Revision as of 08:36, 2 November 2011

• recent changes
• purge this page
• view or discuss this template

No cases have recently been closed (view all closed cases).

Requests for arbitration

Unblocks and enabling

Initiated by Georgewilliamherbert (talk) at 01:11, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Involved parties

• Mkativerata (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA), filing party
• Kaldari (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
• Georgewilliamherbert (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

• Mkativerata
• Kaldari
• Georgewilliamherbert filing party
• Notification to Malleus per his informal request to be notified

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

• Discussion with Mkativerata on his talk page:

Statement by Georgewilliamherbert

This is an unfortunate situation and one I would much rather not be filing. It involves longstanding editors and administrators who are generally productively active in some of the most problematic areas on Misplaced Pages today. However, it's only the most recent in a very long history of similar block/unblock cycles, which have been periodic and persistent enough to earn a specific nickname - "enabling unblocks". At some point this requires a systematic response rather than ongoing disruption.

In short summary, this incident proceeded in the following sequence (ANI archive thread :

1. Malleus Fatuorum (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) and Tbhotch (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) got into a name calling dispute on Talk:Manchester United F.C. arguing over singular vs plural grammar.

2. Tbhotch reported the incident to ANI

3. Mkativerata responded first, arguing that neither party was in the right and that administrators should not intervene

4. Further comments from Guerillero, Tbhoch, John, Wikidemon, and Quinn follow.

5. Kaldari responds with: "I warned Malleus about making personal attacks last month. Clearly he hasn't taken it to heart. Blocking for 24 hours. Kaldari (talk) 02:57, 26 October 2011 (UTC)"

6. SandyGeorgia commented that the block was asymmetrical despite roughly equal misbehavior, with a brief exchange with Tbhoch.

7. Kaldari answered: "I blocked Malleus because I recently warned him against exactly this sort of behavior. If the other party also warrants blocking, let me know. I am not familiar with that editor's history, however. Kaldari (talk) 03:08, 26 October 2011 (UTC)"

8. Bushranger edit conflicted with Kaldari, roughly supporting his position / noting long history w/Malleus.

9. Volunteer Marek objected to the block. Discussion with all of the above except Mkativerata, eventually adding Dayewalker, followed.

10. Kaldari left a warning for Tbhotch at 03:12.

11. Tarc called for unblock in a new subsection at 03:23. Bushranger opposed, further discussion followed with several additional users. Rough even split on the block.

12. Mkativerata unblocked without participation in the ANI discussion and without an effort to contact Kaldari, at 0345. Unblock message was: "(ANI is clear. I made the call not to block. An editor does not get blocked because one out 2,000 administrators happens upon ANI and decides to. First come, first served.)"

Per policy: Misplaced Pages:BLOCK#Unblocking Except in cases of unambiguous error, administrators should avoid unblocking users without first attempting to contact the blocking administrator to discuss the matter. If the blocking administrator is not available, or if the administrators cannot come to an agreement, then a discussion at the administrators' noticeboard is recommended.

A number of similar issues have been addressed by Arbcom relating to Arbitration Enforcement blocks, and a somewhat stricter guideline was laid down as a result of those cases. This case requests review for similar persistent non-AE problem related blocks.

The issues with this unblock include:

1. Failure to establish unambiguous error. There was considerable noticeboard discussion, including a number of admins who believed the block to be flawed or in error. However, there was a significant body of discussion there prior to the unblock, which was approximately 50:50. The assertion in the unblock message "ANI is clear" was a mistake, false, or intentionally misleading.
2. Assertion of an oft-repeated but never policy-recognized first mover advantage for noticeboard respondents. If the first administrator who responds to a noticeboard request declines to do something, that has not in any meaningful sense prohibited others from acting after seeing the discussion. Indeed, it cannot; it would punish administrators who were in the process of responding elsewhere, or were unaware of the filing of a noticeboard report. It establishes an unreasonable first mover advantage in administrator disputes, which Arbcom has repeatedly stressed it does not want to see happen on the project, with considerable community support.
3. Failure to make a good faith effort to contact or notify the blocking administrator. As the ANI thread demonstrates, Kaldari was online and responsive during the time period.
4. Failure to make a good faith effort to participate in the noticeboard thread. The thread was active and available; Mkativerata made one and only one edit in the thread, at the beginning. He made no effort to engage in the discussion there.

A number of valid questions were posed regarding the block - SandyGeorgia and others on the lack of symmetry, several on whether it rose to requiring administrator intervention. Mkativerata raised 3 in the discussion that followed on his talk page:

"(1) Why did Kaldari block an editor in a dispute when an uninvolved administrator had already decided not to block either editor in the dispute? (2) Why did Kaldari do so without consulting that admin or getting consensus for the block? (3) Was Kaldari involved, having been very recently been in direct conflict with the editor he blocked over an article matter?" -Mkativerata

I do not know if or assert those those concerns are all necessarily factually true or correct, but they were raised and discussed.

Arbcom may wish to consider the wisdom of the block. Kaldari is a named party.

My primary focus here, however, is the unblock. In my opinion, this was the latest example of enabling unblocks, done in a disorderly manner and without respect for or consideration for the blocking administrator. It is entirely possible that the block was not in keeping with best practices, unfair and asymmetrical, downright mistaken, or any of the other objections prove sufficient to overturn.

Such unblocks are disrupting the ability of Misplaced Pages to handle disputes. They are disrespectful and abusive to other administrators, policy, and the community as a whole. The policy was written to allow admins to do the right thing, but strongly encourage them to do it civilly and constructively and collaboratively. That has manifestly failed here as it has repeatedly in the past.

This is an ongoing, oft repeated pattern. We need to establish that this is not OK behavior by administrators.

Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 08:04, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Statement by Mkativerata

I am accused of failing to comply with a policy. What does that policy say? "Except in cases of unambiguous error, administrators should avoid unblocking users without first attempting to contact the blocking administrator to discuss the matter." I didn't do the should bit. Normally I would, but I chose not to here. The policy leaves it open to me to make that decision: it says should, not must, and properly so.

The reasons I unblocked Malleus Fatuorum without discussion are:

1. I had decided the matter already. An editor (Tbhotch) requested administrator intervention at ANI in respect of a dispute between him and another editor, Malleus Fatuorum. I was the first uninvolved admin on the scene. After reviewing the circumstances I made the "call", a decision, not to block either party: . I felt well placed to make that call: perhaps unusally for an active admin, I am neither a friend nor a foe of either editor involved in the dispute. I believe I have never edited either of their user talk pages. As the matter had been dealt with by an uninvolved admin (me), a block should not have been unilaterally imposed by Kaldari. I assumed he either deliberately overrode my decision or (carelessly) didn't see it. So I fixed it. As it was a short block, I fixed it quickly. Then came the only thing I regret about my actions: an overly firm message in Malleus' block log. The "First come, first served" reference in the log is a reference to the quite sensible principle that a decision on a matter reported to a noticeboard may be made by the first uninvolved admin to do so. "ANI is clear" meant (contrary to Georgewilliamherbert's assertion) that it was clear from ANI that I had made a decision on the request for intervention.
2. There was clearly no consensus in support of the block, as is clear from the state of ANI at the time. As there was no consensus for the block, I felt it well within my rights to unblock Malleus, reflecting my original decision. For a 24 hour block, an editor shouldn't have to wait longer than 47 minutes to be unblocked when consensus doesn't support the block.
3. It was a short block. Discussing the matter further would have only prolonged two things: first, the ugly ANI thread; secondly, the situation of Malleus Fatuorum not being able to edit because he had been wrongly blocked out of process. The correctness of my judgement is confirmed by the fact that shortly after my unblock, the ANI thread was closed and the heat disappeared (that is, until Georgewilliamherbert showed up).

There are times when acting boldly and quickly and ignoring a policy -- which in this case isn't even mandatory -- is proper. This was such a case.

Georgewilliamherbert criticises the first mover rule. But he essentially proposes a first blocker rule. That any admin can block an editor no matter how many admins have decided not to; and that the block will stand until the blocking admin is convinced to rescind it. That ain't right.

If Arbcom is being asked to change policy in this case, it shouldn't. The policy that I'm accused of violating says "should" not "must" for good reason. In general, such wording is the essence of IAR; in the specific, such wording in this policy reflects the principle of "anyone can edit", by not subjecting editors to unilateral blocks that cannot be quickly reversed when demonstrated to be wrong or out of process.

If Arbcom accepts this case, it should of course also examine the conduct of Kaldari. Kaldari blocked an editor over the head of another admin. He also did so having only recently (in October) been in a direct dispute with the editor he blocked: see, among other things, Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Wife selling (2nd nomination). I wasn't aware of the involvement at the time of the unblock but it provides after-the-fact justification for my action, not that any is needed. --Mkativerata (talk) 08:36, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Statement by {Party 3}

Clerk notes

This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).

Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (0/0/0/1)

• Waiting for more comments, but this is a problem I've been warning folks about for a while. The second mover advantage.. Perhaps its time we took a second look at it, and decide if there's a way to ameliorate it without undue bureaucracy. SirFozzie (talk) 08:33, 2 November 2011 (UTC)