about the info we have here. --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. --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. 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:

I consider the first accused violation (improper unblocking) to be invalid, and would sign my name to such an item in Proposed Decisions. The second is more complex and I would prefer not to have the issues tied together like this. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 10:46, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

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. -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 . --InShaneee 21:26, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Proposed. 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. 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. Derex 05:54, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

It bothers me that this statement is here while no finding of fact has proposed nor has any evidence been entered to this effect. On discovering this, I tried to find the evidence, but I apparently fail at history pages. Any help here? --Random832 11:53, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

See Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_comment#Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_comment/InShaneee. --CBD 14:00, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Worldtraveller repeatedly harassed InShaneee

9) Worldtraveller repeatedly harassed InShaneee long after InShanneee apologised

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. Mackensen (talk) 15:08, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Administrators should always be willing to discuss and explain their administrative actions. Paul August ☎ 18:22, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Accepted Fred Bauder 15:20, 13 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.--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. --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? 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. --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 Misplaced Pages and should be handled through dispute resolution procedures 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. --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? 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. --Irpen 06:01, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

I am struggling here to be civil in my response. Anyone that thin-skinned will have enormous trouble in their personal life, not just here at Misplaced Pages. --Ideogram 01:02, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Also ignores that it wasn't much of an apology, particularly in light of previous comments like this. 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. Geogre 21:53, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

I think it's actually Sidaway's proposal and terminology, not Mackensen's. Derex 05:56, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Mackensen said it. Metamagician3000 10:29, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

I've commented on it, but the proposed terminology is not mine. Mackensen (talk) 11:05, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

I was endorsing your comment, not the proposal. Sorry to be unclear. Metamagician3000 12:12, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

This should metion that he continued after recieving warnings per CBD's evidence. The fact that these warnings where ignored is a big part of the escalation--BirgitteSB 12:09, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Inappropriate conduct by an editor during this arbitration case

10) During the evidence/workshop phase of this arbitration case, 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 here) referred to Bishonen, Geogre, and 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 Misplaced Pages"; 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. 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). Mackensen (talk) 02:17, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

There is a problem here, and not just with Tony. I have joked (on the Arbitration channel of IRC) that the workshop page is sometimes like a trial conducted by Q (Star Trek). Participation in Arbitration cases needs to be constructive, directed towards resolution of the dispute, not provocative and disruptive. Behavior which inflames is grossly inappropriate. Fred Bauder 15:17, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

I do agree that some of Tony's contributions to this case have been unhelpful. Namecalling and the bandying about of characterizations doesn't really contribute towards a solution to the problems brought up in the arbitration case. The process deserves a little more respect than that. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 10:52, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Oh do grow up. --Tony Sidaway 04:05, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Seriously, if there is any merit at all to this, I should be banned from Misplaced Pages forever. It would be an act of kindness to me and to all other Wikipedians. --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 A Link to the Past and his perception of poor behaviour on the part of Geogre, Bishonen and Bunchofgrapes. 81.179.115.188 08:42, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Proposed, with regret. This has to stop. Newyorkbrad 03:46, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Can't you just be minimally civil, especially on arbitration pages, of all things? 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. --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. 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. --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. 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. --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. 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. --Tony Sidaway 10:01, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Your knowledge, as a "party", of an arbitrator's personal suspicions is somehow disturbing. 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. --Tony Sidaway 12:26, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Publicly, sure. But privately discussing suspicions about other editors with a listed party in a case? Not saying it's against the rules, but it still disturbs me. Derex 01:14, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

I have no idea what Tony is doing here as a "party". His presence is making a bad situation worse. 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. --Tony Sidaway 12:29, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Expressing reasonable doubt is reasonable. Only the truly paranoid see conspiracies in every action where there is none, and only the truly naiive would assume good faith in the face of overwhelming evidence of conspiracy. Examples abound here, where the truly paranoid would say that the actions of a few (posts, voting record, blocks, whatever) are absolute evidence of a conspiracy by some cabal or another, and the truly naiive would say that it was sheer coincidence and there was no collusion, not even innocent discussion, and the truth may well lie somewhere in between. I would think that in this case the truth surely lies somewhere in between... Some communication may possbily have occured, but we assume in good faith that it was just in the nature of "hey did you see this?" and nothing more, and certainly not "hey let's go hang Inshanee" or "hey let's go hang WorldTraveler".

So... Tony raised questions that are reasonable to ask. Those he asked them of have averred, and have stated there is no conspiracy. In other words, Asked and Answered, and that's good enough for me. However, because they were reasonable to ask, it's not reasonable to take Tony to task merely for making these queries. He accepted the answers given promptly and in good faith. I will say, however, that I do agree with some that say that he asked too many times and with the wrong implications, and that using "Scoobies" may not have been a wise word choice. In fact, I suspect ANY such word used to describe a group, that wasn't applied first by the group themselves, might be something that might cause friction going forward, and something that ought to be avoided. ANY such word. Regardless of how innocuous one might think the word is. (and this is something I think Tony has some trouble with) I will also say that while I feel Tony's participation here was in good faith, some of the lengths went to in presenting views and making points might have been a bit excessive at best. ++Lar: t/c 19:11, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

There are numerous parties whose involvement here is disruptive. I do not think it is fair to single out Tony. --Ideogram 01:06, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

CBDunkerson's block of Worldtraveller was contested

11) User:CBDunkerson blocked User:Worldtraveller citing the following diffs: as commented here. The block was contested here

Comment by Arbitrators:

Accepted, but as pointed out below by CBDunkerson, citing only the three diffs is misleading. A sustained pattern of harassment was involved. However, a serious behavior problem of this nature cannot be dealt with an an administrative block, especially when there is disagreement among administrators. I consider this a good faith effort to address the problem, but viewed in hindsight, not an optimal action. Fred Bauder 15:29, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Warning Fred Bauder 17:39, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

• Response to Fred Bauder: The three diffs are the same CBDunkerson posted on Worldtravellers usertalk at the time he made the block, so I simply reposted his diffs that he had posted here, as I cited above. CBDunkerson did not do anything that appears to have been in bad faith, but there is an issue that needs addressing, as you seem to have below, in regards to what to do when dealing with a well established editor who seems to have been harassing or insulting his/her fellow editors.--MONGO 10:37, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Proposed.--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? Derex 08:09, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Adjusted.--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 "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. --CBD 09:27, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Adjusted.--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 Misplaced Pages a better environment in which to work. --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. 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. 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. 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. 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. Geogre 10:58, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

HighInBC's block of Worldtraveller was contested

12) User:HighInBC first declined Worldtraveller's unblock request and then extended CBDunkerson's already existing block of Worldtraveller another 24 hours after Worldtraveller commented here. Worldtraveller then scrambled his username password, effectively closing out his long standing account. The block was contested here.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Accepted. Again a good faith action, but probably not effective in resolving a serious and long standing behavior problem in the absence of community consensus. Fred Bauder 15:32, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

This seems to be straying far from the substance of the case. --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. ---Tony Sidaway 21:07, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Proposed.--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.--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 Misplaced Pages'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. --CBD 21:24, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

I think this is one area where Misplaced Pages policy is actively evolving. Clarification from the committee might be useful. --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.--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 justified - the behaviour that led to the block by CBD had been repeated. Metamagician3000 10:45, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, I sure contested it, so agree. Geogre 10:59, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Agree, I did extend the block for personal attacks, it was contested, after the fact. _InBC 15:35, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

InShaneee's conduct was the subject of an RFC

13) Worldtraveller filed a 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. 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. --Tony Sidaway

He did attempt to get certification from someone completely uninvolved with the current dispute, though . I'll say, of course, that I certainly can't argue with the RfC's existance, so I'll endorse this finding. --InShaneee 20:45, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

I mentioned the RfC on AN: . 81.179.115.188 20:59, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, at least you tried, which is to your credit. --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 . It is against Misplaced Pages 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. 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. --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. --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 . 81.179.115.188 21:14, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

I didn't see an apology there, but I may have missed it. Did you mean this: By the way, I apologise that your refusal to even acknowledge my questions pushed me into saying this. Worldtraveller 12:53, 19 February 2007 (UTC) ?? If so, I'd posit it wasn't much of an apology, it seems to place all the fault squarely on anyone other than you. Were I Inshaneee, and were I in a mood to insist on an apology that suited me (just as you seem to have been doing here), I'd insist on a more specific that actually admitted fault. ++Lar: t/c 15:05, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

I shouldn't have said that. I wouldn't have said it if InShaneee has responded in anything resembling a timely manner. Did InShaneee ever say he either accepted or didn't accept the apology? 144.82.240.93 16:44, 13 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. 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. Mackensen (talk) 16:58, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

"You're clearly just a witless moron". Please, explain the 'technicality' under which that isn't a personal attack. :] --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). 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'. --CBD 22:09, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Support this finding. The language used was unacceptable on this site. Metamagician3000 10:47, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Also, there is nothing remotely like an apology in that diff. A clear apology by WorldTraveller for his harassment and personal attacks would take out a lot the heat - however, no one can be forced to apologise, of course. They actually have to understand and feel that they did the wrong thing. At least he has said above, "I shouldn't have said that", which is a good start. It would also help if people would stop making excuses for him; this has tended to make things worse. That statement to Lar is the first real sign of remorse I've seen from him, but we might have had it sooner if not for people excusing WorldTraveller's actions. This has really done him a disservice. Metamagician3000 06:47, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

InShaneee failed to communicate adequately with Worldtraveller

15) 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. Mackensen (talk) 02:36, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

This finding is apparently correct. Paul August ☎ 03:20, 13 March 2007 (UTC) Paul August ☎ 03:33, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

I've proposed a different (though similarly titled) finding 24, "InShaneee did not respond appropriately to Worldtraveller", below. Paul August ☎ 21:05, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Proposed. 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? --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. 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. --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? 81.179.115.188 08:50, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

The apology was an attempt at communication, as is this dialoge right now. Perhaps not worded as you would like it to be, but I think this does qualify as at any point. --InShaneee 16:09, 12 March 2007 (UTC

And yet after this single statement, which came seven weeks too late, you again lapsed into a refusal to communicate. That's not dialogue. It's taken an arbitration case to get even grudging and intermittent communication from you. If we'd have been talking like this two months ago, arbitration would have been completely unnecessary. What stopped you from communicating back then? 81.179.115.188 00:48, 13 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. --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. Metamagician3000 10:50, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Being unwelcome does not make it harassment. Saying it is harassment does not make it so, no matter how often it is repeated. --Random832 19:23, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Absolutely agree. (Complaining about someone is generally something done long, long after one has refused to communicate with a person.) Geogre 11:01, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

No, this isn't accurate. InShaneee did 'directly communicate' his desire for Worldtraveller to stop harassing him. Several times in fact -> . Before anyone complains about 'not using warning templates on established editors' (another of those institutionalized double standards)... two of the templates were to the anon IP. One of the requests to 'Worldtraveller' to stop the attacks was written out. The other was a last stage personal attack template after Worldtraveller had posted "witless moron" to InShaneee's talk page twice and edit warred to restore it there twice more... which, frankly, was blockable bad behaviour all by itself. Worldtraveller knew InShaneee wanted him to stop (even without the two AN/I threads which made that very clear), and shouldn't be pretending otherwise. --CBD 00:29, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Asking an admin to explain their actions does not constitute harassment

16) Worldtraveller asked InShaneee on numerous occasions to explain his block. This does not fall within any of the definitions of harassment listed at Misplaced Pages:Harassment. Administrators are expected to respond to concerns about their actions in a timely manner.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Yes. 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. Mackensen (talk) 01:51, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps it might have been best to have let the matter drop, it depends on how important it is to insure that InShaneee really understood that his block was wrong and why, and in addition why it was wrong to have ignored Worldtraveller for so long. Continuing to pursue this matter does not by itself constitute harassment. Paul August ☎ 17:02, 13 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. 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. --InShaneee 21:39, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Badgering is still harassment, though I agree that InShaneee should have handled it better. --Tony Sidaway 22:10, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Again, Mackensen has made the obvious point. 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. 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. Misplaced Pages isn't a battleground. --Tony Sidaway 12:16, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

The claim that all Worldtraveller did was 'ask for an explanation' is clearly belied by the facts. He engaged in repeated incivility, personal attacks, and threats. That's harassment. By the very definition of the term. Yes, many of his incivil comments included a request for an explanation... even after one was given. Three times. I'd call that harassment too, but apparently opinions differ on this point. --CBD 00:36, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Pardon me, but that's by your definition "incivil" comments and "repeated." By your definition, saying, "I'm never going to explain myself, so go away" is effective communication (above). You say that all of WorldTraveller's requests (as he has demonstrated, about 5 in 25 days) were "harassment" sufficient to block him, but these are, in fact, the matters that arbitrators are supposed to decide. Since you did the block, you obviously thought you were right. I entirely disagree, and, more, I submit that blocking instead of communicating was the worst possible response. Could you block? By turning your head and squinting at it just right, I suppose. Should you block? No, if the goal is peaceful editing. Geogre 01:11, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Even being as generous possible, I don't see Worldtraveller doing much editing of articles at all from his logged-in username during the period in which he pursued his dispute with InShaneee. Let's get some perspective on this: I am hardly ever conscious of editing Misplaced Pages these days, but in my logged-in user I performed over 40 edits in mainspace. In the same time, Worldtraveller's logged-in username performed about 16. InShaneee, well I lost count after paging through a short distance. It was quite a lot. If we really were to run Misplaced Pages according to a calculus of "peaceful editing", then the result would not be favorable to Worldtraveller. I think things are a bit more complex than that. --Tony Sidaway 22:50, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

No, but that's not disruption in that case. WorldTraveller was already cutting back his editing heavily. Look at the long term and you'll see that. Geogre 21:14, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

I think it's true to say that Worldtraveller had tried to give up on Misplaced Pages altogether. I agree that the effect of the harassment on InShaneee's excellent work seems, at least at first, to have been minimal. We can't expect all editors to show such commitment and we shouldn't expect them all to endure all slings and arrows. --Tony Sidaway 23:02, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Feuding by Worldtraveler

17) Worldtraveler has engaged in a feud with InShaneee with the intent of stripping him of administrative status .

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed Fred Bauder 15:27, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

It seems incontestable that Worldtraveller's stated desire was to have InShaneee desysoped. I wouldn't go so far to call it a "feud," but it certainly wasn't pleasant (on either side). Mackensen (talk) 15:56, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

As per Mackensen, WorldTraveller did indeed express that desire. However, there is no evidence that this was his goal at the beginning or at any time up to that statement. I don't think it's a "feud" per se. Neither do I think that it should be unacceptable to call for an administrator's de-sysopping - the manner in which one does so may be acceptable or unacceptable, of course. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 10:59, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Mackensen and Morven. In particular, "feud" is inappropriate, there is nothing inherently wrong with believing that an administrator should be de-sysopped, and working toward that end, and I see no evidence that that was Worldtraveller's intent until the statement pointed to above. Paul August ☎

Comment by parties:

I endorse this. Whatever you want to call it, it's clear for all to see that he wants me desysoped, and to this very moment is refusing to accept anything less. --InShaneee 19:05, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Ridiculous. It implies that from my very first edit to Talk:Red rain in Kerala my intention was to see InShaneee lose his administrative status. It's also pretty hard to have a feud in which one party is silent. It beggars belief that some people can describe 'you should not be an administrator' as a personal attack. What if I said 'you should not be a ballet dancer' or 'you should not be an astrophysicist'? There is also quite some difference between saying 'you should not be an admin if you won't respond to complaints' (as I said after 10 days of silence) and 'I am actively seeking to have you de-sysopped' (which I said after one inadequate response followed by yet more stonewalling). And I'll repeat yet again that the block is not the reason I think InShaneee should be desysoppsed - it's the blank refusal to communicate afterwards. 144.82.240.93 16:08, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

This is such a ludicrous suggestion that it is so without foundation or any proof that it is insulting. Giano 15:40, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

That was his stated intention. --Tony Sidaway 15:50, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

It is incontestable that WorldTraveller said that he would work to get Inshaneee demoted, but that is not what Fred proposed. Fred proposed that he "feuded" "with the intent" to achieve this end. There is no indication anywhere in any evidence that there was a feud (unless you count Inshaneee blocking as a feud, or WorldTraveller asking for an explanation a feud), much less that these things were done with the intent of getting a demotion. They were done, as has been alledged above in other findings of fact, to get an apology. That WorldTraveller would work to see Inshaneee demoted came late in the discussion, and he is entitled to do that work, so long as he does so within policy and decorum. If he wants to keep an eye out forever for more controversial actions by Inshaneee, that's his business. Lord knows we have enough people looking for reasons to bust each other already. I don't like it, but it's not something ArbCom generally takes up -- this measuring of intentions, gazing into souls, and correction of characters. Geogre 01:16, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Morven, you say above "there is no evidence that this was his goal at the beginning or at any time up to that statement." Actually, there is. That was just one of several similar statements starting very early in the dispute. --CBD 12:19, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Those statements don't really state intent, but (in a very crude and insulting way) question InShaneee's administrative competence. Although the manner in which that is done is a problem, the action of questioning administrative competence isn't by itself evidence of a feud or vendetta, nor is it inappropriate.

I think these were simply personal attacks, basically, and the mitigating circumstance at least in the early stages were twofold: that Worldtraveller had unquestionably been abused through a bad block, and that InShaneee had sat on his hands, and even made a misjudged (apparently sarcastic) comment, when he could have defused the situation he had caused.

The problem for me is that the attacks went on so long, but I'm tending to the view that this was due partly to the failure of the dispute resolution process. While I don't condone Worldtraveller's attacks, I can see evidence of mounting frustration. An experienced editor like Worldtraveller should not have behaved in this way, but I think I can see why he did. --Tony Sidaway 12:33, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

No, they weren't 'statements of intent', but the stated 'belief' that InShaneee should not be an administrator would explain why Worldtraveller continued to pursue this even after apologies and acknowledgments of error were given... especially as Worldtraveller then did say explicitly that he would do everything he could to get InShaneee de-sysoped. --CBD 13:46, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

To me, it seems that he probably continued because the reaction of one or two experienced editors led him to believe that his behavior was appropriate. Combined with the failure of the RFC and perhaps ignorance of alternative avenues, these led him to believe that he had no choice. I think this was avoidable, and I think he should have known better, but he was told that his activities were okay and that must have influenced him. --Tony Sidaway 13:54, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

InShaneee unaware IP was Worldtraveller

18) At the time of the initial block, InShaneee was unaware of any connection between 81.178.208.69 and Worldtraveller, or between that IP and any other IP.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Probably worthwhile to clarify this - also I don't believe there was any previous history between these two, under any usernames/IP addresses. If this latter is true, perhaps we need a finding of fact for that too. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 11:00, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

I can attest to this (again), for what it may be worth. --InShaneee 19:04, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

And I do not recall any interaction between us at any time before it. 144.82.240.93 15:59, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Proposed. Mostly just procedural, some arguments of both sides seem to hang on it. --Random832 15:33, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Endorse. I was watching the noticeboard when this was all unfolding, and agree that no one realized that the 81... anon was Worldtraveller until the latter "outed" himself, seemingly by accident. Newyorkbrad 19:12, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Disruption of arbitration by Giano II

19) Giano II has disrupted this arbitration by engaging in incivility and provocative behavior, Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_arbitration/InShaneee/Workshop#Motion_to_remove_Tony_Sidaway_from_list_of_parties. This is a continuation of behavior observed in prior arbitrations.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed Fred Bauder 16:59, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Thank you. I was wondering when someone was going to notice that he was not commenting on the case in any way, shape, or form. --InShaneee 18:58, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Totally disagree. Giano's posts have had no disruptive effect and I don't believe they were remotely intended as such. 81.179.115.188 10:07, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

It's hard to consider him disruptive if we are able to ignore him so successfully. --Tony Sidaway 19:07, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Giano has disrupted his arbitration? How so? He has asked Tony to stop being disruptive a handful of times; meanwhile, Tony has made continuing references to "scoobies" or "pod people" (whatever he means by that, it is clearly not a compliment), alluded to some behind-the-scenes conspiracy to "entrap" InShaneee into blocking Worldtraveller in order to get him desysopped, and made this page almost impossible to follow by his continuous postings. In terms of heat versus light, Giano has been the very model of a modern fluorescent tube, and Tony is a tungsten filament.

But which "prior arbitrations" are your referring to? I take it you are thinking of Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Giano (and, save for the rather mild "Giano's comments, while inflammatory, do not stand out" and "He is requested to avoid sweeping condemnations of other users when he has a grievance, more light, less heat.", I don't see any comment on his conduct there, but whatever) - but which other ones?

Meanwhile, as InShaneee points out, none of this has anything to do with InShaneee and Worldtraveller. -- ALoan (Talk) 19:14, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

• Don't worry I have said what I wish too, I shall leave you to wallow in your own verbage. I have made my point. I shall go and edit a few pages of the encyclopedia - some of you might like to try it sometime! Giano 19:23, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Horsefeathers! Fred has to realize this is nonsense. Making a motion that a person who has given no evidence of any connection to the case, any single byte of published discussion of the case, and who is not the sockpuppet of the person in the dockett removed from the list of participants is sane, legal, and appropriate. It is not incivil by any definition of the term on earth. The proposed finding of fact is without merit or logic. Geogre 01:19, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

InShaneee's failure to communicate greatly exacerbated the situation

20) Had InShaneee taken part in a sensible way in the discussion which took place on WP:AN immediately following the expiry of the block, and admitted at that point that his block contravened policy, it is extremely unlikely that this case would have reached arbitration. His further failure to communicate over the following seven weeks inflamed the situation unnecessarily.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Agree. Paul August ☎ 01:31, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Agreed as far as the initial seven weeks are concerned. Mackensen (talk) 02:05, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Per Musical Linguist, I have reworded the title in 20.1 below. Paul August ☎ 15:59, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

This seems to have been largely agreed on but is not made terribly clear in current findings of fact. 81.179.115.188 01:08, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Was it a "failure" or something stronger, such as a refusal? "Failure" leaves open the interpretation that he was very humble, very contrite, but because of a lack of understanding of how to deal with this, how to find the right words, he was unable to satisfy Worldtraveler, despite his best intentions. Desdemona's inability to cope is generally seen as a "failure", rather than a refusal to try to put Othello's mind at ease. I'm not at all sure that "failure" is the right word here. Musical Linguist 12:15, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

InShaneee's refusal to communicate greatly exacerbated the situation

20.1) Had InShaneee taken part in a sensible way in the discussion which took place on WP:AN immediately following the expiry of the block, and admitted at that point that his block contravened policy, it is extremely unlikely that this case would have reached arbitration. His further failure to communicate over the following seven weeks inflamed the situation unnecessarily.

Comment by Arbitrators:

This is more accurate. Paul August ☎ 15:59, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

I don't like this speculation on what "may" have happened. --Ideogram 20:33, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it was InShaneee's failure in the first instance. --Tony Sidaway 18:07, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

InShaneee was not communicative and this led to an escalation of the dispute

20.2) InShaneee should have participated in the discussion which took place on WP:AN immediately following the expiry of the block, and should have admitted at that time that his block contravened policy. Failing that, he should have communicated sooner than seven weeks later.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed. --Ideogram 20:33, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

InShaneee acknowledged that his block was in error

21) InShaneee eventually acknowledged that his block was in error ( ) prior to the block on Worldtraveller for harassment and the filing of this RFAr.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed. Since people are claiming otherwise. --CBD 11:42, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

If that is adopted, it would need to have something in the wording that makes it clear that it was after ignoring it for several weeks. Otherwise, while technically true, it's actually very misleading. Musical Linguist 12:18, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

I've added "eventually" to indicate that he didn't do so immediately (which is covered by other findings of fact). --Tony Sidaway 17:57, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

The dispute escalated in part due to a lack of participation by others

22 No neutral party reviewed the {{unblock}} request by 81.178.208.69. No second involved party certified World travellers RFC on InShaneee within the required time frame. And during the first six weeks of the dispute, even though many editors, including some experienced Wikipedians, were active on InShaneee's and Worldtraveller's talk pages, no party offered either disputant direction as to how to proceed in resolving this dispute according the dispute resolution process.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed The first two are quite obvious. The last one I also feel is important, because I feel if one person watching that talk page had spoke up during the first six weeks and said "I think you should try another RfC", "I think you should answer that question", "I think you should let it go", or "I think you should enter mediation" a dialog would have started which likely would have led to the resolution of this dispute.--BirgitteSB 18:08, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

The facts as stated are true, but the implication that a neutral party should have volunteered is a little tricky. Standard practice is for neutral parties to wait for one of the disputants to ask for intervention first, and the disputants themselves may not think to ask, or may be reluctant to ask. We would have to change our culture to fix this. Note that I am not saying that this would be a bad idea. --Ideogram 20:39, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

I know I have seen people pointed at RfC or mediation before, however whether this is standard practice or not is irrelevent. The lack of anyone volunteering to act as a neutral party first derailed the original attempt at dispute resolution and then contributed to the escalation in Worldtravellers behaivor. He was ignored by the entire community not just Inshaneee.--BirgitteSB 20:59, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

As I said, the statement is true, but I think it should be noted that the lack of intervention is common.

Your statement that he was "ignored by the entire community" is quite a bit stronger and is not supported by the evidence. --Ideogram 21:26, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

I was thinking more of the RfC being ignored there. But you are right that the above very general statement is incorrect. Full disclosure here, I actually read the RfC in the 48 hour window, as I try to follow all admin RfC's in general. My quick impression was that it was certain to be certified (although I did not feel I needed to jump in there) and I planned looking at it closer and writing and outside view later. Later it was gone and I did not look into why. So I certainly count myself amoung those that ignored Worldtraveller and am not trying be harsher on others any more than on myself here.--BirgitteSB 21:36, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

That isn't the way RFC works, a neutral party isn't meant to certify it. --pgk 07:13, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

That's right, I've fixed the wording so that it accurately reflects my understanding of the situation. Please fix any further errors. --Tony Sidaway 15:44, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Mixed signals played a part

23) During the course of discussion about InShaneee's complaint about what he perceived as ongoing harassment by Worldtraveller, statements by some experienced Wikipedians were worded in such a way that they could have been understood by Worldtraveller to condone some of his personal attacks ,

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

This is patronising nonsense. A statement on 1 March somehow encouraged something that happened on 27 Jan? 144.82.242.95 15:12, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Proposed. I'm surprised that this hasn't been entered as a Finding before now. The effect of this, I think, is to mitigate some of Worldtraveller's actions. If he thought he had a green light, this might explain his approach. --Tony Sidaway 14:16, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

The word is condoning, not encouraging. Had Bishonen's comment been more even-handed, and recognised that you'd overstepped the mark, wouldn't it have helped you to understand why InShaneee thought you were only interested in harassing him? This is why I call this proposed finding "Mixed signals played a part". --Tony Sidaway 15:25, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Ah, Worldtraveller - you see, up there he says "encourage" and "condone", but down here he just says "condone", and anything other than criticism certainly could be taken to "condone" your behaviour ("excuse, overlook, or make allowances for; be lenient with"). For what it is worth, Worldtraveller had apologised to InShaneee here on 19 February for using the phrase "witless moron" here on 27 January (late, perhaps, and not as fulsome as it could have been, but a relatively rapid 3 weeks compared to the period of over 6 weeks between InShaneee's block and his first half-hearted apology to Worldtraveller). Given that Worldtraveller had already recognised his error in this instance, I struggle to see how Bishonen could be taken to have condoned or encouraged a repetition.

But Tony's suggestion does slip in an important point about "harassment" - and that is the perception of the person who thinks they are being harassed. Are we going to allow people to squeal "harassment" when they are criticised, and then set the dogs on the person making the criticism, rather than the person being criticised, however justified the critisicm is? -- ALoan (Talk) 15:35, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

You know ALoan, I am losing respect for you. You think it's okay to label InShaneee's apology "half-hearted" but you object to the term "harassment"? I would appreciate it if you tried to make your statements more balanced. --Ideogram 15:40, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

I am not sure there is much I can do about you losing respect for me, because I do consider both "apologies" made on 19 February to be half-hearted (I dare say Worldtraveller's partial apology simply reflected the nature of the one that he had just received from InShaneee - neatly demonstrating how a tiny bit of goodwill can be infectious and save us from killing each other) and I do object to Worldtraveller's behaviour being labelled "harassment". A handful of posts, over a period of weeks, is not harassment, IMHO. Six or seven insulting talk page posts on the same day, stalking someone across articles, that is harassment. So it is rather difficult for me to be more balanced - I have had a long and fruitful relationship working on articles here with Worldtraveller and sympathise with his position (while entirely accepting that he is not without fault), whereas I little sympathy with the positions taken by InShaneee or CBDunkerson or HighInBC. -- ALoan (Talk) 16:20, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

You would do a lot to alleviate my concerns if you used the phrasing "what I believe to be a half-hearted apology" and "I do not believe that was harassment" and thereby acknowledge that your opinions are precisely what is being disputed here, instead of simply stating your characterizations as if they were fact. You do know the difference? --Ideogram 17:21, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

I am well aware that my thoughts, opinions, characterisations, interpretations, etc, are my own business, and are not "facts". I thought I used the word "I" rather a lot (I try quite hard to phrase my comments as "I think" or "I believe", even though I think that I end up writing text that looks a bit egotistical) but I will try to claim ownership of my thoughts and opinions more often (although it may be rather cumbersome constantly refer to "how I interpreted...." and "what I believe to be...").

It would be helpful in that regard if other people commenting here also formulated their comments to refer to, for example, "what I believe to be personal attacks" and/or "what I believe to be harassment", thereby acknowledging that their opinions are also being disputed here, rather than simply stating their characterisations as if they were fact. (I am sure they also known the difference as well as I do.) -- ALoan (Talk) 17:39, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

I can certainly agree with that. --Ideogram 17:48, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

ALoan, your assertion that "a handful of posts" do not constitute harassment is generally accurate (though depending somewhat on the content)... but, I'd hardly call the eighteen posts Worldtraveller actually made (not including his many comments on AN & AN/I) 'a handful'. --CBD 22:40, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

If it were 18 posts in a day, or even a week, that might be considered excessive and aggressive. But over two months? One post every 3.5 days? Come on. If I genuinely wanted to harass someone I think I'd do a bit better than that. You're still looking at this as if InShaneee was completely in the right about everything and I was guilty from the start. Ask yourself why I would bother posting 18 times? Why did InShaneee miss 18 easy opportunities to put the damn thing to rest by simply being responsive and honest? Wasn't it tremendously rude of him to ignore me like that, much ruder in fact than my calling him a witless moron, especially given that I apologised for the latter but he has given no indication that he thinks there was anything wrong with the former? 81.179.115.188 01:22, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Are you suggesting that it was less 'harassing' because it went on for over two months? If you don't get an answer or don't like the answer you did get then you try another DR option... rather than continually returning to the same complaint over and over again for months. That isn't 'resolving' a dispute in any sense of the word. --CBD 10:46, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

(outdent) I wouldn't be too happy seeing eighteen posts, even if it were over two months. --Ideogram 01:39, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

If you'd done nothing wrong, you'd surely not be too happy - no-one would. But if you'd done something wrong and you knew you'd done something wrong (as InShaneee now claims), and someone complained about it, even if in a very angry tone of voice, you'd probably reply to the first message, wouldn't you? That would just be basic courtesy. After all, you know you've made a mistake so why pretend it didn't happen? The only reason I can think someone would ignore eighteen messages over two months is that they didn't think they'd done anything wrong. But InShaneee has not thought to try to explain why he ignored complaints like this so we can only speculate. 81.179.115.188 08:26, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

If I didn't respond to the first message, why do you think I would respond to eighteen? --Ideogram 17:45, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't think I like this in its current form. It focusses too strongly one one (admittedly major) part of the harassment, which was the personal attacks. Now while there are obviously some people who htink it's okay to go on badgering someone for weeks on end, even after receiving an admission and an apology, I don't think that will ever be part of Misplaced Pages policy, for the destructive effects of prosecuting a dispute in that way are very much why we have semi-formal procedures to help people to conduct disputes in a less destructive way. Some parties gave Worldtraveller to understand that he had carte blanche to continue the badgering. Other findings focus on the alternatives (the RFC that failed, and how we could try to address that, and how other experienced editors--myself included--could have advised Worldtraveller and InShaneee better). This finding is intended to illustrate the destructive effects of bad advice. It probably needs to be reworded. --Tony Sidaway 16:30, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

There was no harassment. There was one mild insult during the dispute, one somewhat worse one when I decided I'd had enough. There was an admission that the block had 'jumped the gun', not that it was wrong, and an apology specifically only for that; there was no admission or apology for the extremely rude ignoring of all discussion for seven weeks. Do not presume to tell me what I was 'given to understand'. 144.82.242.95 16:53, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Quite - perhaps we should just ask Worldtraveller what he thought, how he felt, etc, rather than trying to impute understandings, motives, beliefs and emotions to him. -- ALoan (Talk) 17:39, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Repeatedly calling someone "a witless moron", and following it up with the parting shot "fuckwits" is a pretty serious personal attack. Not a mild insult. There is some debate about whether "silly sausage" is a mild insult, it is true. But those other two are not in doubt. --Tony Sidaway 23:09, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Mixed signals 2

23.1) During the dispute, what little comment Worldtraveller received was largely devoted to defending or attacking his right to continue the dispute on talk pages. He was advised to follow the dispute resolution process by some editors ( ), but little support was given to his attempts to do so by those who supported his campaign.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

This is a complete rewording and a complete change of emphasis. My initial thoughts on this were unclear. Worldtraveller's problem behavior wasn't solely his personal attacks (for which he apologised) but his choice of inappropriate means to pursue his dispute. This should have been picked up, given the collective experience of those Wikipedians who got involved. I have added some extra items to the evidence page to support this. --Tony Sidaway 16:57, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

So Worldtraveller was at fault for trying to discuss the situation, when he should have come straight to RFArb? -- ALoan (Talk) 17:39, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Following Tony's comments earlier, I think Tony believes that this actually lessens the blame on Worldtraveller, since he was given bad advice. --Ideogram 17:48, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Ideogram has it right. I am in fact saying the opposite of what ALoan thinks I'm saying. I believe that some of the responsibility for Worldtraveller's inappropriate and destructive path was lack of good advice. While I normally would expect an experienced editor like Worldtraveller to know about the dispute resolution process, it's pretty obvious that he doesn't know much. That he did attempt to use RFC demonstrates that he was attempting to follow it as best he could. --Tony Sidaway 18:11, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, but I can't agree with the assessment that Worldtraveller wasn't pointed towards dispute resolution options. I listed four ( ) such notices in my evidence section. Heck, I cited his failure to follow that advice in my block notice to him. There were definitely 'mixed signals' about whether his actions were proper or not... indeed, he and ALoan are both still suggesting that Worldtraveller didn't do anything too seriously wrong, but there was no failure to mention dispute resolution options. --CBD 22:33, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, you're right. I've added the cases you cited, and changed the wording. --Tony Sidaway 00:35, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Mixed signals played a part

23.2) During the course of discussion about InShaneee's complaint about what he perceived as ongoing harassment by Worldtraveller, statements by some experienced Wikipedians were conflicting.(→Harrassment - No harassment) (→Harrassment - Definitely harassment) The conflicting opinions led InShaneee and Worldtraveller to seperately feel vindicated in their actions and dismissive of criticsm. That Worldtraveller's behaivour was not clearly settled as being inappropriate at this stage was a large factor in the further escalation of this dispute.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed. I worked this out before Tony presented 23.1. I thought I would still offer it even though I agree with 23.1 as well. It has a slightly different angle. The AN/I thread should have determined where Wordtraveller had crossed the line into harrassment and put him on the proper path to dispute resolution. I don't think the conversation before the CBD's block did anything to help the situation. Neither did it appear to heading towards any clonclusion on the issue up to that point. Obviously Worldtraveller should still have stopped his behaivour unless it was made clear that it would be appropriate to continue. Filing and RfC on himself would have been a good step at that point to move things along, but it easy to say with hindsight.--BirgitteSB 17:50, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

I like this. --Tony Sidaway 18:13, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

It's not objectionable, but it is worth noting that both users are "big boys," as it were, and really can't be "lead astray" by comments from other users. E.g. Inshaneee is an administrator and should know well that blocks need wide discussion, esp. when aimed at long time users, and WorldTraveller is a long time user who knows well that there could be people on the other side. Both have strong minds and developed characters. Thus, yes, they encountered different opinions, just as these myriad "comments from other parties" show different opinions. I think the people advising WorldTraveller were much more neutral parties than was true on the other side, but I expect there is difference of opinion there, too. Geogre 02:43, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't really disagree with you. However this finding of fact I believe looks beyond the original dispute to CBD's block as well. If the thread mentioned above had come to the conclusion WT had crossed the line; CBD's block would likely not have been contested. Of course WT may have also changed tactics if that had been made clear; leaving no reason for a block. No offence to those who commented in that thread (This is a general problem beyond this incident) but these sorts of discussions are not given space on the project to give people an opportunity to simply pontificate their opinons without actually looking into the incident very deeply. These disscusions are given space so that a conclusion can be reached on how to handle the situation. The two comments in questions are not given with a conclusion in mind but more the angle of defending a particular party and this contributed to the escalation. I do not mean to imply those comments are amoung the worst decisions made during this incident. But let lay all the cards on the table. Let's list everything that contributed to the escalation here in the interests of gaining a full understanding of how a inappropriate 24 hour block became such a mess.--BirgitteSB 12:54, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

I want to add that by "given space on the project"; I mean in general terms. I still believe the above mentioned thread did not belong on AN/I. Inshaneee should have followed dispute resolution when he felt WT crossed the line into harrassment. Posting a thread on AN/I can be seen as implicitly asking for WT to be blocked by someone else rather than a sincere attempt to resolve the dispute.--BirgitteSB 13:01, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Reading between the lines, it looks as if the fuss over Misplaced Pages is failing played into this. Kirill Lokshin had blocked WorldTraveller on 15 February for breaking the Three revert rule, and User:CBDunkerson warned him over civility or personal attacks during the course of that editing the next day, over his harassment of InShaneee and his interaction with other users on the essay talk page. The two subjects seemed to get bound up in a "World Traveller as problem editor" paradigm, which is to be expected on Misplaced Pages. --Tony Sidaway 13:37, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

InShaneee did not respond appropriately to Worldtraveller

24) InShaneee failed to respond adequately to Worldtraveller's repeated requests to explain or discuss the reasons for his block of Worldtraveller. In particular, he did not explain or discuss why he characterized Worldtraveller's edits as "vandalism" nor why he had felt it was appropriate for him to block Worldtraveller while he was engaged in a dispute with him.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed. Paul August ☎ 19:47, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Blocks by HighInBC

25) User:HighInBC lengthened Worldtraveller's block for "personal attacks while asking to be unblocked" and argued on ANI that increasing the block is "standard when people are abusive while asking to be unblocked.". A little later, he also blocked Dbuckner, an editor of four years' standing with a previously spotless block log, for arguing against the Worldtraveller blocks in a supposedly insulting way.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed. Although the affair was being actively discussed on ANI, and HighInBC is a newish admin (3-4 months), he sought no community input before placing the blocks, and showed no interest in the spontaneous protests from experienced admins (note especially Musical Linguist here). Compare my evidence. Bishonen | talk 21:15, 18 March 2007 (UTC).

I did lengthen the block for the reasons stated. I don't agree with the "supposedly", I provided plenty of evidence on the users talk page when I did the block. Please keep in mind that other admins were agreeing that the block was warranted.

I must say I a bit lost here, I do not know anything about the conflict regarding InShaneee's block of WT. My involvement in this matter was simply my response to the manner in which the discussion took place. If I did not have this page on my watchlist I would not even know the these things were being drafted against me, a note would have been nice. I attempted to talk about this before and was ignored.

I don't know much about arbitration, I am not listed as on involved party, but I am being messed into this whole thing. What exactly is expected of me? _InBC 21:47, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

You were ignored? By me? You say the thing which is not, I suppose from forgetting my response. I'm disappointed, as I put thought and care into it. Perhaps you'd like to strike through your erroneous statement. Bishonen | talk 22:12, 18 March 2007 (UTC).

HighInBC, don't worry about it. A proposed finding which rests on the 'fair and impartial' belief that "fuckwit" is only 'supposedly' an insult seems unlikely to pass IMO. --CBD 22:47, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

I was not aware that that message was a response to my communication to you, I thought it was a response to the post I made on BunchofGrapes' page. Regardless, I responded, User_talk:HighInBC/Archive_27#Hi and that seemed to be the end of it. At what point did communication break down to such a point that bringing it up in arbitration was needed? _InBC 22:40, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

InShaneee's original statement contained significant inaccuracies

26) In his original statement in this arbitration case, InShaneee claimed that I've said on AN:I more than once that I would welcome intervention from MedCab or a similar body (to which no response was given). This claim is not backed by any of the presented evidence.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Worth noting I think. He hasn't explained why he made this claim when mediation was never mentioned at any time during the discussions. 81.179.91.202 09:44, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Proposed remedies

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.

InShaneee admonished

1) By reason of the foregoing, InShaneee is strongly admonished:

(A) To impose blocks on editors only in strict accordance with 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 Fred Bauder 14:05, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

I think this needs to be restated, even if as Irpen says all admins should already be aware of this, it's clear that not all of this message has got through. If this block was more recent or if there had been instances of similar behaviour since, I would be pushing for stronger remedies here; I hope InShaneee realises this, and that repetition would be most unwise. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 11:04, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed. 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. --Irpen 06:10, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Some admonishing doesn't hurt, I suppose, though InShanee has already acknowledged his error and apologised. 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. Misplaced Pages: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. 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. --Tony Sidaway 12:06, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

InShaneee apologised, vaguely, seven weeks late. He didn't apologise for the stonewalling, and that is what's brought us here. 144.82.240.93 15:58, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

I do agree that it would have helped if InShaneee had said something constructive in the early days, when the block was discussed. However when I spoke to him in February he felt, and I agree with him on this, that the block was ancient history. Obviously InShaneee compounded a bad block by a failure to communicate. It's where you describe his failure to engage with you over a long period as "stonewalling" that you lose me. The block had been discussed and severely criticised. InShaneee showed no sign of repeating the error. Perhaps that ought to have been enough, though many people seem to think that it isn't. Leaving aside your inappropriate way of going about it for the most part, which I don't condone, I think you could have made your point well in an RFC and regret that your attempt to do so failed. --Tony Sidaway 16:27, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

I think it is fair for the first incident Alex Bakharev 06:54, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

I have no involvement with this case - and don't know the facts, but a finding that insists "on only in strict accordance with the blocking policy" - seems quite out of line with how we operate. Of course, blocks shouldn't be used willy-nilly, but since when did we insist on acting only in 'strict accordance' with rules? We chose admins for their judgement and do so for good reason - rules will never cover every instance and sometimes common sense needs applied. Discuss it, confer, don't be a controversial and unilateral loan-gunman, but don't hold back from doing something obvious and uncontroversial because section 24ii(2.f) hasn't quite been followed. This turn of phrase is a charter for trolls and wiki-lawyers.--Doc 10:48, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

There is no pride of authorship with the phrasing. If this is still deemed necessary at this point (I think the proceedings themselves already leave InShaneee reasonably well admonished), Doc's point can be taken into account in formulating the final wording. Newyorkbrad 19:57, 16 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. Newyorkbrad 03:56, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Not an appropriate remedy for the nasty behavior we have seen here. Fred Bauder 14:06, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed. Newyorkbrad, 03:56, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Support. That this even needs to be raised is unfortunate. --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. --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. 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. --Tony Sidaway 12:03, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

All the stuff about "Scoobies" etc? This didn't help things, Tony. Metamagician3000 14:55, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps unfortunate, but there is no way that I could have predicted that my choice of the phrase would cause such offence. Even now I find this quite inexplicable, but I accept that I caused offence and I apologised for that as soon as I became aware that the objection wasn't just some ideosyncracy of Newyorkbrad's. --Tony Sidaway 15:49, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Really? There was no way you could have anticipated that? It was just the choice of phrase, too, hmmm? Accusing every other person posting a comment (at that time) but the two real participants (oh, and yourself) of being a conspiracy was not indecorous? And you still haven't given anyone a reason for believing that you're a party of this dispute. Geogre 01:21, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

I'll answer Geogre's statement about my not being a party to the dispute, rather than rehash his other accusations. I have been a party to the dispute for some weeks now, working behind the scenes to advise him how to deal with ongoing harassment by Worldtraveller. I have referred to this several times, and so has InShaneee. --Tony Sidaway 05:01, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

I haven't seen InShaneee mention this, and I've seen no evidence that this supposed 'behind the scenes' discussion took place. 81.179.115.188 01:14, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

No, you haven't. You'll have to take our word for it. --Tony Sidaway 01:18, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

I also seem to have missed where does InShaneee mentions this. Perhaps InShaneee would confirm that you are acting as an informal adviser or - as it seems from your input to this page - advocate?

It seems a bit odd for a "behind the scenes" adviser to add themselves as a party to a dispute - I have not seen anyone do that in an arbitration case before. I am not a compulsive follower of arbitrations - perhaps someone could point me to another case where that has been done? - -- ALoan (Talk) 17:58, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Could you explain why you find it odd? It seems natural to me that a person who has close knowledge of part of a dispute might join that dispute. Not doing so would, to me, seem a little strange. --Tony Sidaway 18:10, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

I am very happy to explain. Perhaps you would be so kind as to respond to some of my queries on this page.

To my mind, the parties to an arbitration are the ones who are in dispute or against whom allegations have been made, and are the ones against whom sanctions could potentially be imposed. Would you agree with that? You are apparently advising one of the parties, but does not seem to me to be quite the same thing as being a party to the arbitration. Are you in dispute with Worldtraveller or InShaneee? Have allegations been made against you in relation to the dispute between Worldtraveller and InShaneee? Do you expect to have sanctions imposed against you for your actions in relation to that dispute? Perhaps it is an unnecessary nicety, but I am not aware of previous examples. -- ALoan (Talk) 18:30, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

A party to a dispute may be someone who joins a dispute because of his experiences and makes statements advocating a point of view. I think it would be inappropriate for me to represent myself, by omission, as an uninvolved or neutral party. But I don't want to annoy anyone who may imagine that being a party to a dispute is something that comes with special rights, of which I may be suspected of taking advantage. So I removed myself. It means nothing to me, it's just a formality, a way of saying "actually yes, I hope everybody realises that I'm not a neutral party in this." I thought I was doing a good thing. Since this isn't true in this case, I happily undo it. If you really imagine that not being a party to a dispute makes me unlikely to be subject to remedies, well you're probably wrong. As one of those involved in advising one of the primary disputants, which despite my advice still led to arbitration, I would expect remedies to be applicable to me. At least one such proposed remedy enjoining "all parties (Remedy 6, proposed by Mackensen) certainly applies to me, even if I'm not any longer on the list of involved parties (why am I no longer there, again?) Had I researched the case appropriately and advised InShaneee correctly, then this arbitration would not have been necessary. --Tony Sidaway 23:23, 15 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, this sort of attitude is wholly inappropriate. Fred Bauder 14:09, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

The arbitrators cannot make a remedy in their capacity as individual editors. --Tony Sidaway 20:18, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Proposed. Newyorkbrad 03:56, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Ultra vires. Metamagician3000 10:55, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Worldtraveller (alternative)

3.1) 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 and that InShanee understands that it was inappropriate not to have engaged in a full discussion of the matter, and to put aside his grievances and drop the matter.

Comment by Arbitrators:

This is sensible. Mackensen (talk) 20:22, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Acceptable Fred Bauder 14:10, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Acceptable to me as well. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 11:05, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

I've reworded this to address Worldtravellers real issues. Paul August ☎ 17:59, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

This misses the point by implying that the block was what I have been aggrieved about. My grievance with the block was somewhat assuaged by the (seven weeks late) apology and certainly much more so by InShaneee's statement on that matter since this case started. What I'm still furious about, and what I think was far far worse than the block, is his ignoring of both my questions directly to him and the discussion on AN immediately afterwards. A one-off (if it was such) misuse of admin tools is something I can forgive; the follow up, his ignoring me and everyone else who criticised him for seven weeks, making one statement with no apology for the unaccountable delay in responding, then returning to stonewalling, is what I am still angry about and have yet to see any contrition for from InShaneee. 144.82.240.93 15:54, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

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 Misplaced Pages have seen more fragrant blocks and blockers. --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. Sam Blacketer 11:25, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Sensible suggestion. Metamagician3000 10:56, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

I think this is agreeable to all, and the only satisfactory way forward. --Tony Sidaway 05:06, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Well put. --Ideogram 05:17, 13 March 2007 (UTC) I withdraw my support of the reworded version. The fact that those are Worldtraveller's real issues does not make them legitimate grievances. --Ideogram 00:48, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

I still support the reworded version. The fact is that InShaneee made a very bad block and refused to discuss for several weeks. Although I don't condone WorldTraveller's actions after the apology was given by InShaneee, and I support the actions of CBD and HiBC, there is no escaping that the original block was not for vandalism. At most it was (rather low-key) edit warring over content, of which InShaneee was equally guilty. This was certainly not a blocking offence and any block for edit warring was both waaaaay premature and from the wrong person. Furthermore, although he overreacted, WorldTraveller is an enormously valuable editor. Although I've been critical of some of his conduct, his loss to the project is something it can ill afford. We should be encouraging him to come back and should make clear how valued he is. It is not a case of either/or, i.e. we can acknowledge his value and the wrongness of the original block and decline to give him a free pass or make excuses for his actions. Metamagician3000 07:09, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

InShaneee has stated he is willing to apologize for the behavior referenced in this reworded version if it will satisfy WorldTraveller. If both of them can agree on this wording then it would seem we have a solution. --Ideogram 07:52, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Great Alex Bakharev 06:56, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

InShaneee is desysoped

4) 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 this remark does raise serious questions. Fred Bauder 14:13, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

In response to Fred above, and everyone else who mentioned that comment, that was intended to be sarcasm, although that obviously was not the correct time nor place for me to be making such a comment. I had been hoping that someone would respond to Worldtraveler's tone in some fashion, and when no one did, and indeed some condoned and encouraged it, my worse nature got the best of me. I certainly do not believe that, and in fact find it to be an absurd concept. --InShaneee 16:14, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Proposed. (first arbcom comment, please don't WP:BITE, thanks). — Selmo 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. 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. --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 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. 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. 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages not harm it and when an administrator place an unjustifiable block, he is harming Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages. 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. Fad (ix) 19:31, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

InShaneee 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. Metamagician3000 11:05, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

OK fine, then maybe you could tell me what was wrong with this answer? My first block by him of 24 hours was due to this.

Second, the one of 72 hours. He first warns of a block for this statment. while later I have shown him that the person who I was conversing was making the same exact remarks. Since the warning as a consequence of that user report to InShaneee. Infuriated that the same administrator who unjustfully blocked me has the audacity to warn me again I answered:

This cost me 72 hours of blocking. He never apologised for the unjustified 24 hours of block, yet had the audacity to warn me again. That this guy remains or not an administrator, I will never recognize his authority, as he never apologized. You can not understand how frustrating it could be to be blocked when you should not have been, you could only understand when it happens to you. On the IRC he claimed that he blocked me because I was calling others racist. When I corrected that in my userpage, he edited it and warned me of another block. Fad (ix) 15:36, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Do you intend to enter these (and anything else you have on this and/or other incidents) into evidence? If there is a pattern of behavior, this should probably be looked at. --Random832 15:45, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

The thing is that there is right now another Arbitration case in which I am involved and have no time for my own evidences. It depend how many times remain until the Arbcom comes with a verdict in this particular case. I will see what I can do though. Fad (ix) 16:19, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

This really needs to be pursued in another case, or perhaps in mediation. My comment was solely about the block to WorldTraveller, not about the merits of blocks to anyone else, or anything that might come out of the woodwork about his past conduct. Metamagician3000 03:27, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

To strong a remedy for one isolated incident studied here. Warning is enough Alex Bakharev 07:02, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

InShaneee is de-sysopped (alternative)

5) 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. Fred Bauder 14:14, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes a problem. He apologized for the block but I don't recall any apology for the lack of discussion. InShaneee, did you apologize for that? Paul August ☎ 18:08, 13 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. 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. 81.179.115.188 19:51, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Regarding Fred Bauder's comment - InShaneee apologised for the block. He's never apologised for his subsequent stonewalling. The block is not what got us to here, it was the refusal to take part in any discussion afterwards. 144.82.240.93 15:48, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Was he obligated to do so? I'm not convinced on this point. Mackensen (talk) 15:51, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

In response to Paul August above, no, I suppose I haven't, which is definatly an oversight on my part. I would be fully willing to, if anyone thinks it would help the situation any. --InShaneee 03:32, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

If you feel actually do feel an apology is warranted, should it really matter whether it might "help"? Derex 04:30, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

It's not so much that. I'm just worried that it might be taken as disingenuous (as the last one has been accused of), and I'd really rather not exacerbate the situation. I say this because Worldtraveler has already said that regardless of any apology given at this point, he will not declare the dispute 'resolved'. I still say that if ANYONE would like to hear it, belated as it may be, I will give it. --InShaneee 05:38, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

In his statement on Requests for arbitration when opening the case was being discussed, Inshaneee definitely acknowledged criticism and stated that he should have sought more discussion. For that reason, I would encourage rejection of this proposal. 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. Fad (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. --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. Fad (ix) 14:31, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry I remember little of that period, except that probably Cool Cat was around, too. If you have evidence and can spare the time, you could post it to the evidence page or email it to the arbitrators. --Tony Sidaway 19:12, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

The edit referred to is here. Sam Blacketer 19:57, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

This proposal should be roundly rejected. Despite making one mistake, InShaneee is a valued member of this community. Metamagician3000 11:02, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Waring is enough. De-sysopping is over the top 07

03, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

InShaneee is de-sysopped (alternative 2)

5) For blocking a user with whom he was in dispute, refusing to interact sensibly with administrators or the blocked party during initial discussion of the block on the administrator's noticeboard, refusing to engage in dialogue with the blocked party, refusing to acknowledge any error at all until seven weeks had passed, having failed to offer any explanation or apology for his refusal to communicate, and for his intransigence having led to a case that could have been resolved over two months ago reaching the arbitration committee, InShaneee is de-sysopped.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Just thought I'd concisely summarise what I see as the main things InShaneee is guilty of. Given the failure to fully and frankly apologise for the block until this case was brought, and the ongoing failure to offer any explanation for the refusal to communicate with either the blocked party or fellow administrators, I don't see that a 'strong admonishment' will have any effect on this user. 81.179.115.188 11:59, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Very wordy, and an unnecessary pile-on, even if it's all true (I'm not really following). Just wanted to say that if this passes, I'll eat my own head. A more succinct version would be better. Milto LOL pia 12:26, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

All participants admonished

6) 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. Mackensen (talk) 15:28, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Probably the most appropriate single remedy proposed here. --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. 81.179.115.188 21:45, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Honestly, I'd prefer if this was clarified to include only myself and Worldtraveler. I don't see that CBC and HighinBC have done anything wrong, and would not like to see any implication that they have. Even if the Arbs do see that they have acted innapropriately, I hope they can at least concede that the scope of this case did not include presenting evidence against either of them in any meaningful capacity. --InShaneee 16:19, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

S'ok. A less 'authoritarian' approach might have convinced Worldtraveller to stop. By the time I got involved (basically, the very end of the matter) there had already been unsuccessful efforts to resolve this gently. I saw that and assumed another attempt along those lines wouldn't fare any better... but it couldn't have hurt to try. --CBD 23:49, 12 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. --CBD 16:56, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

I seem to be lacking in imagination and insight this evening. Please would 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 Misplaced Pages 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? -- 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. 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. 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, 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. 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. 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.--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. --Tony Sidaway 14:03, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Withdrawn

7) InShaneee is admonished that the role of Administrators is not to rule over the community, but to help to maintain the community space and the encyclopedia.

Comment by Arbitrators:

I suspect that InShaneee's comment there was sarcasm and that he does not actually believe it. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 11:11, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

I am willing to assume good faith and accept that InShaneee's comment was meant as sarcasm. I will say that when I initially read that remark I assumed he was serious. Paul August ☎ 19:01, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

That was ill-timed sarcasm. I don't think I 'rule' over anything or anyone. This is just a site, and I'm just some guy who happens to spend some time here, and have a certain flag in my account code. --InShaneee 16:21, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

It was your only input into the discussion. No-one had anything else to go on to judge your real intent. That was a failing on your part. 144.82.240.93 15:46, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Proposed, as a reaction to , which I think is the heart of the matter. I've never done this before, the wording might be awkward, anyone have any suggestions? --Random832 15:09, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

As a matter of wording, I think your proposal is fine; in any event, the arbitrators will feel free to reword it if they choose to adopt your concept for the final decision. Substantively, I don't know that another admonition is needed for a single ill-advised flippant comment from ten weeks ago ... although I was following the discussion on ANI very closely at the time, and I distinctly remember wincing when I read those words, and thinking "this is not going to be good." Newyorkbrad 15:12, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

When I think about it, this should probably be folded into the other admonition (which I actually think, along with this, should be directed at the community and at all admins as a whole, rather than specifically at InShaneee), I just didn't want to edit someone else's proposal. What's the right way to do this sort of thing? (I've never participated in an RFAR, even as an "other", before). --Random832 15:37, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Withdrawn. I accept InShaneees explanation. --Random832 13:02, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Tony Sidaway banned from arbitration pages

8) Tony Sidaway is banned for one year from participating in arbitration cases he is not personally involved in.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed Fred Bauder 16:55, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't agree. Banning users outright is a major step. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 11:15, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

I must oppose this, as I assume that this begins by referring to this case. Unlike Giano, Tony has some degree of involvement in this case (surely at least as much as Bishonen and George claim to), while I've never interacted with Giano before in the least, nor does it seem that Worldtraveler has. --InShaneee 18:53, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

This seems extreme. I believe Tony was contributing his views in good faith. ++Lar: t/c 18:43, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

I didn't see this when I entered my thoughts on the same thing at Proposed temporary injunctions above. I'll just have to repeat myself, sorry. I support keeping Tony off arbitration pages, with regret. I believe that without a ban from THIS page, for example, this workshop will soon look like that in the "Giano case"—i. e. be unusable for practical purposes—from the sheer mass, repetitiveness, and exhausting persistence of Tony's editing. (Compare this editor, who I believe was community banned, arbitrated, and blocked for just such an inability to stop talking.) As for the content of his posts, I find it impossible to believe that Tony is editing this board in good faith. I would like to, but I can't. My concern is that the irrelevant attacks and the quagmire of rhetoric will drive away sensible editors, who could have enriched the discussion, but find it meaningless at such a level. Bishonen | talk 18:47, 12 March 2007 (UTC).

World are you there? do pop up and say we have had interaction on more than a few occasions. I regard World as one of the few editors indispensible to the project. Regarding Bishonen's astute comment "THIS page, for example, this workshop will soon look like that in the "Giano case"" — I rather think that is the intention now in certain quarters - eh Fred? I only popped up here to tell Tony that this has nothing to do with him, if you check my contributions here, you will find that is still the case. World is big enough and ugly enough to fight his own battles - in fact wiki-wise he is very big! Giano 19:00, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, been at work all day and didn't want to edit from a different IP address. Anyway, unlike the claimed interaction between InShaneee and Tony Sidaway for which there seems to be no evidence on the wiki, Giano and myself have had many dealings with each other over a long period of time, a lot of the time in the context of FAC where we've often commented on each other's nominations. 81.179.115.188 23:49, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Too extreme. The same applies to Giano. Whether or not either has helped here (and I've expressed opinions about Tony's participation), they are acting in good faith - and we do encourage such participation. This seems like a situation for admonishments about not inflaming disputes, not a situation for bans. Metamagician3000 22:51, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Both this and the next should pass together or not at all. --Ideogram 05:21, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

"Not at all" being my strong preference. ++Lar: t/c 15:11, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Overkill for both Tony and especially Giano Alex Bakharev 07:05, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Tony hasn't been helpful here in the least. CBD, HighInBC, and the principals have been. I've pointed out illogic. Bishonen has offered massive amounts of evidence. Tony has simply said that he's involved by some secret means. InShaneee here says that he was (although why he was taking advice on dispute resolution from Tony Sidaway is a thing only he can know), but all of this is not evidentiary. Geogre 21:22, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

InShaneee sought advice and support in a number of places. On dispute resolution, I'm usually a good bet because I know my way around Misplaced Pages better than most and I'm not scared to tell someone that he's been a naughty boy. There is nothing "secret" about means other than wikis. Email has existed since the 1970s, IRC and other chat formats since the 1990s, and then there are telephone, Usenet, forums, SMS, meeting at Starbucks, and a host of other "secret" (that is, relatively private) means of communication. Whether my contributions (including a substantial amount on the evidence page) have been useful is not for Geogre to say. --Tony Sidaway 23:26, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

If there is one thing that would have made this workshop page more focused and usable, it would have been to eliminate Tony's meandering and tangential snarkiness. Frankly, it does Arbcom no good to issue finger wags about "decorum" if they're not willing to back it up with a nice stiff smack when someone violates it as egregiously as Tony has here. We can quibble about whether a year is too much, but I urge Arbcom to seriously consider implementing this remedy for some time period, applied against Tony Sidaway and anyone else whom they feel appropriate. If nothing else, it should serve to help keep future workshop pages from becoming (as much of) a chaotic free-for-all. Nandesuka 14:45, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Well if it was just a matter of snarkiness, I'd say we had enough voices for a whole symphony. I don't think it would be correct to describe this workshop as in any way a "chaotic free-for-all." Your mileage may vary. --Tony Sidaway 15:20, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Giano II banned from arbitration pages

9) Giano II is banned indefinitely from participating in arbitration pages unless he is a party to the arbitration.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed Fred Bauder 17:00, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't agree. Banning users from commenting on arbitrations is a step we should probably not take so lightly. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 11:13, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

I think this would be very useful. Not only have I (nor Worldtraveler, from what I understand) never interacted with this user, but he has said nothing about this case whatsoever. --InShaneee 18:55, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

I can understand why the arbitrators may want to limit the side-tracks that are explored in this RFArb - ignoring for a second who started exploring those byways - but are you (Fred) really saying that Tony Sidaway and Giano are such vexatious litigants that you don't think there are any circumstances in which either of them could have anything useful to say in an arbitration, other than one in which they are a party (the former, for a year, and the latter, ever)?

And why this differential treatment (1 year for Tony, indefinite for Giano)? It is not Giano who has posted to these pages almost 150 times in the last few days. -- ALoan (Talk) 18:24, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Giano has a history Fred Bauder 18:40, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Someone correct me if I am wrong, but I don't recall any previous instance in which Giano has participated in a case that didn't closely involve him. Newyorkbrad 18:44, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Contributing to arbitration cases by relatively uninvolved third parties is encouraged. Enlisting more community involvement is one of the reasons for which the workshop pages were introduced by Fred Bauder in mid-2005. However this is not to say that Giano and I have much to be proud of about our contributions here. We have both been disruptive in different ways. --Tony Sidaway 18:50, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Tony, please would you adumbrate how you and Giano have been disruptive here in your different ways? -- ALoan (Talk) 19:34, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

I've expressed suspicions that, either by being expressed or by the manner of their expression, caused more heat than light. Giano has used the workshop for the sole purpose of personal attacks on Fred Bauder, myself and possibly others. --Tony Sidaway 19:43, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

ALoan, what did you mean by "Adumbrate"? Wiktionary gives "foreshadow vaguely", "give a vague outline" or "obscure or overshadow". Did Tony's explanation obscure or overshadow things? I may have missed the mark here but it seemed fairly clear as answers go, rather than vague or obscure. Or am I confused by your usage? Adumbrate is not a word one encounters all that often, and, frankly, I find myself perplexed by your word choice here, and I thought myself fairly erudite. Were you using the word to obscure or to enlighten the situation? ++Lar: t/c 19:53, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Outline. Tony understood. -- ALoan (Talk) 17:52, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Edit count is never a measure of disruption. --Tony Sidaway 18:29, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

What, never? No, never! What, never? Hardly ever!

I'm sure you don't find it disruptive, Tony, in the same way that you so often seen to produce "inadvertent", "unintended" or "unnecessary" results, and then find yourself apologising for it. -- ALoan (Talk) 18:36, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

As if it were necessary to underline: absolutely never. A lot of edits just means somebody has a lot to say. This is a good thing. Workshop pages are provided to enlist community input. --Tony Sidaway 18:51, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

In that case I will have to respectfully disagree with you, Tony. I find that your pattern of multiple edits - and particularly your habit of inserting insults into your edits - disruptive. I can live with it, I guess, but I would rather not have to suffer it. I am sorry to have to say so. Enlisting community input does not mean giving one contributor free rein to monopolise the discussion, or send it hurtling off on tangents. Perhaps the number of times you have "apologised" for your comments so far is indicative. -- ALoan (Talk) 17:52, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

• Oh don't be so ridiculous Fred, you can't ban me for pointing out what every one is thinking and you and your Arbcom colleagues were too reticent to do. I athink your proposition is almost trolling for publicity and action - be careful you don't get it! - I just don't understand what it is with Tony that makes you all so timid, he doesn't worry or frighten me in the least. I suppose I shall have to go on the Arbcom myself and finally have this business sorted - we can't keep on having these pages run by Tony can we? Giano 18:33, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

And here we are again - exactly what I said would happen - no one has a clue where they are - or where thay are posting, on this very page we have this - If only people would listen to me Giano 18:44, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

This seems extreme. I believe Giano was contributing his views in good faith. ++Lar: t/c 18:43, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

??? What for? If Giano has done anything else at this board than react to Tony's trolling, attempt to contain it, and enter pleas for the arbitrators to contain it, I must have missed it. Bishonen | talk 18:49, 12 March 2007 (UTC).

• I don't want anyone else to comment here. Fred is trolling! We have all been ignoring and turning a blind eye to his daft comments in so many cases now for quite long enough. We all make allowances for respected editors etc, but I do think now the time has come to point out that Fred has been making odd suggestions on too many cases for quite long enough, or am I alone in thinking this too? Giano 18:52, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Tony Sidaway and Giano II admonished

10) Tony Sidaway and Giano II are admonished to be civil, particularly on arbitration pages, and Tony Sidaway is in particular admonished to refrain from removing comments by others.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Yes. Paul August ☎ 19:03, 13 March 2007 (UTC) I've changed my mind. Paul August ☎ 18:40, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed --Random832 12:51, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

I am in favor of this in principle, but there don't seem to be any consequences for misbehavior. --Ideogram 00:51, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Surely we hope that all contributors are civil to each other at all times, although some may not always live up to that aspiration?

Presumably these particular contributors would be "admonished" if there is a finding that they both have been uncivil, supported by some evidence of their incivility? -- ALoan (Talk) 16:50, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Better than the prior two proposals. GRBerry 23:21, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Seems reasonable Alex Bakharev 07:06, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

On the second thought I would rather remove Giano from the remedy. Tony's behavior was much worse, he started to insert into the procedings irrelevant historical events first. Giano only answered on Tony's provocation Alex Bakharev 08:31, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Even when provoked, civility is important. He should not have risen to the bait. --Random832 15:36, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

In my defence, the irrelevance of my unfortunate earlier proposals only emerged over time. Sometimes reasonable suspicions are wrong. I'm all growed up now and I know that I bear primary responsibility for the reaction.--Tony Sidaway 23:28, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

How many times now has Tony been admonished? At what point will there be consequences for his egregious misbehavior on RFArb pages? We like admonishments because we believe that reasonable people will internalize the admonishment and adjust their behavior accordingly. Tony seems to be either unwilling or unable to do that. The only things that seem to help him are direct instructions from Arbcom with consequences for violating them. I suggest that he be given that help. Nandesuka 16:16, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

If I were admonished in this case (and I don't think it would be an unreasonable expectation) it would be the first time I had ever been admonished in any arbitration case. I think your memory may be playing tricks on you. --Tony Sidaway 17:28, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Requests for comment

11) The two-person endorsement requirement in personal Requests for Comment is abolished. Requests for Comment will be archived four weeks after the last edit. All experienced editors are requested to help others in expressing their lingering disputes in RfC form. All administrators are encouraged to respond to good faith RfCs in which they are a named party, irrespective of any failings of formatting.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Interesting idea, with considerable merit, but not within the scope of ArbCom to mandate changes to the existing RfC procedures. The Committee could however invent it's own review process, similar to an RfC, but with different procedures, perhaps tailored to a specific case, and require that that process be followed before accepting a case, or even as a remedy in a case. I think we need to be more creative in our solutions to these kinds of problems. In particular, in this case I wish we could have summoned InShaneee and Worldtraveller into a room and forced them to talk to each other. I think that would have solved the problem long ago. Paul August ☎ 19:32, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

This is one way in which the committee could help to nudge administrators in the direction of responding to good faith RfCs. I see no reason to believe that Worldtraveller would not have been satisfied with an RfC in which his grievance was aired and InShaneee acknowledged the damage. --Tony Sidaway 16:44, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure that ArbCom can mandate change in process this way... but this seems an idea with a lot of merit that interested parties might want to push forward in the appropriate place. The current RfC scheme seems more like a waypoint that you have to go through to get here than an actual process that works, at least most of the time. Support the idea if not necessarily the mechanics. ++Lar: t/c 16:51, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Concur with Lar that this is a policy issue that generally would not be resolved by ArbCom. I would welcome a broader discussion on a policy page as to how the user/admin-conduct RfC procedures could be improved. Newyorkbrad 18:52, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Suggest you propose this at WT:RFC - the alternative would be to prompt lonely editors into getting an advocate from the WP:AMA or being adopted by the adopt-a-user programme and get the advocate/adopter to attempt to resolve the dispute and then if that fails, certify the basis of the dispute (and probably help with finding diffs for the RfC as well). Addhoc 19:47, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Although arbcom doesn't generally interfere in policy formation, this would be a small tweak to an existing procedure. Just a tiny little stick of dynamite here, carefully placed, would help dispute resolution (which is the primary responsibility of the committee), and arbcom exercising its delegated prerogative appropriately would serve to clear out a lot of sacred cows at the same time. I see little merit in constructing a duplicate process. --Tony Sidaway 23:47, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

On the merits, the two-person requirement serves as at least a minimal barrier to completely frivolous, trollish filings. If it were abolished, something would need to be instituted to take its place. Newyorkbrad 23:53, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Trolls in RfC can be ignored, just as they are ignored on talk pages. The proposed change would by no means be a panacea, but it would help to steer things back on course. RFCs are currently a mess because half of Misplaced Pages regards them as some kind of punitive measure and the other half thinks they should be ignored. Let's make them into just another place for group discussion of problems, away from talk pages. This is what they're supposed to be. --Tony Sidaway 00:04, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Trolls in an RfC can and should be ignored like always. But a troll creating an RfC that then sits on the page of "pending RfC's" for weeks could be a time-sink for people who follow that page, and a stress on a good user who has to deal with "there's an RfC pending against me" for, under your proposal, four weeks. Newyorkbrad 00:11, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

If it keeps the troll off your talk page, I don't see the problem. Someone who plays silly buggers like this can in any case be blocked under existing policy (I hope). People who get stressed by trolls should probably avoid interacting on the internet. --Tony Sidaway 00:18, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Hmmmm ... let's see what the others have to say (although I still think this should wind up on a policy page rather than here). Newyorkbrad 00:19, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

I believe this is a good idea, but not for ArbCom to implement. --Ideogram 00:53, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Requests for comment, alternate

11.1) The committee strongly recommends that the community make the following changes, and/or other changes of similar effect, to the policy surrounding the Requests for Comment process: The two-person endorsement requirement in personal Requests for Comment to be abolished; Requests for Comment to be archived four weeks after the last edit. All experienced editors are requested to help others in expressing their lingering disputes in RfC form. All administrators are encouraged to respond to good faith RfCs in which they are a named party, irrespective of any failings of formatting.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed, since jurisdictional issues were raised about the original version. --Random832 01:46, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Even this is problematic. The community defines policy, the ArbCom interprets it. A recommendation going the other way is a bit like the tail wagging the dog. --Ideogram 01:59, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

A recommendation does no harm. Even an ordinary user can recommend anything - indeed, I can be said to implicitly recommend the passage of most of the proposals I've made on this page - those receiving a recommendation are free to choose whether or not to take the action described, based on what they think of the ideas themselves and the reputations of those making the recommendation. An "official" recommendation from the ArbCom would be useful not only in that the Arbitrators are highly respected members of the community, but that they in their official capacities and as a group felt it was important enough to be worth voting up. --Random832 15:42, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

ArbCom has in the past made recommendations, and in some cases even required participants in disputes to do things certain ways. (see the Highways arbitration case). That was not always necessarily met with open arms by all, but there is some precedent for a recommendation or stronger. What the community decides to do with a recommendation is of course the community's remit. ++Lar: t/c 17:15, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

There is no jurisdictional problem. The only issue would be whether an edict from the arbitration committee would be enforced (which is why arbcom does not in general intervene in policy formation). The proposed changes here are small and sensible, and enforcement simply comprises experienced editors taking notice of RfCs that, while incomplete, are made in good faith. Those who didn't do so would be on notice that, if subsequently the problem reached arbitration, their failure to respond would count against them. --Tony Sidaway 17:28, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

The community as whole is admonished

12 The english Misplaced Pages community as whole is admonished for it's neglect of this dispute in early stages. The community is encouraged to shepherd any disputes in progress through the dispute resolution process and consider reforming the weakest points of this process.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

While I appreciate the sentiment of this proposal, it seems far to wide in scope to do any real good. --InShaneee 05:29, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Proposed--BirgitteSB 18:11, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Well intentioned, but vague and unlikely to have the desired reforming effect. Where the community fails, particularly when as here there is evidence of systemic failures, it is the duty of the arbitration committee to act to remedy the problem. --Tony Sidaway 19:09, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

It is certainly possible that this may not have the desired effect, but it could help and it does no harm.--BirgitteSB 19:55, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

HighInBC is urged to seek community input before blocking established users

13) HighInBC should have sought input, discussed, and been open to advice from more experienced admins on his supposed (quite novel) "standard" that blocked users need to be blocked some more when they are "abusive while asking to be unblocked". He is urged to be more ready to do so.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Note that I was not, in fact, abusive in the least when asking to be unblocked . "Fuckwits" came after HighInBC took it upon himself to 'review' my block, and was just a final expression of my outrage at the ridiculous idea that it's better to block someone who is complaining about an administrator, than to look into the complaint. And for HighInBC's benefit I will make it clear that it was indeed his actions that made me finally decide that this was no longer a project I wanted to have anything to do with. And both HighInBC and CBDunkerson might benefit from considering whether blocking someone who was at the time working on raising another article to featured status was in fact far more disruptive to the project than whatever they thought I was doing might have been. Both freely admit that they did not bother to look into the actual origins of the dispute between InShaneee and myself before they decided to block me. 81.179.115.188 23:29, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Proposed. It's not standard to treat blocked users with extra harshness, it's standard to put up with defiance from a user reacting to the shock of a block. It's the wrong moment to block them some more for either real or supposed "Personal attacks". It's the moment for considering the extreme power discrepancy between an admin and a blocked user — confined to his/her talkpage, remember — and for looking away. Think and discuss before blocking. Listen to other people, please. The direct, immediate consequences of HighInBC's lengthening of WT's block, and his following block of DBuckner, were that WT munged his password, and that Dbuckner's previously unsullied block log of four years now has a smear on it. I note that WT is all grown up, and is himself responsible for the loss of his password. Yet a block for an angry insert in the unblock template surely falls under the heading of "kicking them while they're down". To my sense it's pretty predictable that such a power demonstration against the already goaded and already (with reason) angry, will lead to some dramatic gesture. Was it worth it? Bishonen | talk 21:19, 18 March 2007 (UTC).

Community input is needed when a situation is complex or controversial. The situation with the personal attacks was not complex. While after the fact by block was controversial, it did not seem to me at the time. The level of "establishment" has very little relation to the situation. Both people were warned numerous times. An admin can make a decision on a block with or without community discusion as long as he feels it is in line with community standards. I still think both of those blocks were in line with policy.

The claims that WT scrambling his password because of my block are silly, it was his decision. I added 24 hours, he decided to "quit" Misplaced Pages. This sort of thing is a form of emotional blackmail, nobody is stopping him from coming back. I resent that this is being brought up in arbitration when my attempts to discuss this earlier were ignored. _InBC 21:35, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

I suppose I'd better repeat my reply from above to your mistaken claim of being ignored, as I really don't like to have such a charge stand without comment. I responded to you with care, and am sorry you don't recollect it. Bishonen | talk 22:21, 18 March 2007 (UTC).

In response to WT's comment above, while I may have been the reason you decided to leave, it was still your decision. I could quit right now saying that this mention of me in arbitration was what broke me, but that does not make it the fault of those who brought it up. The only direct consequence to my block was an extra 24 hours, your decision to leave was your decision. _InBC 23:33, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Template

14) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed enforcement

Template

13) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

14) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

15) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

16) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

17) {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:

To repeat what I wrote below: keep discussion relevant and civil. Take the rest elsewhere. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 00:21, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Apology: I apologise for inadvertently inflaming the arbitration. I continue to believe that my reasonably held suspicions, which were easily allayed by Bunchofgrapes' forthright response, were a necessary part in the repairing of a serious and longrunning problem on Misplaced Pages of which this arbitration is a part. It is my opinion that there is no nice way to express such suspicions, but that one can avoid maintaining a festering grievance during arbitration by bringing them up and accepting assurances on good faith. I think that my acceptance of Bunchofgrapes' assurances and my honest and forthright abandonment of the suspicions demonstrates dispute resolution at its best.

There us another view, which I do not hold, which is that simply raising the suspicions, even though I had observed that similar suspicions were also held by other reasonable editors, I have poisoned the well. I do not hold this view, but I recognise that it has been expressed by other editors all of whom are due my respect and whose strong feelings on this I recognise.

I therefore apologise for what, in retrospect, I believe to have been unintentionally damaging behavior. I now believe that I should have kept my suspicions to myself, or else submitted evidence in private, because my actions have created a side-show or spectacle that threatens to disrupt the dispute resolution process. That was not my intention at all. --Tony Sidaway 16:04, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

I think Tony's apology should be accepted by all concerned. I commend him for making it. Metamagician3000 00:32, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

I accept his apology and agree everyone else should (of course, it's the parties and arbitrators whose acceptance really matters). --Random832 01:10, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't accept Tony's apology, since it covers only one facet of the wild personal attacks he has launched within this workshop page. He's yet to back off from: : "No. They've 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 respect Wikipedians, to the extent of demanding that they relinquish all duties on Misplaced Pages. That kind of behavior, in my opinion, is beyond belief. Absolutely beyond understanding. Vindictive, spiteful and I hope, one day to be foresworn." —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 15:09, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry that I cannot apologise for holding certain opinions. I think the cold and calculated hounding off Misplaced Pages of Kelly Martin was one of the most shocking things I have ever witnessed in any forum, I hope that those who did it will come in time to recognise that what they did was absolutely unacceptable. But I won't continue in that vain because it would only further inflame matters. --Tony Sidaway 15:26, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

How did Kelly Martin come into this case? What purpose does it serve to rehash old grievances here? — MediaMangler 15:47, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

I've not intention of doing so. Just stating the context of an earlier statement that Bunchofgrapes took as a gratuitous attack. I had earlier been explaining the background to my suspicions that Bunchofgrapes or some of his close colleagues might have let their zeal overcome their better judgement--I have accepted his assurance that this didn't happen. --Tony Sidaway 16:03, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Your smearing without evidence is despicable. If you have evidence to support your bizarre allegations that there was a "cold and calculated hounding off Misplaced Pages of Kelly Martin", you should open an ArbCom case on that matter. Until such a time, I would thank you to stop making such unfounded allegations and stop with the personal attacks. One day someone with a little backbone may just notice your underhanded tactics and enjoin you in a more forcible way from employing them, Tony. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 17:16, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

My apologies, I'd no idea that there was a dispute on the question of whether Kelly Martin was hounded off Misplaced Pages. I'll stop there because this is no longer relevant to the case. --Tony Sidaway 18:15, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Tony, having no idea that reasonable people disagree with you is what causes most of the problems we have around here. As for the case: everyone could use somewhat thicker skins and more minding of one's own business. Zocky | picture popups 12:43, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree with your comments, and can only apologise for the harm I caused here. I am surprised to find a dispute on this particular matter, but I of course accept that there is one and thus withdraw my harmful comments, which were merely intended to illustrate my reasoning. --Tony Sidaway 13:25, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

The trolling of ancient grievances

No, Tony, you can't "only apologize", you can give it a rest with your "reasonably held suspicions" and your "honest and forthright abandonment of the suspicions" ("forthright"? have you no shame?) and your whole rhetorical artillery. A much more useful idea. It's beyond me how anybody who has followed this workshop has managed to not notice Tony's underhanded tactics for getting as much irrelevant venom as possible squirted at people he happens to hate, in the outrageously irrelevant context of an arbitration about something completely different. Ruining the workshop of that arbitration is apparently a small price to pay.
"I think Tony's apology should be accepted by all concerned. I commend him for making it." "I accept his apology and agree everyone else should". Pah! Dupes! Tony has "apologized" at least seven times on this page, and each time the supposed apology has served as a conveyance for more venom. Would you like me to accept all of them? Bunch quotes a notorious example. Here's another: "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 Misplaced Pages, 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." (See the apology in there? It's right next to our old friends the reasonable concerns. Wait, I'll bold the apology for you). That's the only one I've replied to (with a plea to Mackensen by name to end the trollfest— no reply ).
Not clear? Let me spell out what I mean. I mean that Tony's bizarre conspiracy theory aired above and now predictably sacrificed was a fake, "a fit-up" (good word, Tony, thanks), a rhetorical manoeuvre for saying something else, a wheelbarrow for conveying a pile of dung into the middle of this unrelated arbitration: his old, festering, ill-smelling grievances, his theory that I and Geogre (and, new idea, apparently Bunchofgrapes, too) "hounded Kelly Martin off Misplaced Pages". And right here we have the latest: "My apologies, I'd no idea that there was a dispute on the question of whether Kelly Martin was hounded off Misplaced Pages." Ohhh, touché, good one! "I am surprised to find a dispute on this particular matter." "my harmful comments... were merely intended to illustrate my reasoning." I'm surprised too. I'm surprised that anybody falls for these cheap tricks. Even in ignorance of the background, I would have thought Tony's puppetstrings were visible and his demented chuckle audible there, and throughout. As for arbitrators, who obviously do know the ancient history Tony's pushing under their noses, and who must see his disgraceful campaign the more easily—you propose censuring Giano for trying to put an end to it ? (Btw, see Giano getting dragged here via another little conveyance of Tony's? Like me, Giano apparently came here purely to defend his good name against Tony's slurs, and now we're both being told we're superfluous here.) Fred thinks that while Tony needs to stay out of irrelevant arbitrations for a year, for his misuse of this one—Giano needs to stay out forever! (For "Giano has a history". Unlike Tony? I see.) (No reply to Newyorkbrad's pointing out that Giano has never before commented in any arbitration where he was not centrally involved. Perhaps he needs to be banned from commenting in those, too?) Paul August wants to admonish them both together! Mackensen never replies to my pleas for stopping Tony's trolling. I'm depressed, I'm ashamed, to see such things. P. S. Why are peoploe so mystified by pod people? We have an article on it. Bishonen | talk 15:26, 14 March 2007 (UTC).

That's a very, very long piece, but I think I can see what you're driving at No, no, I made it plain at the time that my concern was with your recent behavior. Bunchofgrapes has cleared that up fine. I got over the Kelly Martin thing some time ago. The reference to "underhand tactics" and so on is somewhat off-beam but I'll ignore it. --Tony Sidaway 15:31, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, long piece, isn't it? I must be positively clogging up this page with the masses of text I've contributed, mustn't I. You got over the Kelly Martin thing some time since 18:15, 13 March 2007 (UTC), did you? Good, keep it up. Bishonen | talk 15:52, 14 March 2007 (UTC).

I've gotten over it, but I still have an opinion on it. I've learned that my statement wasn't the universally perceived truth I believed it to be so I've stopped. Let's please put it to one side now. I had no intention of reopening any wound, but I clearly have and I can only apologise. --Tony Sidaway 16:47, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

This is such a neat new technique you've come up with. You can launch any attack or spread any insult, so long as you have in your back pocket a dubious claim that you thought it to be a "universally perceived truth". After, if told otherwise, you can say you were wrong about it being so, and apologize. (Presumably you're apologizing for being wrong about it being universally believed true, not about the attack! Neat!) I shall have to remember this technique for the next time I say you are editing from an insane asylum, Tony. I owe you one. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 17:08, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

(outdent) I don't think this discussion is productive. Much heat, little light. I have many things I would like to say about Geogre, but I restrain myself in the interests of moving this case forward. I urge Bishonen and Bunchofgrapes to show similar restraint. --Ideogram 20:46, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

I'd never have edited this page at all if Tony Sidaway hadn't decided to use it as a platform for running my name through the mud. I didn't sign up for that when I made what I guess was the terrible mistake of standing up for an anonymous contributor. As long as the arbitrators think Tony's mudslinging sideshow is an acceptable use for this workshop page (which by their general silence on the matter they seem to) I reserve the right to not let Tony's wild-eyed accusations (yes, even the accusations with little embedded apologies) stand unchallenged. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 20:59, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

I guess I can't blame you for defending yourself, I've been guilty of that too. All I can do is ask you to try to defend yourself without attacking the other person (because then they will have to defend themselves, and it will never end). --Ideogram 21:11, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Sounds good. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 21:25, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Giving Bunchofgrapes cause to believe that I'd act in the way he describes is not something I'd do willingly. I echoed deep feelings of unease about this case earlier, feelings that were expressed to me by other editors who were privately following this case. I aired them and thus enabled him to reassure me that they were wrong. I have accepted this and honestly believe him and the others I mentioned to be innocent, and the consequence is that I accept the responsibility for the very severe damage that this has done. For which I may be censured. But I ask Bunchofgrapes to leave that decision to the arbitrators. --Tony Sidaway 00:11, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

This arbitrator, at least, is not inclined to tolerate old grievances being aired if they're not directly relevant to this arbitration case. Keep discussion (a) relevant to the case in hand, and (b) civil. Take the rest to suitable forums, if you must. Thanks, Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 00:20, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

• In light of that: Move to strike Tony Sidaway from the list of parties. I also move to have his comments about anyone "defending" WT or "challenging" Inshaneee stricken. We started out trying to get him to explain how he was a party. He said he "was consulted" by Inshaneee, although he does not say when or where or how. Since several of us have, after defending the anonymous editor, been spoken to by WT, does that make all of those people parties, too? Does it make every person who was in the AN/I discussion a party? Do we get to name ourselves, say outlandish things about the conspiracy theory of IRC or whatever it may be and have that stand, have it degenerate, have it go to charge and counter-charge, and then get more people with axes to grind with any person speaking on the issue showing up to air those too? Way, way, way back there was a motion to strike Tony Sidaway from the list of parties. Let's reiterate it, and lets "refactor" out all those wild eyed accusations and red herrings in the process, too. Geogre 01:37, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Tony's already taken himself off the list of parties, so that aspect is resolved. Newyorkbrad 01:42, 15 March 2007 (UTC)