Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Ncmvocalist (talk | contribs) at 09:41, 26 October 2010 (closed - long past its use by date). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Block of TreasuryTag

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Earlier today SarekOfVulcan (talk · contribs) blocked TreasuryTag (talk · contribs) for a week for "persistent incivility in edit summaries". The diffs given in the block notice aren't entirely convincing IMO and while I think they are meant to be a sample rather than comprehensive if that's the worst SarekOfVulcan can find I wonder if this block is really justified. A week seems like a long time and given two recent questionable blocks by SarekOfVulcan I think this could do with a review. The offending edit summaries are "Meaningless POV crap" (difficult to dispute when you look at what TT was removing), "rm semi-literate peacock material", and "POV/weasel/drivel/unreferenced/vague/one of those)" (over a week old and the worst word used appears to be drivel). Nev1 (talk) 14:35, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

• It's fairly easy to dispute, actually. I'd certainly dispute that it was either meaningless or crap. I understood its meaning without difficulty. It's a Misplaced Pages editor's original thesis, about a piece of incidental music, but it isn't "crap". "crap" is not an accurate descriptor for content that is intended to be factual, but not supported by the world at large. I suggest looking through the edit history of Job description (AfD discussion) to gain some sense of perspective on what actually bad editing looks like. ☺

  And that's what I'd have said to TreasuryTag. Uncle G (talk) 15:01, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

• I'm having dificulty finding the difs where SarekOfVulcan (talk · contribs) warned the established user before laying down a 1 week block. If someone could point me in the right direction I'd appreciate it.--Cube lurker (talk) 15:19, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
  • This is directly relevant to the above question.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:23, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
    • Got it, so you blocked without warning because you've been in a previous conflict with this user.--Cube lurker (talk) 15:28, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
      • Given that this lengthy block was given without discussion almost five hours after TreasuryTag last edited, it is looking at the best punitive, and at the worst vindictive. the wub "?!" 15:31, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
        • No, definitely preventive. Don't just look at the edit summaries which were the proximate cause for my blocking him, look at edits such as this ("I'm 99% sure that you won't be able to resist actually looking at my response to your slightly drivular and unsubstantiated post above") and this ("full of POV drivel").--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:48, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
    • TT's request to SoV to stay off his talk page is something which he himself would have ignored in similar circumstances, see his recent remarks on his own talk page. David Biddulph (talk) 15:38, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
      • Indeed, I had a similar incident with TT a couple of months ago, when he informed me that I'm not allowed to "ban him" from my user talk page, after asking him to either post civil comments or stay off my page; he also edit-warred to keep his comments on my page afterwards. Since that gives me an obvious COI I'll refrain from discussing the current block, but it may be worth indicating the user's block history as there may well be a longer-term problem. GiftigerWunsch 16:01, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
        • The block log might be long, but some entries were mistakes (30 April 2008, 3 July 2010, 7 July 2010). Most of the blocks seem related to edit warring and 3RR than civility issues. Nev1 (talk) 16:06, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
• Let's return to the key issue. Can anyone defend this as a good block and within blocking policy?--Cube lurker (talk) 16:17, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

• Good or bad, I'd say the block is within policy. The blocked editor was being repeatedly uncivil and policy does allow a block under those circumstances. I'm not a fan of blocking established users without discussing the problem with them first but the exchange on the talk page and the diffs provided above seem to point to an editor operating under some stress and a block may help stop matters from going out of control. --RegentsPark (talk) 16:37, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

• Endorse block. I might not have blocked under the same circumstances, but it appears to be within reasonable admin discretion. If this was a new user, they probably would have been indeffed and we wouldn't be having this conversation. Everyone, even influential and established editors (including admins, at least in theory) need to understand that this persistent lack of civility is not conducive to a collegiate atmosphere. If TT wants to be rude in edit summaries, a block is appropriate to make him aware that his behaviour is unacceptable and prevent further disruption. The Wordsmith 16:42, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
  • You're claiming a new user would be indeffed in the same situation? Regardless of the edit summaries, those edit were removing unsourced and POV material from articles, therefore improving them. There's no point in throwing out the baby with the bath water. If an admin blocked a new user for the three edits SOV gave in the block notice they wouldn't deserve the tools. If they're really so disruptive (I'm not convinced they are, but never mind) why was TT not asked to tone down the edit summaries before the block? Nev1 (talk) 16:51, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
    • There are more than three diffs. Those are just a sample of a long-running pattern. Also, he has been asked to stop repeatedly (example form last June). He knows they're not appropriate. The Wordsmith 16:59, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
• - I can support time served and a note to keep it more polite. TT gets a bit like that and I imagine youthful exuberance is the issue. Off2riorob (talk) 16:52, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
  • That's possible. I notice that TT hasn't filed an unblock request however; I'd suggest that the best thing to do is wait and see if he files one. I see no reason not to unblock now if he recognises that the types of edit summaries he's been using are against WP:CIVIL and agrees to use more civil ones in future, but let's get that recognition first. GiftigerWunsch 16:57, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

I've undone this blatantly inappropriate block. There are only a handful problematic edit summaries, which are several weeks old. In addition, TT had recently told SarekofVulcan "I don't want you to "talk" to me, ever.", which makes it entirely inappropriate for Sarek to block. A warning would have sufficed, and perhaps an admin not WP:INVOLVED would have seen that. Rd232 16:58, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

• Can we please stop unblocking while a discussion is ongoing? TT hadn't asked to be unblocked, there was no harm in talking about it first, especially since there are multiple users saying the block was reasonable. The Wordsmith 17:01, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
  • mm, fair enough, but I'm about to sign off, and this block was clearly inappropriate in multiple ways. Rd232 17:10, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
• What's this, SarekofVulcan imposing yet another bollocks block? What a surprise. Parrot of Doom 17:06, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
  • I think we have a policy for situations like this; it involves commenting on contributions, not contributors. GiftigerWunsch 17:10, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
    • Difficult to do in this case though, as SarekOfVulcan's contributions appear to be largely confined to throwing his weight around by issuing inappropriate blocks. Malleus Fatuorum 17:17, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
    • No, the entire thread is about a user and his inappropriate use of the block button. Therefore it's quite appropriate to comment on the individual, who appears to hold others to a higher standard than that he displays himself. Parrot of Doom 18:54, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
      • Indeed? Care to share any incivility diffs from me? --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:57, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
        • Bollocks to civility, how about you own up and just admit how stupid it was of you to block Malleus for pointing out John's idiocy? And how about apologising for blocking Giacomo for pointing out the blindingly obvious? I won't hold my breath, because you're apparently above such criticism. Parrot of Doom 21:19, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
• I support something being done to TreasuryTag, while it is controversial and there is a thread being discussed regarding whether or not an individual has the "right to ban from their own talk page" I think it is uncivil to ignore such a request and Treasury has consistantly shown that anyone (including recently Giano and ME) who asks him to stay off their talk page gets special attention and he (or she? no offence I really dont know) will get messages anyways. Disregard for common courtesy and his willingness to poke, prod, and escalate for no reason other than to get the last word and throw a knife in shows that Treasury has no respect for those who try to disengage. Regardless if someone else is wrong, so is Treasury in how he continues to refuse to walk away and be the bigger person. Perhaps laying down the "law" and making an example will do some good.Camelbinky (talk) 17:25, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Funny Malleus, for someone who claimes they retired to keep showing up... and what exactly do YOU do around here? "Review" GA and FA articles? How about writing one. If you are going to comment on Sarek and do a personal attack then you are fair game too. Except you are easier prey. Now here comes your obligatory insult on intelligence. Make me laugh or get bent.Camelbinky (talk) 17:25, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
    • When did I claim to have retired? What's funny is how you feel that it's OK for you to make personal commemnts but not anyone you've taken a dislike to, but of course not alone in that, even here in this thread. As for your absurd claim that all I do is "review" GA and FA articles (I note the intentionally insulting quotation marks), well, that simply goes to show how little the facts mean to you. Malleus Fatuorum 17:27, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
      • Camelblinky, reign it in please, or at least be informed. First, what's the point in poking Malleus? He can show up if he wants-- that we've lost him to content review doesn't mean he's obliged to stay away. Second, "make me laugh or get bent"? You get to insult Malleus that way, knowing that he'd be blocked if he told you to "get bent"? Third, "How about writing one"? Please see WP:WBFAN. Thanks for not insulting those who do write top content, and poking them as well. And by the way, since when is "reviewing" FAs and GAs not a very necessary part of why we're here ? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:43, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
    • (ec) Treasury has no respect and doesnt know when to back off? Given the above comment, perhaps "Camelbinky" could be swapped with "TreasuryTag" in your edit summary. Nev1 (talk) 17:30, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
      • WP:NPA on Camelbinky that was uncalled for. Secret 17:31, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
  • @Camelbinky If that is the case then there should be a discussion on ANI or an RFC/U. Not a blindside 1 week block from an aparently involved admin.--Cube lurker (talk) 17:32, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
    • That's odd Camelbinky, I don't see your name here. Perhaps you could show me the FAs you've written? Parrot of Doom 18:38, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
      • I agree SarekofVulcan should stop blocking established editors without giving them a warning first. Some of them were bad blocks, like Giano's and I think this one because he blocked several hours after he last edited. But some of his blocks, protections, etc are valid like his recent block of ArmchairVexillologistDonLives! (talk · contribs) (who should be indef). Nothing to recall him for. Secret 17:31, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

• I do not believe a block without a warning was warrented at all. This is clearly something that should have been brought to ANI, yes, but the diffs initially cited were definitely not block worthy or even that bad at all. As for the list added in above, why are we discussing diffs from months ago? How is that applicable to now? Silverseren 17:42, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
  • (ecx2)Hafta agree with SS, with the exception of 1 or 2, these difs are not that appaulling. I suspect that if you looked through all of my (or just about anybody's) edits, you will find some that are equally "offensive." I would not deem them worthy of blocking without notice and 1 week block seems a little excessive. Furthermore, Sarek should not have been the one to administer such a block. As he and TT apparently have an advisarial relationship, he should have brought the issue to ANI and had somebody else act on his concerns. This is a clear abuse of tools.---Balloonman 17:55, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
    • I think TreasuryTag would do well to drop "drivel" and "crap" from his vocabulary. "Unsourced" conveys the rationale for the edit just as well as "Unsourced drivel", as does "POV" instead of "POV crap". –xeno 18:02, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
      • I wouldn't mind seeing that as well... but he's not the only one to use less than perfect verbiage. Within Wordsmith's last 15 edits he had the following edit summary rm mountains of crap and replaced with -expand-sect). But in the offenses of incivility, we've seen a lot worse. And again, I would expect to see a series of messages warning TT of his edit summaries before a week long block and then a one day block before going to a week long one... and the block done by somebody without an adversarial relationship.---Balloonman 18:11, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
  • It is applicable in that it shows a pattern of unacceptable behaviour. In order to prevent further disruption to the project, a block may have been necessary. The Wordsmith 17:53, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
    • That's nonsense on stilts, Wordsmith. No sensible analysis of the diffs you posted suggests a 1 week block without warning was in any way appropriate. Many of them, IMO, are perfectly fine. Together - to me, at least - they show great wit. The impression I come away with, noting the blocking admin's prior antipathy to TT evidenced on TT's talk page, is that this was nothing more than a heavy handed one-in-the-eye for TT. I'd prefer a wikipedia that did not have admins like that and did have TT's quirky comments, than the other way around. As for your "more disruption to the project" ... WTF? Is there any evidence of any disruption whatsoever? Catty comments are not spanners in the works. The block was not preventative. It was, merely, and all thing considered, cynical. --Tagishsimon (talk) 18:26, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
  • At this point I'm quite sure TT is familiar with the civility policy. There is absolutely no reason to repeatedly warn long time users about the same thing.--Crossmr (talk) 23:28, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
• That's going back about 1000 edits for a handful of rude or rudish remarks. TT incivility may have come up several times as an issue, but Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/TreasuryTag remains a redlink, and it isn't obviously consistent enough or severe enough to justify a block without that. I suggest TT take this as a final warning, and if it comes up as an issue again, do an WP:RFC/U to justify a sanction. Blocks are not supposed to be punitive, but if a long-term, ongoing pattern of behaviour is demonstrated, a superficially punitive block ought to be justifiable as preventative in terms of inducing changes in behaviour. Rd232 17:54, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Of course, such blocks will only be effective if they aren't swiftly lifted while they are being discussed. –xeno 17:57, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
    • I also disagree with the quick and consensus-absent unblock, but what's done is done. I trust that the next time this happens, nobody will be willing to unilaterally unblock like that without discussion. The Wordsmith 18:00, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
      • The unblock was no more precipitate than the block. A unilateral block made on such shaky grounds, with issues of involvement, should expect to be overturned. A block made after community discussion and clearly evidenced problematic behaviour should not. Rd232 19:00, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
    • While I respect your point, isn't the greater sin dropping the long block on an established user without any warning or discussion?--Cube lurker (talk) 18:02, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
      • I probably wouldn't have blocked in this instance, but it doesn't exonerate the root behaviour. TT is clearly passionate about editing and the subject matter, he simply needs to be more circumspect in his edit summaries. –xeno 18:05, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
        • You say you wouldn't have blocked, but do you find this block acceptable?--Cube lurker (talk) 18:08, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
          • For a number of reasons, I don't (or exceedingly rarely) place civility blocks (blocks of anon users for harassment notwithstanding) - so I'm not really a good person to ask about that. Since Sarek has been asked not to post to the user's talk page, WQA would probably have been a better first step (though I personally avoid that venue as well). –xeno 18:16, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
• The Doctor has fucking companions? When did this happen? Does the BBC know? ☺ Uncle G (talk) 18:06, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Considering that his two current companions are married couple, it is indeed likely that intercourse is taking place. The Wordsmith 18:19, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
• Endorse block Established editors know the rules, and do not have to be warned about incivility, they know quite a lot about it, unfortunately, generally from being on the giving end. As I understand it, what with the unfortunate unblock, this is hardening into a new rule: You have to be uncivil twice to get blocked (and even then if you have friends, it may take a lot more than that). And then, tomorrow, you get to start afresh and it will take two episodes of incivility and no handy friends to get blocked (or at least to make it stick longer than it takes to use the restroom and get a breath of fresh air). I think that some of the recent unblocks have shown, it's good to have friends. It's rather a pity that Mattisse didn't have more friends, or at least friends who were willing to give her a hand in spite of being friends—I personally take a conservative view on WP:INVOLVED.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:08, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
  • I'm not friends with TreasuryTag (actually I don't really consider any fellow editors "friends", but you know what I mean). As for the wider issues: the block was inappropriate at the time and in the manner it was made. However, if it is demonstrated that the community thinks there is a long-term pattern which continues, then a sanction might be appropriate. The best way to demonstrate this would be WP:RFC/U (as I said above), but ANI might suffice. But it wouldn't retrospectively justify the block. Rd232 18:19, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
    • So, bottom line, I see broad agreement with the block here, certainly no consensus against it. Yet a Cowboy admin feels free to unblock without even a request or consultation, which certainly is disrespectful to the blocking admin. I seem to see a limited number of admins who will undo any block for incivility to a content contributor.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:37, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
      • "broad agreement with the block"? I count (admins only) against: Nev1, the wub, Balloonman, myself. moderately against: xeno. Possibly for? Uncle G. For: you, Bwilkins, The Wordsmith. Rd232 18:53, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
      • "admins only"? Interesting way to think.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:59, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
        • We're talking about reviewing a block, so it's really not that interesting. I also didn't include non-admins partly to save time in replying, and partly because it's harder to get a handle on the significance of random passersby commenting. However the opposition to the block is clearly stronger among non-admins. Rd232 19:03, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
• Endorse block An editor of TT's tenure (and block log) know full well the limits of civility that will be accepted by the project. By this time, warnings are no longer needed. Although the timing of the block is a bit iffy, I can easily AGF in the same way that we have no officialy time limit to reply to questions on article talkpages in order to obtain consensus. If SoV is not allowed to make a block because TT told them to stay away, then eventually every admin would be likewise told to stay away. Block length is consistent with escalating series of blocks to prevent behaviour (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 18:14, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Sarek's involvement with TT goes beyond TT telling him to stay away; it's merely emblematic. Rd232 18:21, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Previous blocks appear to have been for edit warring and the like; the second 27 Sep block appears an error. There do not appear to have been previous blocks for incivility, which makes 1 week come out of nowhere. Rd232 18:27, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

(od)May I suggest just letting it go. TT is an established editor and should know what is acceptable and what is not. Perhaps the block will help jog his or her memory and, if it doesn't, this'll bubble up again sometime, somewhere. There are several editors who feel that the block was justified, several who feel it wasn't, so let's just call it a wash. Meanwhile, other things being equal, it is better to have an unblocked editor than it is to have a blocked one. --RegentsPark (talk) 19:11, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

procedural note: the discussion was closed at this point by Sarek based on RegentsPark's comment (which I agreed with). thewub undid the closure because it was Sarek's action under discussion. Rd232 22:05, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

• Endorse Block TT's persistent and consistent incivility has no room on this project. I applaud SOV for taking a stance against it. Basket of Puppies 21:20, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
• Endorse block. Although one week appears too long to me for an editor with no previous incivility blocks, it is important that we enforce in practice what we have agreed on in the abstract: Persistently incivil conduct is not acceptable, by nobody, under any circumstances. Rd232, you should not unblock editors whose block is the subject of an ongoing community discussion unless that discussion results in consensus for an unblock.  Sandstein  22:05, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
  • In general, yes. But in this case the wrongness of the block is and was self-evident on a number of grounds. It cannot be justified post hoc by having community discussion after the fact, any more than the police can shoot a suspect and then say "hey, you know what, he was guilty". This sort of behaviour - including the explicit endorsement of it by other admins - is part of the reason some people round here have such low opinions of admins. Rd232 22:14, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
    • No. Bluntly, if it is that poor, the AN/I discussion should result in a hearty unblock, after all, it is "self-evident". It's cowboy adminship, placing your judgment above the community. I do remind you that the unblock without consultation or request is a very limited exception, and I strongly advise you under similar circumstances to announce your intent to the community and gain feedback before such actions in future.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:33, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
      • It takes just one admin to make a block, and they have no need to consult or consider the community. Why blocking admins should then be regarded as deserving more consideration than they shew others has always puzzled me. DuncanHill (talk) 01:37, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
      • Because the unblock is the last word on the subject, since it cannot be reinstated without wheel warring. Thus, the unblocking admin is under a greater burden to consult. There is a very limited exception for "clear error", but I think it is being shown that trucks can be driven through that loophole without scratching the fenders.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:43, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
        • The unblock isn't the last word - if the unblock was disputed, it could be brought to AN/I to see if there was consensus to re-block. DuncanHill (talk) 01:45, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
          • We've seen what good that does.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:50, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
            • If a block can't stand the heat of ANI, it's a bad block. Particularly in this sort of case (no-one seems to dispute that the sanction is being endorsed based on a longer-term pattern), a block needs consensus for to stand. And to be clear: I would not have considered a re-block after discussion supporting a re-block to be wheelwarring, since it would then effectively be a community-imposed block and not a unilateral admin action. You've several times thrown the phrase and essay "cowboy admin" at me, but if anything merits that description, it's blocking unilaterally in these circumstances. I've tried explain that I'm sympathetic to Sarek ending up doing it, because of the way civility enforcement is broken, but it was certainly wrong nonetheless. I've also proposed alternatives, including the usual RFC/U. There's no point being huffy about bad blocks being overturned and opposed, and civility enforcement being broken: people attempting to enforce need to learn to make it work. A basic and obvious thing is to get explicit community agreement before acting. A probation, as I suggested, may help such agreement draw bright lines rather than merely turn into yet another warning. Rd232 07:52, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
• I think there was enough admin involvement that I think the block wasn't ideal and instead an ANI thread should have been started to get an uninvolved admin involved. That said, I find TT to be as uncivil a person as I've ever had to deal with here and certainly something needs to be done. Hobit (talk) 22:38, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Second that. A permanent site ban would be appropriate for this editor. Anthony (talk) 03:10, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
• No endorsement for the block as made. While I would like to see TT ameliorate his edit summaries, this block was not the means to do it. Judging by the timings (or perhaps 'datings' would be more accurate) of all the diffs presented, there was nothing so urgent that SoV could not have used RfC/U or ANI to achieve the desired result. Given the suggestion of previous involvement, best practice is still to discuss first. --RexxS (talk) 04:18, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose block - Incivility operates on a spectrum. TT's edit summaries are squarely on the tame end of the incivility spectrum. If TT's edit summaries are bad enough to deserve a block, then I've got a long list of editors I'd like to submit for being blocked for far worse. In my opinion, this is barely worth taking to WP:WQA. Also, Sarek appears to have a bit of a history with TT recently, and therefore bringing this to ANI first would have been an appropriate way to deal with any possible WP:INVOLVED concerns. A week is far too long for such tame comments. I'd suggest unblocking and starting an RFC/U if this is really perceived as a big problem. SnottyWong  04:37, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose block per Silverseren and Tagishsimon. I think TreasuryTag's approach is unhelpful (at least in some ways or in certain situations - per xeno and others for example), and I'm not convinced he's heeding the concerns expressed by editors. However, this tit for tat competition between certain administrators and tit for tat mudslinging between certain editors is not moving this towards resolution. Rather than using the blocking tool, use WP:RFC/U if it's time to head towards more serious remedies; please close this entire discussion after you've opened that RfC/U because this block (and this discussion) was (and is) never going to going to go anywhere beyond where we are now - this block (predictably) did not go towards deescalating anything and an unblock was appropriate. Ncmvocalist (talk) 10:02, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

I endorse this block on the assumption that User:The Wordsmith has presented an accurate portrayal of the worst expression used by the blocked editor.

Since when did we institute a custom of warning people not to behave disruptively? A one week block is a good idea, it'll give him a chance to discuss the problem in a tame environment, on his user talk page. I've said bad things that most people will not remember, but I know that the worst things I've said are in my edit summaries, and they are more difficult to remove from the record and, for that reason, more damaging. Be careful with those edit summaries, folks. --TS 23:11, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

• Endorse block. Agree with above comments by The Wordsmith, Wehwalt, Bwilkins, Basket of Puppies, and Sandstein. -- Cirt (talk) 09:09, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
• Endorse block. While I am concerned over the placement of a substantial block without discussion or endorsement/confirmation by others, I think that calling to account TT's passive-aggressive (and not so passive-aggressive) behavior and gaming the system over the past year or two is long, long overdue. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 18:10, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

proposal - civility probation

I think part of the problem in these sorts of circumstances may be the practice of not having punitive blocks. For precisely the sort of low-level problem behaviour alleged here, it makes it very hard for any enforcement to happen, unless an individual act is sufficiently egregious to justify a block (but even that may just lead to the behaviour being marginally moderated). So what you end up with time and time again is unilateral action by an admin who gets ticked off (justifiably or not), and then a big debate which turns essentially on whether the community is also, broadly, ticked off. Really, maybe the answer is to explicitly make friends with the idea that in some limited circumstances punitive blocks are allowed. Then issues could be more systematically handled, and for example after community discussion at AN or ANI an injunction issued to stop or at least moderate the behaviour (and not just in the short term). Then, if the injunction is breached, a punitive block might be exactly what's needed to focus the user's mind, and (broadly) help prevent future misbehaviour. However, this would have to be after community discussion to justify it. So, as a test case:

Proposal: TreasuryTag placed on 1 month civility probation. If within the next month TreasuryTag uses dismissive edit summaries with terms such as "crap" and "drivel" or equivalents, he can expect to be blocked for 1 week. Such terms might not get others blocked, but the community feels there is a persistent pattern of incivility which he needs to ameliorate. If a block proves necessary, it should be proposed at ANI with diffs, to confirm community agreement in advance. Rd232 22:05, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

• Support but I'd expand things to beyond just edit summaries as that covers only a small percent of the issues I've seen. (note: not an admin and certainly involved) Hobit (talk) 22:44, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose as it would be singling TT out for behaviour that is routine amongst many admins and editors (not to mention the subjectivity of the criteria). Until admins start blocking admins for incivility, it is hypocritical to single out non-admins for special treatment. Now, I've just described a lot of admins as hypocrites, anyone fancy blocking me for it? DuncanHill (talk) 22:52, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Enforcing civility policy has been a long-term problem. This proposal is (AFAIK) a novel approach, which could, possibly, help. You have to start somewhere, and this is potentially an organised enough way of doing things without necessitating a full-blown WP:RFC/U, or else having unilateral blocks (which are always problematic, whether they stick or not). Rd232 00:08, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
    • Admins in general have made the problem by their hypocritical behaviour. To use TT as a test-case for something that will never be applied to admins looks frankly poor. DuncanHill (talk) 00:35, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
      • To make generalizations which fail WP:AGF looks frankly poor. Rd232 00:52, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
        • Not half so poor as dismissing the opinions of non-admins because we're "random passers by". DuncanHill (talk) 01:14, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
          • I would have thought you'd been around long enough to know that genuinely "random passers by" at ANI are generally a good thing. The problem is that superficially random passers by often turn out to have a strong element of non-randomness in their turning up, which makes weighting their comments often difficult without close familiarity with the people and situation. This is less of a problem for admins for a number of reasons, including their being fewer of them, and there generally being someone who'll point out any involvement. Rd232 08:05, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
  • I hope they dont because it fits my two criteria for acceptable "insults"- funny and true.
    • OK, let's add edit warring and continuing to do so without discussion. That started with a claimed "merge" which was a redirect without any merging. He also posted to my talk page a large number of times in succession after I asked him not to do so . Is any one of those things blockable? Probably not. But certainly part of an ongoing lack of civility at the least. Hobit (talk) 23:42, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
• Support Admins should be blocking other admins for incivility, because they dont doesnt mean non-admins get a pass because admins tend to be hypocrites who dont want to punish their own (typical group activity found in our US Senate down to low-level office "politics"). We dont have to make this ONLY about Treasury, but it does have to start with someone. And I'm sure this proposal will bite me in the ass and have it applied to me eventually anyways, but I'm fine with that. I at least learn from my mistakes and respect when someone tells me "hey, leave me alone" or "hey, that was uncivil", I know where the line is. Treasury doesnt respect or understand- hey, someone doesnt want you to talk to them, that does not mean push them farther and be an ass. It's not about how many times he keeps doing it, it's that each time he doesnt admit or comprehend what he did was wrong and apologize or learn from it. It's all someone else's problem and he has a right to keep being an ass. That is the problem.Camelbinky (talk) 23:39, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
• Change to 1 year civility patrol and then I will support. Basket of Puppies 23:36, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
  • I think that's too long; it's potentially unfair (11 months good behaviour, 1 bad edit summary, 1 week block?) and potentially onerous in terms of enforcement. A month, or perhaps three, should be enough to see if the user can improve. If he's not blocked in that time, he's improved enough not to need a longer term sanction. And how the user behaves after the sanction expires would also be relevant for future decision-making. Rd232 00:14, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
    • Good point. 6 months is good? Basket of Puppies 00:18, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose This well has been fully poisoned. If you really think there's a long term problem set up a clean RFC/U.--Cube lurker (talk) 00:41, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
  • I can accept that, but I do think this approach should be tried at the next opportunity, even if it isn't used here. Rd232 00:52, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
• SupportThe argument by the opposers that not all civility offenders are sanctioned is weak indeed, that's the license to drive 20 over the speed limit because "everyone does it". Yes, they do, but that does not excuse you. --Wehwalt (talk) 01:12, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Our policies are supposed to be descriptive, and the civility policy bears no relation to the reality of practice. The policy, as written, is obviously wrong and should be deprecated, because it does not describe the practice on Misplaced Pages. DuncanHill (talk) 01:16, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
    • That might be an outstanding problem, but it isn't entirely applicable to the problem here and now- TT has been regularly uncivil and we must determine what should be done. It appears a civility patrol for X amount of time is in order. I suggest 3-6 months. Thoughts? Basket of Puppies 01:32, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
      • Look, admins can and do call other editors cunts and perverts without being blocked - describing content as drivel is utterly insignificant. DuncanHill (talk) 01:48, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
• The problem is that almost all established civility offenders are not blocked, and therefore any individual block looks a good deal like selective prosecution. What we need is an established policy that offensive personal words re reason for escalating warnings leading to a short block--essentially something like 3RR. But unless this is an established & expected practice, any attempt to do this to established editors will provoke instant and permanent hostility and make the future situation worse. It's particularly troublesome because most of the time , the person an admin might see the need to block for this is someone with whom that admin has previously had conflict & isn;t really impartial. The expressed nastiness around here is a disgrace that impairs any attempt at respectability. Perhaps we need a new approach--possibly an edit filter that will act on offensive words being used on edit summaries by anyone, not just by new editors. DGG ( talk ) 04:30, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
  • I didn't think WP:Edit filters currently worked on edit summaries (I seem to recall technical reasons that this would be quite hard). But in general your comment sums up the problem pretty well. I do think a "civility probation" approach can help, eg imposed via AN discussion, possibly after an WP:RFC/U collects evidence in a more structured and calm way than AN permits. Rd232 07:52, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Yes, civility enforcement is spotty, probably also because many admins who ought to know better unilaterally undo blocks, as in this case, thereby enabling further disruption. But basically, spotty enforcement of anything is just a fact of wiki-life, see WP:WAX. The solution is not to stop enforcement altogether, but to create a stable enforcement environment.  Sandstein  07:41, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose - If this is truly seen as a long term problem that is serious enough to warrant the attention it is being given, then an RFC/U would be the appropriate place to discuss something like this. SnottyWong  04:32, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose on the grounds that I seem to be being held to a higher standard than other editors in the community. I'm a bit busy at the moment, but hypothetically, I could go out and find ten or fifteen edits from different people, all of which with edit-summaries somewhat more abrasive than "drivel" and "crap" – I have heard the feedback about my language, and I have taken it on board. But I fail to see why the community needs to set up a circus in which every Tom, Dick and Basket of Puppies who has ever had a dispute with me gets a chance to come out of the woodwork and press for sanctions ranging from the mundane to the utterly ridiculous – ╟─TreasuryTag►condominium─╢ 06:04, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
  • I think that's a valid concern. It's imperative to avoid arbitrariness of enforcement, and to avoid people a user has ticked off for whatever reason being able to pile on to vote for sanctions. Any sanction needs to be based on solid evidence, and it remains the case (as I suggested originally) that an WP:RFC/U is a much better way to collate and discuss evidence than ANI. I think it's about time this discussion was closed. Rd232 07:52, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
• I don't think that this proposal, aimed at one editor in particular, is helpful. The problem is our systemic failure to consistently enforce the civil standards of interaction that are simply taken for granted in any adult professional environment around the world. You, Rd232, are part of this problem by unilaterally undoing blocks. If you want to help solve the problem, then please start by not getting in the way of those who try to. Then, maybe, we can start thinking about ways how to make civility blocks more uniform and systematic. (They are still preventative, not punitive. As soon as a user credibly promises to behave, they should be unblocked.)  Sandstein  07:41, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
  • I'm totally confused. So it's fine to attempt to solve the problem of arbitrary enforcement of civility by permitting its endorsement in the hope that it will morph into non-arbitrary, more consistent enforcement - but proposing a novel approach to making enforcement less arbitrary and ensuring community support for related sanctions is not? I'm sorely tempted to employ some incivility to express my feeling at your remarks. Rd232 08:00, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
    • That depends what you mean by "arbitrary". Do not confuse it with "inconsistent". The dictionary definition of arbitrariness, according to our article, is "choices and actions subject to individual will, judgment or preference, based solely upon an individual's opinion or discretion" (underlining by me). If I block somebody who is persistently incivil (or edit warring, etc.), I am not acting arbitrarily, but in enforcement of our civility (or edit warring, etc.) policy. In contrast, it would be arbitrary for me to block people because I don't like their nationality or political opinion, for instance. That not all people are blocked who maybe ought to is a problem of consistency, not arbitrariness. And nothing you are doing here - first undoing an individual block, then proposing cumbersome and unneeded sanctions against an individual editor - improves consistency of enforcement at the community level.  Sandstein  08:25, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
    • An admin's discretion is in practice limited by policy. Admins choosing to enforce civility policy in particular cases for behaviour which is not normally sanctioned not only looks arbitrary, it is. Furthermore, your suggestion that "As soon as a user credibly promises to behave, they should be unblocked." only makes sense in a Kafkaesque way. How exactly is a user blocked for a long-term problem supposed to credibly show that he's going to mend his ways? In addition, users blocked in these circumstances (with admin involvement, long delay after issue, long-term problem, no recent warnings, no community involvement), will often struggle to be entirely civil - but especially in the case of an incivility block, this will be held against them, and be used as a reason not to unblock them, and even to justify the block post hoc. Rd232 08:34, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
      • But if admins act arbitrarily, in your opinion, by enforcing an inconsistently enforced policy, then the only correct thing for them to do would be not to enforce the policy at all. That would be directly contrary to what we are charged with doing. Our job is to help create an environment in which this community can write an encyclopedia. Not reacting to a disruption of that environment (whether by personal attacks or by vandalism or anything else), simply for fear of appearing arbitrary, is a dereliction of duty. Consistency of enforcement is desirable, but not if the only way to have consistent enforcement is to have no enforcement at all. It is better to have at least some enforcement and, consequently, at least some deterrence. Compare real-life criminal justice systems: we still catch and punish criminals even though we know that we have no hope of ever catching all.  Sandstein  08:51, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
      • With respect to unblocks, the solution is not kafkaesque, it's very simple. "Sorry for swearing, I won't do it again" is a good reason for unblock, at least in the first instance. If the user relapses, that unblock request will no longer be credible, but that is the user's own responsibility. And it is exactly in unblock requests that users need to be civil, because only by remaining civil can they show that they actually understand the reason for which they were blocked.  Sandstein  08:56, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
        • I'm not sure whether you haven't understood my points, or whether this is an irreconcilable difference of an opinion. But your broadening of the discussion beyond civility policy enforcement is entirely unhelpful, since the problem doesn't occur in the same way elsewhere. The evaluation of comments as uncivil, as well as the gravity, significance and disruptiveness of incivility, are far more open to interpretation than other issues. If there's anything we ought to be able to agree on, it's that the conclusion that flows from that is that sanctions ought to have more community input, preferably before-hand, than in other areas, so that the subjective judgement is at least that of a selection of the community and not of a single individual. Your reference to real-life criminal justice systems is a reminder that in some countries, people are more afraid of the police than of the criminals. Is that the sort of environment conducive to writing an encyclopedia? In any case, discussing the matter as if the only choice is crappy, ineffective, arbitrary enforcement or no enforcement is unhelpful: we can come up with better ways of doing things if we try. You haven't really commented on the concept of the civility probation - do you not think this could help? Or do you have any other ideas? Rd232 09:54, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
          • I don't think that there is that profound a difference between an incivility block and a vandalism or edit warring block. True, incivility is open to interpretation and thus blocks should be applied cautiously. But the same applies to vandalism, or edit-warring, or plagiarism, or any number of other problem behaviors for which users are routinely blocked. In each case, the administrator must use their own discretion in order to apply an abstract community consensus, as made manifest in written policy, to a specific incident.

            I do not think that civility probations are useful, because policy already forbids incivility by everybody at all times, not only by users under probation. I favor the normal, vandalism-type enforcement approach: warn, warn, warn, block. Then unblock as soon as the user convinces us that they won't do it again. And if a reviewing admin disagrees with the block, they can bring it to ANI if they don't come to an agreement with the blocker, and if there is community consensus that the block was wrong, it is lifted. What's wrong with that?  Sandstein  11:00, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

            • • There are so many things wrong with that comment, in the context of the prior discussion and your level of experience, that I simply don't know where to begin. I'm just completely lost for words. Rd232 12:44, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
                • If you are lost for words, why post that you are lost for words? Simply be lost in your own time, and post when you have something relevant to say.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:52, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
                  • Uh huh. Why snipe at others' comments that are nothing to do with you? Simply don't butt in if you have nothing helpful to say. Rd232 13:16, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
                    • Boy, that's the pot referring to kettle coloring! Rd232, your actions are under review here. Please do not also take it on yourself to try to moderate or steer the discussion, or pass upon the appropriateness of others' comments.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:31, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
                      • No, it really isn't "pot/kettle" territory, because I was having an exchange with Sandstein, which you unnecessarily and unhelpfully butted into. Rd232 14:56, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
                • <ec>I'd actually like to hear what those things are. I do think this wasn't the best block due to already existent issues with the blocking admin and TT, but otherwise it seems not unreasonable to block for long-running uncivil behavior. I suspect I see his incivility in a stronger light because it's directed in part at me, but I think even from a distance the incivility is clear if you go looking. Are you claiming that long running uncivil behavior, each incident of which is not "over the line" but taken as a whole shows a long running pattern should never be blocked? Or are you saying that the behavior in this case didn't rise to that level? Hobit (talk) 13:02, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
                  • • There is a distinction between Sarek's block, the general policy issue, and TT's behaviour which you've all collapsed into one comment. I've already addressed all of these issues separately. In terms of TT's behaviour, it's incumbent on those arguing for sanction to show that there is behaviour requiring it, which overall they have not (yet) done. Bottom line: if now the community wants to punish TT for his behaviour, so be it, though without a recent warning it would seem unfair. But it's precisely because long running problems which don't cross the line are hard to handle (incivility is often there to be found to some degree if you go looking, so it easily becomes arbitrary to pick on one editor without solid evidence that it is a consistent and substantial problem) that I suggested the civility probation. Rd232 13:16, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
  • At present, it is a false analogy to compare an adult professional environment to the Misplaced Pages editing environment. In no professional environment that I have experience with would the first response to an incident of incivility be to remove the person from the workplace. Professionally, we have managers whose job includes managing misconduct by employees, with a view to avoiding recurrence. However in the Misplaced Pages environment we don't have managers; we are self-managed by the community. If admins believe they were appointed as managers, then there will be conflict with those who disagree. Maintaining a civility policy is arguably one of the most nuanced skills required, and with all due respect to the excellent work that our admins do, it is beyond the skills and experience of some of them. We need to focus on community-based mechanisms to maintain a civil working environment. --RexxS (talk) 11:21, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
    • I agree, we do. The problem is, there is a group of editors who are very much circling wagons on the question of incivility. Perhaps unsurprisingly, most of them are wont to make comments towards other editors, while not directly insulting are grossly uncivil. We are all fairly intelligent here. Making a comment that implies that the other person is a liar, or stupid, or unable to speak English is really no different from saying it out loud. Such comments would be treated the same in the workplace (putting on my M.B.A. hat, though it is a bit moldy) because they have almost identical effect on the recipient. If we hope to keep Misplaced Pages as a collaborative enterprise, we need to treat them the same, or we are going to lose editors. Not naming names, but I wonder how many editors we lose after a run in with one of the members of the Incivility Hall of Fame?--Wehwalt (talk) 13:31, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Two points here. First, in this instance there have been plenty of warnings about incivility--this is by no means the first incident. I seriously doubt you can find 30 edits in a row by TT where there isn't some kind of civility problem. Secondly, in the work places I've been in if someone is uncivil on a regular basis the boss will talk to them and say "look, you need to fix this or leave, do you understand?". I think Sarek's block was that, while some other manager walked into the discussion and said "he's taking this too seriously, let's go". Hobit (talk) 13:02, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
    • Sarek didn't issue a warning, he blocked, which is equivalent to a suspension. You don't suspend someone for a week without something resembling an HR investigation. Rd232 13:20, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
      • I'm envisioning "HR investigations" being conducted by discussions of the entire workforce plus anyone who happens to walk in off the street, and unless you get an overwhelming majority, including kibbitzers, no action is taken. Remind me to sell my stock in that corporation short. I favor fairness to editors, to excess in some people's view, but I don't think that is a viable way of doing things.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:39, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
        • In that case, you need to be selling your stock in Misplaced Pages now, because that's how we do things here. Unless I've missed something, kibbitzers on Misplaced Pages have parity of esteem with players. Should we really have some editors/admins more equal than others? No wonder some editors view others with suspicion. --RexxS (talk) 14:53, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose If he's been acting uncivil,it's wrong tio do this. Special Cases 08:18, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
• Neutral I have always found SarekofVulcan to be a fair and rational admin in my interactions with him , even when we disagree. The discussion above has become so convoluted, that is no longer decipherable to me as to what is being voted on. IMO if Sarek blocked someone, it was after consideration of the facts and making a decision. It does appears that it is the policy that needs to be clarified rather than chastising a good and experienced admin. TY, Namaste...DocOfSoc (talk) 09:19, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
  • I agree, we are generating more heat than light, and I suspect the level of irritation will only increase. Let's close this discussion, we aren't going to reach consensus, and adjourn to the nearest bar, Rd232 is buying.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:46, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
    • Actually I'm not buying, I'm selling ;). For sale: one amendment to the civility policy: Wikipedia_talk:Civility#Blocking_for_incivility. Rd232 15:16, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose The way I see it, if a civility restriction is a good idea, then the block was a good idea. Conversely, sort of, if the block was a bad idea, then I don't see why a civility restriction is necessary. Since the block has been overturned, I'm assuming that the consensus is that TT was not uncivil enough for a block, therefore no restriction is necessary. --RegentsPark (talk) 17:04, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
• Support both the restriction and the block (without a warning is fine). Too many people seem to think that because an editor is established, they need to get some sort of preferential treatment. Established editors know the rules. There is no need to warn them. That goes for admins as well. --Kbdank71 19:00, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Clearly it doesn't go for admins as well, and so equally clearly your comment is naive. If a rollbacker, for instance, makes a few bad calls then that "right" is removed. If an administrator makes a few bad blocks then his colleagues rally round to support him. Can't you see the difference? Malleus Fatuorum 22:20, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
• Neutral - let's admit it, he's already under this type of parole right now. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 19:44, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
• Support probation. Also see nothing wrong with SoV's actions. Sorry folks, but experienced editors should not be held to a lesser standard than new ones. Additionally, they (not discussing TTS specifically, unless it applies) should be held responsible for thinly veiled incivility, snippiness and attacks. While such do not bother me personally, I'm always annoyed when an experienced editor thinks he can bypass the rules by selectively choosing wording that grants him the appearance of following the rules while the only valid interpretation of the statement construes what would otherwise be incivility. A rose by any other name still deserves a warning or block - and in the case of established editors with a track record, more serious repercussions; especially if some of what else I discussed above apply. ROBERTMFROMLI /_CNTRB 00:00, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose - And I'd note I've been on the receiving end of TT's ire. I think there are perhaps civility issues, but this block was wholly excessive and SoV was too involved to issue a short one, let alone a 1 week one. Perhaps some context about blocks is in order by those who think it was at all appropriate. Shadowjams (talk) 09:03, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
• Support, both restriction and block. However, also agree with this comment by Sandstein, specifically regarding the issue of general systemic failure. -- Cirt (talk) 09:11, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose per RegentsPark, or until the grounds for this have been established through Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/User conduct or Misplaced Pages:Arbitration. Ncmvocalist (talk) 09:32, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose per Regent's Park and the subjective nature of what 'civility' means  pablo 09:36, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

• Support - Unless this comes with some mentoring, I'm afraid the probation will do little to abate future outbreaks by TT. Looking over the comments in this section, TT is completely aware of how to use language to wound and bully others. The comparison is likely unfair, but putting a criminal on probation just creates more careful criminals. Coupling probation with counseling has a better chance at addressing the underlying behavior. And I will note that I am personally appalled by the justification being employed by some here in defending TT's behavior (most admins talk the same way). I read a quote once, and it seems applicable in describing some of these viewpoints: 'if you're in a world of shit, why bother wiping your ass?'. I'd lie o live in a less-shit-filled world. Maybe by helping to address TT's behavior, we will have a model of treatment to address other - pardon the pun - crappy behavior, be it from anons or admins. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 18:21, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Proposal #2 - Sarek is involved

Proposal: SarekOfVulcan should consider himself as an involved admin per WP:INVOLVED when considering future punitive or preventive administrative action against TreasuryTag, except in cases of unambiguous vandalism. SnottyWong  22:15, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Involved is so POV, Sarek appears to have had a degree of consensus that his block was correct and needed. IMO the unblock was the issue here and I think that needs to stop and RD232 seems to be aware of that. User Treasury Tag has big civility issues and although its to late for this occasion, and this out of process unblock has likely made it worse, for he will think he is strong and will be unblocked in future, if he continues to insult users he will be blocked quite quickly I imagine, that Sarek was correct in his block and the block was supported shows that he is uninvolved enough to act when needed again, it is good that user Treasury tag is aware of the fact that if he continues with his constant childish teenage rudeness that Sarek or another Administratorwill have no hesitation to block for a similar length of time for a similar attack of rudeness. Off2riorob (talk) 23:02, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

No. That would be silly. There is no definition of "involved" of which I am aware that would make Sarek involved. He has blocked an editor for disruption, no more. --TS 23:13, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

This is clearly more than an isolated incident. TT and SoV have a history. In my opinion, this block only served to increase the existing tensions between TT and SoV. Considering SoV involved would prevent any further unilateral escalations without community consensus. SnottyWong  00:15, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Could you rephrase/explain this please? As it currently is written, the way I am reading this, since their "history" has not been established as something SoV is at fault over, is that we should consider SoV involved for the purpose of preventing a future action (escalation). I'd suspect I'm simply having a hard time understanding what you wrote, or it's kinda ambiguous, or it's a silly idea to "consider" something to prevent TTS from escalating things. That they have "history" is really irrelevant to me. There are long time vandals who have "history" with various admins... if we disclude those admins from acting on that basis, there'd eventually be no one to block those vandals. In this case, what is the history you are referring to that would warrant deeming SoV an involved editor? Best, Rob ROBERTMFROMLI /_CNTRB 02:20, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

• Just to pop in on this discussion to note, as far as I remember, TreasuryTag and SarekOfVulcan have actually had a long history. I'm fairly certain that there are quite a few ANI discussions in the past that involved both of them. Silverseren 00:21, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

If so, were they about content disputes, or was Sarek's "involvement" merely administrative? IIRC, an admin whose interaction with an editor is purely to enforce policy is not considered to be "involved" with that editor. (Othewise, policy-violators could just run through the AdminCorps, eliminating them one by one. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:24, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose, unless there was formal dispute resolution involved between TreasuryTag and SarekOfVulcan. Per above comment by Beyond My Ken (talk · contribs), if involvement by admin SarekOfVulcan was purely in an administrative capacity acting to prevent disruption and incivility on this site, then that in and of itself does not change him into an "involved" admin. -- Cirt (talk) 04:27, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose per Cirt, Beyond My Ken and others in earlier part of discussion, unless someone can point out non-administrative involvement that justifies this. ROBERTMFROMLI /_CNTRB 05:48, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
• Comment: How much longer are you all going to be gathered here like a school of rooks on a telegraph wire. Is there not an encyclopedia to write. This is an overfanned storm in a very small teacup - at the end of the day, while you are all discussing punishment, you appear to have overlooked one very important fact. There is no proven case to answer. When you have proven guilt beyond all reasonable doubt, then you can start talking of punishment. Here, you clearly are not going to agree anything because too many are gathered, quite a few just to hear the sound of their own voices on a subject on which they are ill qualified to comment. TT has said he will address his edit summaries in future in the general scheme of things the block was silly, both for its existence and length of time. If that is too simple for you, then you need an RFC or Arbcase to establish guilt. There solved!...Now, ..the encyclopedia you are all here supposedly to write.  Giacomo  09:30, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
  • That's pretty much where RegentsPark's comment left this discussion over 24 hours ago, at which point Sarek closed the discussion and the matter seemed settled enough. But one of the admins who thought Sarek's block was bad undid the closure on the basis that people shouldn't close discussions reviewing their actions. The subsequent discussion has (not unexpectedly) created even more heat and zero additional light, and we really ought to end this. In hindsight, I should have put a lot more effort into showing that the block was bad, better demonstrating Sarek's involvement, and more clearly laying out the other reasons it was bad. But I didn't want to dwell on this because there is an underlying history of TT civility issues, and civility enforcement remains a problem. Had I anticipated the antipathy that would be directed at me for undoing an obviously bad block, I would clearly have put more effort into proving that it was bad to a degree that those who ended up merely seeing a civility block quickly undone (probably suspecting offwiki request... no) could not avoid getting the picture. Anyway, it's really about enough on this topic. Rd232 09:50, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose If anything, SoV's prior interaction with TT makes him far more capable of knowing about prior instances of this behavior. This comes with some problems, not the least of which is SoV jumping the gun when the behavior on TT's part starts ratcheting up. SoV should have covered his ass a little better here by getting some outside input on the proposed block, but the block appears to have been a good one. Great storms announce themselves on the simple breeze, so I am not sure I agree with GiacomoReturned that this was a tempest in a teacup. There have been a lot of incivility issues arising from regular users, who see the application of a consistent blocing policy as wiggle room to je utter jackasses; the odds of getting whacked the the blocky stick (or not) are in the jackasses' favor. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 18:28, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Calling people jackasses is uncivil, perhaps you should be blocked. SnottyWong  05:42, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Oh for the love of

What good is supposed to come of discussing this any further? I can't believe this has been spun into a subpage before being archived! Let's examine some outcomes from this thread:

already happened

1. TreasuryTag block overturned, but clear message sent that there are quite a lot of people who have some issues with him (albeit actual evidence has been weak in terms of justifying action; a handful of diffs going back months), a message he seems to have received. (Which is to say, the message has been sent that there are enough people watching him that if he doesn't in future maintain higher standards than most he will end up in trouble sooner or later.)
2. Proposal made to amend civility policy, allowing for civility probation for this type of case (looks unlikely to be passed)
3. Proposal made to amend blocking policy, to make unblocking for this type of case (or more generally) harder

unlikely outcomes

1. Discussion turns onto Sarek's block, and in conjunction with other issues leads to the creation of Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/SarekofVulcan.
2. Discussion turns onto my unblock, and leads to the creation of Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Rd232.
3. Discussion evolves until my proposed TreasuryTag civility probation is agreed.
4. An admin re-enacts the block, either with their own justification, or on the basis that discussion here justifies it
5. Somebody jumps to create Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/TreasuryTag, even though it would be precipitate to do it very soon.

possible outcomes

1. Thread is closed with those who have issues with TT in the past or in the future getting the message that Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/TreasuryTag is really the way forward to gather an evidential basis for any sanction, should it prove necessary at some point. A bunch of people turning up in the unstructured drama-intense ANI way to say, without evidence, "well I remember him being uncivil..." is little better than a lynch mob, and it's not helpful now and it won't be helpful if action is needed in future.
2. ?

Rd232 23:37, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

With respect, the thread has really been open to the general editorship for about two days. TT has some polarizing influences with others. I know that redundant discussion drives listers batshit crazy, but pay attention to the fact that more people keep coming forward. It should tell you that most of us just came to the conclusion that since TT had been here a while without punishment, that his behavior was splendidly acceptable. Those that had a problem with this either left the project (rudeness rec'd from others being one of the chief reasons people depart WP) or learned to act the same way. Well, there is also the 'stay the hell away from TT' crowd, of which I count myself a member; just watching him in action made me come close to leaving the wiki.

Be patient; the thread will die out without someone forcing one of three options. Allow the result to be an organic one. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 04:23, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Proposal 4: Blocking policy amendment

I propose the following addition to the blocking policy:

If a block is being actively discussed on WP:AN/I or another appropriate forum, and consensus is unclear, administrators should not unblock the editor in question without agreement from the blocking administrator.

This should clear up most of the drama that happened here for future situations. The Wordsmith 06:20, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

That would seem pretty obvious. Of course, we are talking about admins - j/k - Jack Sebastian (talk) 06:42, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

• Tend to agree, but why would it be appropriate for the blocking admin to undo a block once it is clear that the community consensus is split over the issue? In such a case, it should cease to be "their block" in terms of ownership... ╟─TreasuryTag►consulate─╢ 12:09, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

• Because we follow an Assumption of Good Faith that the block was done for the right reasons, we don't ask the admin to unblock. If the admin screwed up badly (emphasis on 'badly' here), he or she should have a block placed on their account by another admin for the same amount of time as their bad block, since blocks can't be removed without a Hall Pass from Jesus or some such (when I am in a back and forth with another editor, the first thing I do is check out their block log). To be sure, this might seem to have a chilling effect on admins hastily tossing lengthy blocks at offenders, but slowing that sort of behavior seems something to be encouraged, right? Admins make mistakes, so if they are at all unsure, taking the time to consult with another admin becomes something that is in everyone's best interest. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 06:58, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

That's not quite what i'm proposing. What I want is essentially for the blocking policy to say "If its being discussed, don't unilaterally unblock. That causes drama, and we don't want more drama." @TT: A lot of the time, "endorse block" means that they might not have blocked for the infraction, but it was withn admin discretion. If the blocking admin later says that they shouldn't have blocked, or they specify some condition for unblock that the blockee agrees to, then it can be safely undone without causing more dramah. The Wordsmith 08:29, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Oh I know that wasn't what was being suggested; I was tossing that out there. SoV was in the right here, but a bad block is still a black mark on the block log of someone who didn't deserve it. And aside from an 'oops' (and I've noticed that folk are often lucky to get even that from the dumbass who blocked them), there's no fallout for the admin beyond the minnow slap. Just thinking aloud.. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 09:16, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

• Note: I have left this section open for now, since it is the only thing that may actually form a consensus. The Wordsmith 05:29, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

proposed block of Sarek

The fact that there is so much drama shows that Sarek is wrong and should be blocked himself. So block TreasuryTag for 1 week and Sarek for 5 days. Sarek is not the good guy in this episode. Forgot 2010 (talk) 06:58, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

• Can you indicate your rationale for why blocking Sarek would prevent disruption to the project? GiftigerWunsch 10:13, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
• From what I can see, SoV has been relatively uninvolved in this discussion. That would be indicative of (assuming "drama" is the correct word) that others are the cause of the drama. So, why should SoV be blocked? On a related note, the sysops are "just editors with more tools" since those tools do give them additional powers, I for one would be screaming for a block of SoV if I thought he abused those tools - but I am not.

On a note related to this whole thing, as I stated above, I've got no problem with the length of the original block (though would have preferred (since no unblock request was made) seeing a discussion between Rd232 and SoV before the unblock). My opinion on blocks are, the user's past problems and contributions and experience should all be weighed in determining block length for infractions. If I were to get into an edit war or violate 3RR, I'd fully expect to be blocked for a lot longer than the recommended minimum (and thus clearly state on my userpage that I've been on Misplaced Pages for many years, so that can be weighed into such a determination). And, the guidelines support it via the "discretion"ary portion of the wording. That puts things into the same realm as the real world, where a first infraction earns a lighter penalty, with harder penalties for repeat behavior (and some "good behavior" time frame allowed for not including past actions in consideration).

At this point though, I think this horse has been beat to death and then some. TTS is aware numerous people watch his actions for any such infraction. They've been around more than long enough to understand the consequences of such. And they've shown numerous valued contributions to Misplaced Pages. I'd (at this point, with how long this has been going on) let this situation die off with "message delivered" assumed and see how TTS proceeds from here. Really, what else is left? Block SoV because others have created "drama" here? Heck, if we blocked every admin who was involved because of "drama" created at AN/I, there wouldnt be any admins left. Or re-block TTS for an action that's aging well past the original block length? That seems silly too. The only thing that leaves is in the event of a similar occurrence, where the editor has not requested an unblock, that admins discuss things with each other before overturning each other. Is there anything I missed? Best, Robert ROBERTMFROMLI /_CNTRB 20:23, 24 October 2010 (UTC)