Revision as of 12:10, 17 March 2014

Requests for arbitration

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

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

Currently, no requests for clarification or amendment are open.

Use of admin tools by AGK

Initiated by Cas Liber (talk · contribs) at 23:10, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Involved parties

• Casliber (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), filing party
• AGK (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Ceoil (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Colonel Warden (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

(This request is about review of use of admin tools - this page is the primary page this material can be discussed - hence it has to be here. The dispute as such is resolved, I think)

Statement by Cas Liber

This is a request for review of tool use and the margins where WP:INVOLVED lie. The dispute itself (I think) has resolved, but I am concerned over the precendent it sets and am perplexed as to how divergent mine and AGK's views are on this to the point where I feel it needs a determination from the committee. Yesterday, AGK blocked Ceoil after the latter reverted his message twice at another editor's page and left a message, after which AGK indefblocked.. To his credit, he unblocked after 54 minutes.. After some discussion, its clear what our views are , and there is no active dispute per se, but it is that far out of what I would have done were it were me either I am missing something or AGK is. Note that the review of tools should be based on the information that an admin had at the time, so Ceoil or Colonel Warden's information is not essential. The evidence is pretty straighforward, so I recommend arbs comment fairly promptly before this becomes protracted....

@Beeblebrox - as things stand, the arbitration committee is the place for review of admin tools. All I am asking for is for the arbs to examine this use of tools and adjudicate. Pure and simple. I genuinely am perplexed at how AGK and I can have such differing views and would be grateful for a consensus opinion on this. If the committee passes there is no recognised place...which brings as back to the failure of RfA etc. so no, the way I see it is the buck stops here. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:02, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

@Beeblebrox (or any other arbs) - if you don't think he is involved, then make a motion declaring as such and vote on it - don't just turf it back to a community with no dedicated process to examine tool use. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:10, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

@LFaraone - Any discussion at AN/I is just that. The probability is around 99% it will be a diffuse morass of opinion with a certain proportion on either side. The committee is the only body able to review tool use conclusively. This has been discussed multiple times. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:48, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

@Kevin Gorman - yes that succinct algorithm was exactly what I had in mind. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 05:17, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

@Anthonyhcole - "He also blocked a person who insulted him for his previously declared disability." - huh? I'm lost here - what have I missed as I am unaware of the disability or slur...? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:06, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

@Roger Davies - no it's not policy creep - arbcom has been the only dedicated place for review of use of admin tools. What would be a sort of inverse-policy creep is to suddenly back away from that role....which leaves a Gaping Hole in our conduct review process that didn't exist 24 hours ago. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:24, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Statement by (uninvolved?) Crisco 1492

I more or less concur with Casliber’s version of the events. I note that there is little evidence AGK attempted to discuss anything with Ceoil before blocking (AGK only has 2 edits to Ceoil’s talk page in the past 500 edits, per the edit history, and both were after the block). As AGK was the one being reverted, and the one at whom the coarse language was directed, I find it difficult to believe with good faith that he/she did not consider him/herself involved: WP:INVOLVED clearly states “administrators may have, or may be seen as having, a conflict of interest in disputes they have been a party to or have strong feelings about” (i.e. being reverted twice, then being the target of coarse language). The policy further clarifyies that involvement is generally understood quite broadly by the community, which implies that admins should understand it broadly as well. That AGK went directly to an indeterminate length block is even more concerning, owing to the lack of discussion, apparent involvement, and Ceoil’s lengthy history of positive contributions to the encyclopedia.

Furthermore, I am disturbed that, to support his/her position, AGK has used diffs which are actually quite different than what was represented. This diff, for instance, is clearly copyediting (albeit copyediting of a statement many would find disagreeable). AGK, however, presented this diff as a “silly and abusive edit”. If the difference between copyediting a disagreeable statement and making one is lost on AGK, I am concerned for his/her judgment both as an admin and as a member of this body. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:54, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

@Roger Davies: I fail to see how "were never intended to disqualify entire classes" when the rules, as I quote above, also include "strong feelings" (i.e. not necessarily long held one; spur of the moment, emotional reactions count too). — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:18, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

@Roger Davies: There is a clear difference between strong emotions about "vandalism or edit warring" as a general concern, and strong emotions about "vandalism or edit warring" where one is being targeted, or doing reverting. If I edit Human, and am reverted by Example or whomever, I certainly should not be blocking Example even if he/she crosses the 3RR. There are 600 admins and several noticeboards where less involved editors can do their part. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:33, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Statement by Uninvolved Modernist

I agree with both Casliber and Crisco 1492 that AGK was clearly WP:INVOLVED and acted incorrectly on several levels by blocking Ceoil indefinitely long after the fact of Ceoil's edits. No warning given; no discussion; no attempt at bringing in a neutral opinion. Seems to me a gross misuse of admin powers and a gross misapplication of an indefinite block. Responsibility comes with the position especially for an arb; severe reprimand and/or desysopping seems in order...Modernist (talk) 00:24, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Re - Jehochman's comments below - regarding showing Ceoil the door - 34 featured articles later - Ceoil is an enormous asset towards creating this encyclopedia...Modernist (talk) 01:34, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Statement by Uninvolved Dpmuk

This was, in itself, a terrible block given that AGK was clearly and obviously involved. For that alone an ArbCom case may be extreme (although the indefinite nature is concerning) if AGK had admitted they shouldn't have done it and reversed the block. Although the block has been reversed it was with the comment "enquiries being made on user's talk page; he may have some reason for reverting, and failing that may simply promise not to do it again" like they're doing Ceoil a favour and giving them a second chance rather than reversing a mistake. Indeed AGK has not even posted to Ceoil's talk page to say they're unblocked let alone apologise. To make the mistake is bad enough but the failure to recognise and apologise for their mistake, despite it being pointed out by several editors, and instead, misleadingly, make the unblock look like an act of kindness, is inexcusable and not conduct I'd expect to see from any administrator.

In the interests of transparency I should point out that I was discussing AGK's archiving of the DS talk page with him at the time, that the discussion was not going well, and that is how I became aware of this block. Dpmuk (talk) 00:41, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Re Beeblebrox. I believe this falls under section 3, Scope and Responsibilities, of Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Policy which states "To handle requests (other than self-requests) for removal of administrative tools" and unlike section one makes no mention of a previous attempt by the community to resolve the issue (for the obvious reason we can't as we can't remove the tools). Hence by the arbitration policy your reason for declining, or at least part of it, does not seem valid. Dpmuk (talk) 02:35, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Re Beeblebrox. Personally I do, based on what we know right now, think that might be a bit extreme, although I do think it's in the range of viable options, not because of the block itself but the response to it. I also note that at least one other editor has suggested it which was my main reason for mentioning that section. I'd also urge ArbCom to be very careful here so as not to appear to be protecting one of their own and should also consider the effect that AGK is a sitting Arb will have on any community attempts to censure - like it or not the fact that they're a sitting arb is likely to put people off acting / commenting like they would for another editor. So yes, in the circumstances, I do think the bar for accepting the case should be lower in this instance, although obviously the bar for any remedy should be the same. Dpmuk (talk) 02:57, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Comment from uninvolved The ed17

On the face of it, this looks like a frighteningly egregious abuse of the administrator tools and a possible case of being involved, yet there's also the potential for a double standard, so I'd like to clear that up. I pulled a very similar move on Giano about three weeks ago, as I reverted him three times before removing his talk page access (he had been previously blocked). Yet this move was only to stop unequivocally clear and ongoing personal attacks. I had warned him after the second revert, and after my removal of talk page access, I invited any administrator who disagreed to revert me.

AGK, on the other hand, reverted an editor twice and blocked with no warning, more than eight hours after Ceoil's reverts (compare the block log to revert one and two). Standard practice for these situations is to discuss the issue with the offending editor, not to smack them down long after the edits with a heavy-handed, indefinite block. Given this toxic combination, the committee must seriously consider removing AGK's access to the administrator tools. Ed  01:04, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

With respect to Jehochman, really? They have to edit the same article before wp:involved comes into play? While Ceoil's conduct here leaves much to be desired (and that's an understatement, really), you can't take administrator action like AGK just did. He wasn't interacting with Ceoil in a "purely ... administrative role", he was actively reverting him. And even if that isn't being 'involved' by your definition, he didn't try to discuss the problem with Ceoil, he simply went ahead and blocked—more than eight hours later. Ed  01:25, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

@Nsk92: we have over 600 active administrators. If you're directly involved in reverting and don't even bother to discuss your issues with the user, you shouldn't be blocking. Having said all that, there is one major point in your favor—I doubt Ceoil would have been blocked because of incivility, as our civility policy is fubar. Ed  03:04, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

@Beeblebrox: It struck me as extreme too, but then I found that a) AGK made no attempt to open a discussion with Ceoil, and b) he waited more than eight hours after the offending edits to block. Ed  03:04, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

@Casliber: "if you don't think he is involved, then make a motion declaring as such and vote on it - don't just turf it back to a community with no dedicated process to examine tool use." Agreed. Ed  05:07, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Statement by Jehochman

I don't see a bona fide editing dispute between AGK and Ceoil, so there is no issue of WP:INVOLVED. What article were the two of them editing? None that I can find. AGK merely left a proforma announcement, and then Ceoil replied with needlessly offensive, and undeserved, edit summary. Given Ceoil's very long block log for prior personal attacks, it is not surprising that AGK issued a block. Yeah, AGK should have just ignored the trolling edit summary, but AGK is a human like the rest of us and is entitled to get riled occasionally. There's no need to open a case for one mistake. Next time, AGK, don't take the bait. Meanwhile, the real problem is that Ceoil is speaking with other editors in a way that creates a very bad, unprofessional environment. That needs to stop or else Ceoil should be shown to the door and then pushed out. Jehochman 01:11, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Comment by Nsk92

Jehochman's comments are spot on. AGK was not involved in any kind of an editorial dispute with Ceoil. AGK left a pro forma administrative warning at Colonel Warden's webpage. Ceoil reverted it with an abusive edit summary, basically in an act of trolling and borderline vandalism. If admins are not allowed to block for blatantly disruptive and abusive actions of this sort on site, without having to jump through a thousand hoops, what's the point of having admins in the first place? Nsk92 (talk) 01:45, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

@Modernist: Ceoil has a long history of abusive and disruptive behavior and far from being an "enormous asset" to the project, he is a substantial liability and should have been indeffed a long time ago. Having 34 or 134 FAs does not make one untouchable and does not have one license to behave like a troll with impunity, in spite of what some here think. Nsk92 (talk) 01:50, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Statement by Johnuniq

There is no merit to the case request, and those who have mentioned WP:INVOLVED need to read it. The wording and the principle of INVOLVED are clear—if an admin has had a disagreement with an editor regarding wording on a page somewhere, and if the dispute escalates so the admin thinks a block of the editor is warranted, the admin must not make that block because they have a conflict of interest between their expressed views regarding a page and a block that would remove or at least weaken an opponent. INVOLVED cannot be bureaucratically stretched to include disagreement over whether a single message should be delivered to a third party.

If Ceoil wants to stop AGK posting a very reasonable notification at a user's talk, some explanation needs to be provided. Perhaps Ceoil misunderstood the notice or perhaps there was some good-faith reason to believe its removal would improve the encyclopedia—that's fine, but edit warring with summaries like "revert tool" suggest a compromised account and demonstrate that no useful discussion can be held. AGK does not need to seek administrative support to deliver a message seeking views on the DS review. Johnuniq (talk) 03:29, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Statement by Kevin Gorman

I have not examined the series of actions involved here to have a firm conclusion as to their merits, but it's pretty obvious that the complainant (who is a former two term arbitrator himself) and a number of other well respected long-standing editors view the concern as legitimate. If this complaint wasn't against a sitting arbitrator, it might be of less concern, but as it is, I think it needs to be evaluated by the committee (and as I've previously said, I don't have a firm opinion on what the outcome should be.) Since there is no community based method to evaluate this complaint, the alleged complaint is serious, and it's against not only an admin but a sitting arb, I think that arbcom should: (a) decline the case, declare by motion that AGK's actions were appropriate, (b) decline the case, declare by motion that AGK's actions were inappropriate and take any minor action deemed necessary, or (c) accept the case. Best, Kevin Gorman (talk) 03:46, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Suggestion from Cla68

This would normally be a good situation to be handled by an administrator review board, such as the one that Tony1 tried to set-up a few years ago. AGK being an arbitrator, of course, complicates it a little. If the review board operated independently of ArbCom, then it could take care of this case. If the review board operated under ArbCom's direction, then this case would need to be brought before ArbCom instead. If you all would like WP's administration to operate a little more efficiently, consistently, and competently, then I think this is a question that should be acted upon. Cla68 (talk) 06:06, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Statement by DavidLeighEllis

There's no doubt that AGK's actions were inappropriate. Leaving aside the issue of involvement or lack thereof, an indefinitely block was clearly a grossly disproportionate overreaction to the offending behavior. 24 hours might well have been sufficient. Nor should the block have been placed 8 hours after the offense. That being said, a single mistake by an administrator is usually not sufficient by itself for a desysopping. Taking the case merely to issue a warning/admonishment would serve little useful purpose. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 06:14, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Statement by Risker

The apparent lack of concern about this situation from the Arbitration Committee, following on the heels of its very tardy reaction to a similar event last month, implies that the committee really doesn't get that the community is very concerned about the behaviour of the administrator corps. I am at a loss to understand why an arbitrator was posting notices on the talk pages of hundreds of users, when we have bots that do this. I am at a loss as to why the committee is pretending that an administrator whose first action, upon logging in, is to "re-revert" a user and then block the user indefinitely, with no discussion, should not at least be reminded that blocks are preventative and not punitive. What concerns me the most, however, is that the committee seems to have lost sight of the fact that the community expects the members of the Arbitration Committee to at least strive to demonstrate best practices in their on-wiki activities, and to be willing to recognize when they've not done so, and to own up to it. One might start wondering, given the nearly complete lack of zeal that the committee seems to have in fulfilling the responsibilities only it holds, what's going on in the background.

I'm not persuaded that AGK's actions rate a desysop, but they fall so far below expected administrator standards that they do warrant comment. If he was not a member of Arbcom, I'd probably suggest a quiet word from a couple of members of the committee, sort of an unofficial admonishment. But he is a member of Arbcom, and the community expects all arbitrators to recognize that the block button should never be the first step in dispute resolution, and that an admin involved in what was essentially an edit war shouldn't be the one doing the blocking. I encourage the committee to publicly recognize that this administrator action fell well below standards. It fell below the standards, whether or not WP:INVOLVED is invoked. Risker (talk) 07:23, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Comment by Anthonyhcole

Truly pathetic so far. I'll watch with interest. User:Roger Davies, AGK was involved because he was involved in an edit war with the person whom he blocked. OK? Is that clear enough? He also blocked a person who insulted him for his previously declared disability. Which makes it very personal. Clear? If there's anything about how AGK was definitely and clearly involved in a dispute with Ceoil at the time he blocked Ceoil that you still can't quite get, don't hesitate to ask for further clarification.

Ceoil deserves to be shown the door, permanently, for that insult, but it wasn't AGK's place to act. Under the circumstances I can forgive AGK this once, but he (and sadly, obviously, some of his fellow committee members) needs to actually recognise this was using the admin bit while involved. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 09:11, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Statement by Neotarf

I publicly supported AGK's recent bid for reelection, but have recently become concerned about his communication style. On his talk page he has questioned my motivations, accused me of misrepresenting facts, and called me "immoral". When I asked the basis of his claims, he declined to answer and threatened me with an unexplained warning. Later, when I made a review request at ANI, a noticeboard with over 6,000 watchers, he put a message on the thread pinging me, said I was making "problematic contributions", and claimed I was told to back away from this review.

If AGK will not respond to my queries on his talk page, perhaps he will explain here, or failing that, explain why he will not explain.

I too have noticed the messages on various talk pages canvassing for participation in the DS review. I did not receive one. —Neotarf (talk) 10:41, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Statement by (uninvolved) Dank

Understood that the point of a debate is to compellingly present whichever side you're arguing ... still, my take here is the same as usual: both sides are arguing "it's black and white, it's simple", when the issues seem complex to me. While making arguments that are generally valid, that contribute to the evolution of our "case law" (and occasionally policy), is important, a dispute brought to Arbcom between various ancient and respected community members is just that ... a dispute among people who probably have a coherent view of their actions, who are looking for support to continue the good work that they're doing (and everyone thinks they're doing good work, even though we all know that sometimes Wikipedians go "off the rails"), and who certainly deserve to be heard before we pass judgment as a community.

Roger makes a good defense of AGK below, though Anthonyhcole's rejoinder is relevant. I guess my question would be: even if you personally don't see "involvement" in the diffs, how many Wikipedians would assume that someone who's in a kind of edit war with Ceoil and is spoken to abusively by him would block solely in the spirit of protecting Misplaced Pages, without any personal feeling at all? Actually ... from what I've seen of AGK, that's totally possible, he may well have had no animus at all, and I think he probably wouldn't have blocked if he had. Appearances and decorum are important, but contrary to most who are commenting here, I'm pretty sure that there's no neat and clear answer to this dispute; if it were up to me, I would start by listening to what AGK and Ceoil have to say. Ceoil, you were a delight to work with many years ago, and I hope you can get back to that place.

The basic rules at WP:RfA haven't changed ever, roughly speaking ... and that has changed everything. This is what RfA looked like back in the day. When adminship was conceived of as something anyone could aspire to if they wanted it, we were on a path to a kind of participatory democracy ... and in that climate, giving admins sweeping powers didn't disenfranchise anyone who really cared about these things. Now it does; only a tiny fraction of Wikipedians can or ever will pass RfA these days. We shouldn't be shocked, shocked when people have a bad reaction to admin actions that have an out-of-process feel to them, and ... I'm guessing some Arbcom members may not want to hear this, but that goes double for Arbcom. If the perception of inequality among Wikipedians sometimes causes problems, then the perception of even greater inequality will sometimes cause greater problems (and, like it or not, realistic or not, there's a perception out there that Arbcom is at the top of the food chain ... and I don't think that's a bad thing).

@NE Ent: Nice job.

Statement by NE Ent

What Dank said.

Beginning with the end: of course AGK is not going to be voted off the arbcom island or desysopped over this. What the committee needs to do -- perhaps offwiki -- is send him a clear message to the effect of You're really making us as a whole look bad. Stop acting like a twit.

From the beginning:

• When a notice is posted to user's talk page, they get a "You have new messages" notification, so once AGK posted the message Colonel Warden was notified, there was no point in edit warring over it.
• Wiki 101 (assume good faith) is when another editor does something weird you don't understand you ask them at their talk page rather than assuming bad faith. Had an unrecognized editor in AGK's place posted a thread on ANI they would have been chastised for not discussing it first.
• There was a time when all arbitrators understood -- as most still do -- the difference between an arbitrator and an arbitrator clerk. I don't get why AGK insists on acting like both but it lowers the implied dignity of the office to be doing scut work, and more importantly, it removes a layer of impersonality from the arbitrators and the community which they serve. While legal analogies are problematic, the concept of blind justice is important -- folks want to think their cases are heard by neutral reviewers. If ya'll can get AGK to stop doing clerk stuff, then none of this happens.
• The comments here -- references to showing Ceoil the door and their (gasp) block log -- raise serious doubts about the block being "preventative" and not punitive.
• This is not a bureaucracy Misplaced Pages where there is no black and white. There's INVOLVED, Involved, and involved. No one likes a wiki-lawyer, so ducking behind legalistic arguments of AGK's non involvement as a reason not to take appropriate action is just lame. NE Ent

Given AGK's emailed statement, I'd have expected an inactivity announcement per Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Policy#Conduct_of_arbitrators (inactive for more than a week). NE Ent 12:10, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Statement by AGK

The following was sent to the clerks' mailing list by AGK with a request that it be posted on this page. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 12:05, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

I am in the middle of an apartment move this weekend and week, so I have limited computer access. I will offer a statement about the case request at the earliest opportunity.

Clerk notes

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

• Recuse. → Call me Hahc21 01:17, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Use of admin tools by AGK: Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter <0/2/0/3>-Use_of_admin_tools_by_AGK-2014-03-17T02:08:00.000Z">

Vote key: (Accept/decline/recuse/other)

• Where the line is on admin involvement is something for the community to decide, and I note that the section where the filing party presents evidence that prior steps in dispute resolution have been tried has been omitted from this case request. Unless some very compelling explanation of why this is a matter for the committee is forthcoming I would say we should decline this request. Beeblebrox (talk) 02:08, 17 March 2014 (UTC)"> ">

@Dpmuk: I hadn't realized that it was being proposed that this one block, taken in isolation with no evidence that it was part of an ongoing pattern of questionable admin actions, was being presented as sufficient cause for a desysop. That strikes me as a bit extreme. Every admin has made a block at some point that a few users felt was wrong. Is this just because he is also an arb, or is there some other aspect to it that has not yet been made clear? Beeblebrox (talk) 02:43, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

• @Casliber:, I'm curious as to why you see this as a matter for the committee rather than for the community at ANI or similar. From what I understand, the committee has not generally adjudicated on single instances of possible breaches of WP:INVOLVED; the most recent such case occurred after broad discussions spanning several incidents. LFaraone 03:23, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
• This is about a brief and utterly uncontroversial courtesy note AGK posted on someone's else talk page. Ceoil reverted it twice and commented on AGK's talk. From what Ceoil has said, he would likely have reacted as he did no matter who had placed the notice. The indiscriminate nature of Ceoil's reaction suggests that no dispute with AGK existed (and, even if one did, the dispute is with the class of every editor who has ever left a standardised courtesy note for anyone). The involved rules were never intended to disqualify entire classes and it would be massive creep for us to conclude that they do. I might be persuaded but, as this request currently stands, it's a decline from me.  Roger Davies 06:54, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

• Crisco 1492 Many admins have strong feelings about vandalism or harassment or whatever or edit-warring: that doesn't make them involved.  Roger Davies 07:29, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
• Crisco 1492 and Anthonyhcole. Cas has brought this request specifically for a declaration on policy. This is a complicated issue, with very wide implications, and I don't see how we can clarify policy without policy creep (ie creating new policy by fiat). I see Dave would like to hear from AGK. I'd also like to hear from Ceoil.  Roger Davies 10:30, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

• I'd really like to hear from AGK, as a party. There was absolutely no need for him to perform the block and given that he was reverting and being verbally attacked, just about anyone else would have been better to do it. INVOLVED isn't just about being able to make impartial decisions, but being seen to make impartial decisions. Worm(talk) 08:58, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

  You're absolutely right Roger, I would like to hear from Ceoil too, there are two sides to this story. Worm(talk) 10:49, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

• Some of the commenters, here, have painted the issue as a clear-cut violation of WP:INVOLVED, but I'm not really sure this is the case. Or, at least, if it is, it's much more nuanced than they make it out to be. First of all, I've long thought that, if an editor comes to my talk page (or anywhere else, for that matter) and insults me out of the blue, then I'm not involved and can block him. There are exceptions of course, but, in short, I believe that generally other people's actions can't make me involved (then again, involvement needs to be determined on a case-by-case basis, so general statements like this one are not particularly useful).

  This case, as I said, is more nuanced though, in that Ceoil was also reverting AGK's edits. However, those edits were just an "administrative" notification, so I don't really know if they amount to a content dispute... If this was a violation of WP:INVOLVED, and, as I've said I'm not sure it was, it was an ambiguous one.

  Then again, this does not mean I find AGK's block entirely ok. I do question the wisdom of AGK's actions, but for another reason: AGK apparently blocked indefinitely a valued and productive member of the community without discussing the issue with him first (and without even leaving him a warning), hours after he had stopped editing. I have not yet made up my mind, because I still need to hear from AGK and Ceoil first, but, at first glace, the impression I get is that this was a quintessential punitive block. Salvio 11:09, 17 March 2014 (UTC)