This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Arcticocean (talk | contribs) at 19:13, 20 October 2013 (→Mayoralty in Puerto Rico: Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter: update tally). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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.

Reverts and block performed by User:SilkTork regarding Mayoralty in Puerto Rico

Initiated by —Ahnoneemoos (talk) at 17:15, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Involved parties

• Ahnoneemoos (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), filing party
• SilkTork (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

• https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:SilkTork&diff=577310004&oldid=577058239

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

• https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:Ahnoneemoos&diff=576722553&oldid=576710823

Statement by User:Ahnoneemoos

I have been banned unjustifiably by User:SilkTork, an ArbCom member. This is in relation to an RFC at: https://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Mayors_in_Puerto_Rico

On October 4 User:Op47 opened an RFC on that talk page regarding an embedded list being used on the article.

I showed him that such embedded lists are more than fine per:

• https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:SUMMARY
• https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:EMBED
• https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:SPLITLIST#Lists.2C_tables_and_summaries
• https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:STANDALONE
• https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:SYNC#SYNC
• https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:SPLITTING

During the course of the discussion User:Op47 modified my own comments and replied within my comments rather than below them: https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Talk:Mayors_in_Puerto_Rico&diff=576019861&oldid=576017633

I asked the user to not do that as people might believe I was the one making those comments: https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Talk:Mayors_in_Puerto_Rico&diff=576021662&oldid=576020925

I also brought up the incident to ANI so that an administrator could intervene: https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive814#User:Op47_modifying_what_other_users_said_in_a_Talk_page

No one did.

On October 10 User:Op47 contacted me directly on my talk page: https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:Ahnoneemoos&diff=576636598&oldid=576221629

I told him to cease contacting me directly as I wanted to avoid an escalation and instead suggested him that he posted in ANI: https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:Ahnoneemoos&diff=576678771&oldid=576636598

This is done in virtue of our dispute resolution process so that both parties could cool off, avoid a stiff, and allow a third party to intervene per: https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Third_opinion

On October 11 User:SilkTork posted on my talk page regarding what is going on in the Mayoralty article: https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:Ahnoneemoos&diff=576710823&oldid=576678771

I rebutted his arguments and asked him to instead move the conversation to the article's talk page: https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:Ahnoneemoos&diff=576722553&oldid=576710823

User:SilkTork never replied back to my counterarguments, nor replied in the article's talk page.

However, on October 11 User:SilkTork decided to close the RFC even though only 4 people were participating in it and even though only 7 days have passed: https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Talk:Mayors_in_Puerto_Rico&diff=576744390&oldid=576711462

He also merged another article into the one being discussed even though that was not the purpose of the RFC: https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=List_of_current_mayors_of_Puerto_Rico&diff=576752835&oldid=560459381

He also removed a bunch of red links on a template claiming that such action was permissible under an essay: https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Template:Mayoralties_in_Puerto_Rico&diff=576754390&oldid=551670987

I reverted all his edits for the following reasons (including summaries on the edit summary):

The original article was reverted per WP:RFC in order to allow the RFC to run its natural course of 30 days. After which consensus would be formally established and I would abide to whatever was decided: https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Mayors_in_Puerto_Rico&diff=576861186&oldid=576753052

This was done per WP:RFC which states EXPLICITLY that:

"Editors may choose to end them earlier or extend them longer. Deciding how long to leave an RfC open depends on how much interest there is in the issue and whether editors are continuing to comment."

I contend that the RFC should be left to run its natural course of 30 days. After which I will abide by whatever is decided by the community in consensus. I also contend that there is interest in this discussion and that editors were commenting on it (I was the very last person to reply). I also contend that just having people saying that they don't like something is not enough to establish consensus, as we already have guidelines for this. Nobody has rebutted the guidelines being used as basis.

The list of current mayors was reverted as this was not the original issue being discussed in the RFC. The RFC was about using an embedded list on the article: https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=List_of_current_mayors_of_Puerto_Rico&diff=576861329&oldid=576753224

The template with red links was reverted since WP:EXISTING is an essay; not a policy nor a guideline. User:SilkTork implicitly claimed that removing such links was appropriate per that essay. As you may all know, essays are just that: essays. They are not official. The template was reverted per WP:REDLINK which is an official guideline: https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Template:Mayoralties_in_Puerto_Rico&diff=576862420&oldid=576754390

This is when all went downhill.

User:SilkTork, rather than involving an impartial third party, decided to revert back my reverts and ban me because he alleges that my reverts were "disruptive editing" EVEN THOUGH THEY WERE ALL EXPLAINED IN THE EDIT SUMMARIES AND BACKED UP BY POLICIES: https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:Ahnoneemoos&diff=576865553&oldid=576722553

Obviously I cannot now revert back his edits as doing so would lead to another ban even though my reverts are backed up by policies.

Furthermore, this is a crass abuse of administrative privileges and a WP:WITCHHUNT. Proof of this is the fact that User:SilkTork removed a link to an essay I wrote (WP:NOUSERS) from the Misplaced Pages essays template because he considers it "not helpful": https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Template:Wikipedia_essays&diff=prev&oldid=577018307 User:SilkTork would not have been able to even notice this if he were not on a witchhunt persecuting what I do and have done on Misplaced Pages.

I'm formally requesting desysoping of User:SilkTork for these actions. This person does not have the capacity to be an administrator, even less so to be in ArbCom.

If ARBCOM beleives that I personally attacked someone I profoundly apologize to that person publicly. Namely User:Op47 who might have considered my comments a personal attack. For that, I apologize to him publicly as those were not my intentions. I open myself to any further sanctions that ARBCOM believes are meritory.

However, that was not the basis for my ban. My ban was based on the reverts I performed which are entirely legal and within Misplaced Pages's framework and policies. User:SilkTork must be desysoped because of this.

—Ahnoneemoos (talk) 17:27, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

(Reply to Newyorkbrad of 23:33 15 October 2013) That's why it's simply an essay: to spark discussions and see what others opinions are. Obviously we differ on its merit and I respect your right to have a completely different opinion. But that doesn't dismiss the cause of this ARBCOM request, which is about reverting and blocking a user for performing a revert based on policies. The essay thing is just to prove the witchunting aspect. —Ahnoneemoos (talk) 11:55, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

(Reply to Callanecc of 22:37 16 October 2013) If that's the case then I can claim that as an admin SilkTork is guilty of WP:IDHT as well as I pointed out six different guidelines where such content style is encouraged. We also have WP:SPINOFF which also covers such content style. So, how can you claim I'm ignoring an argument but he is not? I was very explicit and linked every single guideline several times. Furthermore, my edits can not be considered disruptive as they are based on policies, namely WP:RFC which allows editors to extend RFCs and even more so when the RFC was closed prematurely with only a few editors participating. In addition to that, he also blocked me for reverting Template:Mayoralties in Puerto Rico which was also reverted per a guideline, namely WP:REDLINK and which was not part of the RFC at all. These are the issues at hand. You need to look at it holistically. Were my edits done in bad faith? No, I invoked policies and guidelines on each and every one of them. Was the RFC given proper time to run its course? No, it was closed after 7 days. Did a significant number of editors participate in the RFC before it was closed? No, only a handful did. Was the RFC closed by a reason backed up by a policy as expressed explicitly in WP:CONSENSUS? No, it was simply closed following a WP:POLL. Was merging the subject of the RFC? No, the RFC was about using an embedded list and detailing such list in another article. Was the RFC about Template:Mayoralties in Puerto Rico? No, it was about an article and a list. So, when you look at it SilkTork's actions are not justified. You could argue that he could have blocked me for inappropriate behavior but he didn't. He blocked me for the reverts. If he would have blocked me without reverting my edits this RFAR wouldn't exist. —Ahnoneemoos (talk) 00:35, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

(Reply to Carcharoth of 01:31, 17 October 2013) Most of those tools have been taken away by the community and given to ARBCOM. Other tools have been taken away by our inability to establish a formal process to desysop admins by the community (see WP:DESYSOP and WP:DISPUTE). As I have no other venues to resolve this, and as this situation involves an ARBCOM member, I'm forced to escalate the issue to ARBCOM itself; regardless of my personal opinion about it. We have to work with what we have, not we what we wish we had. I encourage you to remain impartial about this and don't mix my personal opinions about ARBCOM with this RFAR. —Ahnoneemoos (talk) 11:40, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

(Reply to SilkTork of 08:57, 17 October 2013) I contend that SilkTork was the one not listening to what was been said as he was provided six different official guidelines that explained clearly and explicitly that such content style is more than fine. Namely WP:SUMMARY, WP:EMBED, WP:SPLITLIST, WP:STANDALONE, WP:SYNC, and WP:SPLITTING. Add WP:SPINOFF to the mix as well. So, how come I can be accused of ignoring other people when the admin who closes the RFC does so (1) prematurely and (2) after he has been provided several official guidelines that rebut everyone's arguments? This seems highly unbiased and I still don't understand, nor SilkTork has been able to explain, why he, as an admin, chose to ignore those guidelines and my arguments repeatedly. We are driven by WP:CONSENSUS, not by WP:POLL. Our arguments must be based on logic, not on personal opinions. I provided logic-based arguments with official guidelines that give merit to my arguments, yet these were ignored. My reverts were also based on official policies and explained clearly and explicitly in my edit summaries, yet, once again, they were ignored and labeled as "disruptive". How can this be? Is an admin now above our policies and guidelines simply because he is an admin and because of his perception of what "disruptive" editing is? Once again, there's a big difference between blocking someone for being uncivil and blocking someone who is presenting an argument based on logic and backed up by guidelines, while performing reverts based on policies. This cannot stand, and it would be a fatal precedent for Misplaced Pages if we fail to address it properly. —Ahnoneemoos (talk) 11:50, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Statement by SilkTork

I was asked to look into what was happening on the Mayors in Puerto Rico article. I did so, and saw that editors were having issues with Ahnoneemoos, in particular that he was not listening to reason, and was WP:SHOUTing, putting up walls of text, and being incivil with some of his dismissive personal comments. There was concern that he was creating duplicate lists of Mayors in Puerto Rico, for which there is also some notability concerns. I went to his talkpage, where I note he had already dismissed another user's concerns, banning them from his talkpage. As an independent admin I gave him my neutral and polite assessment of the situation, and asked him to reflect on what people were saying, and to consider if his behaviour was appropriate. His response was unhelpful, and he also asked me not to continue discussing the matter on his talkpage. I looked over the RfC, and given the comments before it on the talkpage, as well as the RfC itself, combined with Ahnoneemoos's difficult behaviour and attitude, I felt it appropriate to close it in line with consensus to bring the matter to a close. I hoped that would be the end of the matter. After closing, I performed the merge as is my standard practise, and tidied up. I don't close discussions and leave others to do the work. Ahnoneemoos, in line with the behaviour that was giving others cause for concern, did not listen to what had been said, did not respect the close, and reverted the close and my edits. As the user was clearly not listening or responding, and was making things difficult, I gave him a short block, and explained why. As this was a second block for similar issues, I gave him 60 hours. SilkTork 08:57, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Statement by Callanecc

The only issues I can see here is whether or not SilkTork was involved when he blocked Ahnoneemoos, and if the block was justified without first giving a warning regarding how to appeal the outcome of the RFC. I don't think there's an issue with SilkTork being involved, not at all, it's the same as an admin who closed an AFD blocking an editor for recreating the article. And whilst I can see see the benefit in giving a warning and explaining how to correctly appeal the outcome. Given Ahnoneemoos's other activities and behaviour, during the RFC for example, the block was justified as it was a pretty clear case of disruptive editing bordering on 'I didn't hear that' and WP:POINT. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 22:37, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Statement by Op47

First some background. Since the end of 2011, I have effectively volunteered to clear up the backlog of split tags. It was because of a tag on this page that I came to edit it. On this occasion I found a 2 way discussion that had died down. I called the discussion as no concensus. Per WP:Concensus if there is no concensus then the change does not happen. About 6 months later A made the change anyway. When I reverted per the outcome of the discussion and asked for an RfC if re-reverted (A previous contributer to the discussion had also asked for an RfC). I was re-reverted with no RfC. Rather than start an edit war, I started an RfC myself. I found that Ahnoneemoos was taking an obstructive line in the RfC, so I walked away from the discussion to allow a passing administrator to close the RfC. However, I found myself reported to WP:ANI so I asked SilkTork (who has supported me in dealing with the split tag backlog and also does not seem to be the person to get the ban hammer out) for advice. ]. Silk Tork has explained his actions after that.

If Arbcom has the concept of a WP:Boomerang then it ought to be used in this case either by Arbcom itself or by the forum that Arbcom refers the matter to. for example:

• Ahnonemoos(A) has demanded a pedantic use of procedures and yet not followed them himself. eg.

Reporting me to WP:ANI without informing me.

Placed comments in the RfC where he is not supposed to

A was asked by WP:ANI to talk to me directly before raising the matter at WP:ANI and if that did not work then to ask another editor to help. He did not do that.

• Most of A's comments appear to be a personal attack. Particularly egregious:

The warning placed at the top of the RfC

The profanity when complaining about the way I was replying.

• I followed the process that A was told to follow by WP:ANI and was banished from his talk page for my trouble. I asked Silk Tork for assistance and he received a similar response. A says that this was not to escalate the situation. I am not sure how an apology and rectifying some of the more egregious behaviour would escalate matters, I have to assume therefore that A thought his behaviour to be justified.
• A has persistently misrepresented policy i.e. WP:Concensus says that if there is no concensus then the change does not happen. A has stated the opposite view.
• A refactored my comments at the RfC to make it look like I did not know how to set out an RfC. He then altered one of my comments. Furthermore, when I found it difficult to know how to answer one of his walls of text and replied on a point by point basis, he told me that I would be banned and reported me to Ani. I do not believe I have changed any of his comments.

Frankly, If only one of the above had happened then I would try and assume good faith, but everything taken together, I have to say that I believe A just did not want "his article" changing and his behaviour was intended to discourage my changes. It is clear that A still thinks his edits are correct and has not acknowleged that there is no support for tham. I am soory, but this is an awful lot of trouble to go to for 1 article and if this is not an isolated example then something needs to be done about A's behaviour.

If required, I will provide diffs for evidence. Op47 (talk) 10:24, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Clerk notes

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

• I've done a bit of cleaning up and changed "ban" to "block" in the title. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 23:11, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Recuse per my statement. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 22:37, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Mayoralty in Puerto Rico: Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter <0/7/0/0>-Reverts_and_block_performed_by_User:SilkTork_regarding_Mayoralty_in_Puerto_Rico-2013-10-15T23:33:00.000Z">

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

• Awaiting statement from SilkTork, but strongly leaning toward decline. Apropos of nothing, the implication in Ahnoneemoos's essay that Misplaced Pages should emulate "4chan and its administration process" is the worst idea I've ever read in the history of this site. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:33, 15 October 2013 (UTC)"> ">
  • Decline. As I expected from reviewing the links in the request, SilkTork's explanation of his actions is entirely reasonable. As a matter of personal preference (and per Courcelles, below), if I'd been handling this situation I might have issued a final warning before blocking, but that is a matter of discretion and his having made a different decision does not reflect administrator misconduct, especially since the unblock request Ahnoneemoos posted suggests that he wouldn't have backed away from his problematic behavior in any event. Ahnoneemoos's assertions that "User:SilkTork must be desysopped because of this" and that "it would be a fatal precedent for Misplaced Pages if we fail to address properly," are disproportionate rhetoric and confirm the already clear impression that Ahnoneemoos has lost his sense of perspective. (Note: as a minor matter of formatting, I've shortened the casename.) Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:12, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
• Also awaiting statement from SilkTork, but my inclination is that you need to talk this out with SilkTork before escalating to this level of dispute resolution. You have been editing here since 2001, with a block in 2010 and now a block in 2013. Among other things, you state on your user page: "I was one of the voices that was strongly against the creation and existence of Misplaced Pages's Arbitration Committee believing that Misplaced Pages already has the necessary tools to resolve conflict without an internal policing body." That is probably faintly ironic. If you still believe that, please try and use those other tools first. Carcharoth (talk) 01:31, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Decline. Ahnoneemoos, you may have a point about possible inconsistencies in how lists are handled on Misplaced Pages, but that point is being lost in your reaction to all this. In any case, that is not a matter for ArbCom to address. SilkTork, what I think may have exacerbated this was trying to do too much. You did three things: (i) you looked into conduct during a discussion and gave what was effectively a warning; (ii) you closed the discussion; and (iii) you edited to implement the consensus at that discussion. It was a combination of the response to (iii) and the failure of Ahnoneemoos to comprehend (i) that led to the block. I understand your point about how you don't wish to leave others to do the work when you close discussions, but that may be necessary sometimes; either that or when there is a need to manage conduct at a discussion, to stick solely to that and let others close the discussion. Carcharoth (talk) 12:11, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
• This complaint turns on whether the complainant was correct to make this revert, and whether SilkTork's interpretation of consensus on the talk page was valid. Obviously, the revert was incorrect, combative, and disruptive – because the interpretation of consensus was valid. I am inclined to think the real problem here is that the complainant has a battleground mentality and is not making adequate efforts to work productively and constructively with the other editors. I would decline the request for us to sanction SilkTork on the basis of administrative misconduct (a complaint that is completely unwarranted), and I would recommend the community consider topic-banning the complainant from this article. We arbitrators could topic-ban him ourselves, but of course our usual practice for low-level disputes like this is to stay completely uninvolved so as to discourage frivolous use of the arbitration process. AGK 13:34, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
• Decline I've talked before about the high bar to these "do not pass DR, do not collect $200, go directly to ArbCom" cases. This isn't one where the bar is in sight, much less cleared. While I'm not certain SilkTork had to block, a borderline short block is not what I'm looking for when using ArbCom as step one in resolving the dispute. Courcelles 20:49, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
• Decline Per my colleagues. While Silk Tork may not have acted optimally, he certainly acted within the usual administrator discretion.  Roger Davies 12:46, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
• Decline. T. Canens (talk) 19:52, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
• Decline. Risker (talk) 13:14, 20 October 2013 (UTC)