Quasi-response to Birgitte[edit]

If I'd been in Slr's position I would just have gone ahead and done the same. Judging by this pointless RFC, what are the chances he would have got Charles Matthews to admit he was wrong? Moreschi (talk) 20:22, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is not about getting permission from the blocking admin, but rather making certain that you have all the facts. I am not buying into the "unblocking is a wheel war" argument. Discussing it with admin doesn't mean you cannot still disagree with them. But it does prevent the unblocking admin from making a mistake if they are misunderstanding the situation (after all someone is most likely misunderstanding the situation). And it does give the blocking admin an opportunity to save face if they made a mistake which leads to less drama. Overall it makes admins less adversarial and more collaborative. It is best practice for a reason.--BirgitteSB 20:52, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Fair point. Hm, this is interesting. Let's say Slr had tried to get Charles Matthews' permission. And failed. Then what? After all, various policies and guidelines warn quite strongly about making admin actions when you know other other admins oppose them (AFD closures being an obvious exception). Does Slr go to ANI? Create more drama? Particularly as Charles Matthews is on the arbcom - taking arbcom members to ANI can be rather tricky. I still think the best thing to do with obviously bad blocks of established users is just to reverse them, as I've done before with minimal drama (Giano, Paul Barlow, etc). It is far better for established users to be non-blocked than blocked: for such people blocking is a truly last resort reserved for cases of especially egregious wrongdoing; therefore, in these cases the benefit of the doubt goes to unblocking the established user rather than leaving them blocked. Moreschi (talk) 21:04, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If there were more to the matter than met the eye, Charles should have made that explicit in the block note or on the user's talk page prior to review. Am waiting for diffs to double check this, yet at least provisionally it appears very troubling if Charles Matthews alluded to offsite circumstances in discussions after Slrubenstein intervened, yet fails to mention it in RFC. DurovaCharge! 21:01, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
My understanding is that there is more here than meets the eye and that some things are better not to be posted. I was on the scene before SIrubenstein and thought that unblocking would be appropriate, but I did not do so. Instead I asked Charles for clarification, and got it. If SIrubenstein would simply admit that he made a mistake by unblocking without first checking, we probably would not be here. I discussed these circumstances with FT2 who subsequently edited WP:BLOCK to make explicit that best practice is for blocking admins to call out any circumstances, such as private evidence, that should be considered when reviewing a block. The lesson to be learned by all is check the facts before blocking or unblocking somebody. Blocking is serious stuff, not to be done (or undone) without good cause, and there is no need to rush. A little time spent checking things can save a lot of time later on. Jehochman Talk 21:07, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is infuriating. You cannot let us comment on an RFC behind a veil of ignorance. If there's something we're not being told here, please tell. Via email if necessary. Moreschi (talk) 21:24, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Such vauge rumors as Jehochman repeats darken clouds of suspicion that ought not exist. If there's something more than meets the eye, let Charles state so himself; he need not be specific what it is to affirm that such conditions do exist. Moreover, it would be fitting for him to acknowledge openly that in such a scenario it was his own neglect to do so in the first place that precipitated this conflict. Absent such a statement, an arbitrator's block is no different from any other administrator's. There are legitimate concerns here about the chilling effect such a precedent may have over unblock review. On the other hand, if no offsite circumstances affected the decision, Charles ought to state so explicitly. DurovaCharge! 21:43, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please do email Charles for clarification of the facts. I am not going to pass along any info. I believe this is a situation where Charles did the right thing, but may not have explained it as well as possible. Jehochman Talk 22:05, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
By opening this request for comment, Charles has undertaken the obligation to make certain things explicit himself. DurovaCharge! 22:13, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Quite. I don't think it's a tenable position to claim that "secret" evidence "proves" that this was a fair block, and that the community should therefore accept any block like good little boys and girls. We're a community of equals here, whether one is an editor, and admin or an ArbCom member. Disagreement over administrative actions are healthy. Slr unblocked in good faith, he had no idea that so called "extenuating circumstances" existed, furthermore he had no way of knowing that they could exist. If such "secret" information does exist then at least it's existence should have been made clear from the outset. For this RfC to have any meaning then it can only address Slr's actions based on what he knew when he lifted the block. There's no requirement for him to have contacted Charles before lifting the block, and it is perfectly acceptable for an admin to review a block and reverse it. By starting this RfC Charles has decided to put Slr's actions into the public domain in a semi-official way, that means full disclosure. We all make mistakes, whether one thinks that Charles block was a mistake, or Slr's unblock was a mistake, or that both were mistakes, does not justify an RfC. I dislike the way policies are increasingly used in a quasi-legal way, policies and guidelines are open to interpretation, and should be approached with common sense. Did Slr breach the "letter of the law"? I don't know, and frankly don't care. Did he use what he considered to be good judgment when lifting the block? Obviously he did. I'm left with the impression that this RfC was started for all the wrong reasons. As someone else pointed out, if the block had been really sound then another admin could and should have reversed the unblock, no one did, that speaks volumes to me. Alun (talk) 12:08, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
FT2 should not have changed policy to suit this particular case. Policy should not be changed so casually. this is very disturbing.
I had the facts and I reviewed the policy and my unbolocking was warranted. Wikipedia is the encylopedia anyone can edit at any time. Blocking prevents someone from participating and is the worst thing we can do, it is the negation of Wikipedia. There are some times when blocking makes esnes - 3RR and other situations where people need to cool down to resolve a conflict. In this case, MatchSci had done nothing to justify removing his right to edit Wikipedia. This is the kind of wrong done against an editor that can and therefore should be undone immediately. MathScie explained why he was appealing, and i explained why i unblocked. So far no one has provided any evidence to indicate my reasoning was wrong. Slrubenstein | Talk 03:43, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
My comments were written off the top of my head. FT2's edit made no difference in my opinion as I didn't consult the policy page. Consulting the blocking admin is an established best practice and not a new idea, whatever recent edits have occurred. I have no reason to believe your judgment in this particular unblocking was wrong, but there are many reasons why it is best practice to consult the blocking admin. A few more minutes being blocked would do no additional damage, especially if you reassure the blocked user you are looking into it. I don't understand why you wish to make a stand over not intending to consult unless there is explicit warning in the block summary. A very easy concession would be to say, "While I continue to stand by my judgment in circumstances of this particular case, I will commit to making a reasonable effort to always discuss my plans to unblock editors with the blocking admin in the future." Or even easier is to simply drop this particular point, and just follow the best practice in the future. Hope that makes my position clearer.--BirgitteSB 05:13, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You are probably too wrapped up in the particulars of this case to really absorb the big picture reasons as to why this best practice is important. Come back and read this again in a month or so and see if you feel any differently.--BirgitteSB 05:26, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is very wise advice. A little flexibility would go a long way towards resolving this dispute, and help set a good example for others. Jehochman Talk 05:35, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A little disclosure would go a long way as well. The policy was edited ex post facto, and Jehochman both certified this RFC and supported the policy change. DurovaCharge! 17:18, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Birgitte, I have added a couple of things to my statement in response to your suggestions. Briefly, given that Wikipedia is the encyclopedia that anybody can edit at anytime, I think blocking someone is the harshest penalty we have. But I also interpret our embracing wiki technology as the means for making an encyclopedia as representing a philosophy: individuals regularly make mistakes, but if anyone can edit mistakes can be corrected in an instant. I think admins are wise to follow the same philosophy that guides us in our main task. Charles had not been responding to attempts to contact him by others, but so what - his evidence and reason for block and as it later turned out the facts of the block did not require any further information from him. He made a mistake and I corrected it. I think stopping someone from editing is a grave, serious, profoundly dangerous thing that should be done cautiously. I have only ever unblocked a few other people because let's face it sometime a block is precisely what is called for, it is appropriate and needed. In this case I didn't think it was. Editors, including admins, have to rely on their good judgement. I assume good faith and I assumed Charles was acting in good faith, using his good judgment. But reviewing the facts I disagreed. that is life at our anarchic open society of Wikipedia, where anyone can edit at any time. No harm was done, and preserving the anarchic openness of our community and the principle that anyone can edit at anytime may have to be curtailed in extreme cases, such as revert wars and harassment, but unless one of those extreme cases is occuring, no, I think preserving the anarchic openness of our community and the principle that anyone can edit at any time have to be defended and protected at all times, and are certainly more important than another admin's ego. After all, isn't one of the first thing we all learn here, where no one owns an article and most of our edits end up being rewritten sooner or later, that this is just not about ego? Slrubenstein | Talk 16:54, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Birgitte, I strongly take issue with one thing you wrote in your 21:26, 10 November 2008 statement: I do not think it is appropriate to lump "mistaken/malicious/stupid/over-reacting/whatever" together. I never assumed Charles was malicious or stupid. But I do assume that all of us can easily be mistaken, acting in good faith. I think that is one major reason why we are a wikipedia. We all have positive contributions to make and much if not most of our contributions can be improved upon and we make it technologically possible for anyone to correct or improve someone else's contribution at any time. I think this is wonderful! I correct a mistake you made, you improve something Jehochman wrote, Jehochman corrects a mistake I made - that is what Wikipedia is all about! I think it is a shame that some people view this in competitive or antagonistic terms rather than a collaboration in which we help one another out. Charles meant well but made a mistake, and I corrected it before too much damage was done. I still just do not see why anyone should bring their ego into this. Slrubenstein | Talk 17:01, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What you quote from my comments was not intended as commentary on what happened between you and Charles. As I wrote preceding those comments Forget this particular case and think about it in general as I am asking Slr about how he behaves in the future. Look at it this way. Then I followed with commentary on the general process of unblocking considering a range of possibilities, which is what you quoted from above. I don't see anything wrong with respectfully disagreeing with an admin and unblocking. But it is best overall to give the blocking admin a chance to explain themselves and correct their own mistake. To present a unified corps of admins who are working together. To set-up the situation in a way that is most likely to resolve the problem and least likely to cause drama. I don't think a block should be left on hold for a long time waiting for the blocking admin to respond, but an attempt to consult them should be made. I don't see consulting the blocking admin as a general practice to be at odds with any of the sentiments you express above. In some cases the the blocking admin won't be available to consult and the unblock should go forward. But I see no reason not to consider consultation the best practice in general terms. In general, people are much more likely to interpert someones actions as collaborative rather than antagonistic, if they make an effort to communicate with them first. And that does not only apply to unblocking.--BirgitteSB 17:22, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Birgitte, I am not sure what else I can say right now. I respect your views - I consider them entirely reasonable ... but I do not fully agree with them. I do not put a value on, as you put it "present a unified corps of admins." I think wikipedians, the editors - the people really in charge here - are not unified, and I do not think they should be; I think the open society works best when it encompasses people with clashing interests and views and creates a space for disagreement and even disunity. I think the same goes for admins, but even moreso - since admins are given some special tools to help maintain Wikipedia, there is a risk that these tools will be mistaken as powers, and if admins are unified, and power is thus concentrated, we have a hierarchy which I view as antithetical to the open society. I see a value, a strong value, in adminsitrative disunity. Now, I DO agree with your last two sentences, I take them to be your more important point and I do agree with them. When I did the unblock I immediately left a conciliatory and respectful message for Charles. he was offline and did not respond for some time. I do not agree that I need his permission to unblock MathSci, and that is not what our policy states, it makes clear that an editor appealing a block can be blocked immmeidately and I was guided by policy. But I do believe in communication with people I disagree with, and I did that. I think you are still unsatisfied with what I did. All i can say is I respect your position even though I do not fully share it. Slrubenstein | Talk 17:37, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I also do not agree that you needed Charles' permmission to unblock. I am afraid you have misunderstood my position on that. I am far more unsatisfied with the filing of the RfC and the way it is presented than any of your actions. Our disagreement is over a rather fine point, but for whatever reason it is the point that has been taken under disscussion here. But you don't need to satisfy me. I may wish you would agree with my opinion, but it is just an opinion. --BirgitteSB 18:12, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your multiple clarifications. Look - I sincerely will attempt to make more serious efforts to communicate with blocking admins in the future, both as a gesture of respect and because I may have inedequate information. I do think there is a gray area when an admin blocks someone just before going offline for the night - I did observe several attempts to reach Charles over the course of a few hours after he blocked and before I blocked, a period during which he did not respond and it seemed like he wouldn't respond soon. Looking back over the evidence it is as clear to me now as it was then that MathSci did not out Mervyn, and that the block was unjustified, and it is very hard for me to say that I would not unblock someone immediately if it was clear to me that the evidence provided did not support the block. Perhaps I ought to contact, and can commit to contacting, the blocking admin first, and waiting a set and reasonable amount of time for a response before unblocking. The question is, how long is reasonable? I think the answer has to in part take into account the evidence and facts of the case. I certainly appreciate your bringing up these issues. I do feel there have been many changes at the Block policy page since this incident, changes that have not been adequately vetted by the community, and this concerns me. In all but extreme cases (3RR and outing come to mind) I think it should be easier to unblock than it is to block, though. Slrubenstein | Talk 19:36, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry if my statement is unclear, I've set down a summary of the situation without drawing conclusions but I think that Mervyn outed himself by describing his work and qualifications (in broad terms) while pasting in large sections of a book he appears to have written, and claiming knowledge of the copyright situation which does not appear likely or evident from the webpages I've seen. Mathsci did not confirm that identification, but did point out the information which was already public. While a warning with guidance on how to proceed might well have been appropriate, the block appears on reflection to be both unjustified and unreasonable. . . dave souza, talk 20:22, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
@Slrubenstein: Thank you, your comments do satisfy me. I understand there is a grey area and mileage may vary as to what is reasonable. At that point it just comes down to trusting each other to make the best decision on a case-by-case basis. And I do trust you and I appreciate the time you've taken to hash over the general principle here with me.--BirgitteSB 20:52, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Birgitte, you are very welcome. We all come to Wikipedia with different concerns and baggage, and many of us came to this RFC with different concerns. I fear my initial response to your comment on this page was too brusk and I apologize for that - I was responding as much to the RfC in general as to your comments. I came to this RfC hypersensitive to the way some administrators seem to be seeking to establishing themselves as authorities over the community of editors, rather than as servants of the community. I come sensitive to the fact that some claim to have secret or confidential knowledge to justify their acts, which really frightens me as I believe that transparency is one of the great strengths of Wikipedia, and people who are dismissive of transparency or who relish in secrecy and off-line decision-making can too easily abuse power and betray any trust the community has in them. I realize that sometimes select people do have to have powers not shared by others, and in some cases have to act on confidential knowledge. But I came to this RfC hypersensitive to the ways that these facts, yes, facts I fully accept, can be manipulated by some to screen their abuses of power, which really upsets me. But I know that your comments come from an entirely different direction, and one that is just as important. I think that in any collaborative effort there has to be a balance between one's good judgment and consultation with others. I have been involved in many edit conflicts where sometimes I (or someone else) mades a change that everyone recognizes as an improvement; other times, I (or someone else) raises an issue on the talk page for discussion before acting and people reach a consensus ... and sometimes I (or someone else) makes an edit to the article thinking it is uncontroversial, and suddenly complaints on the talk page make it clear that discussion is needed. Obviously the same happens among admins and I know that I often fail to achieve the proper balance. I think your comments remind us of the importance of seeking and finding that balance. Putting aside the facts of MathSci's case (not my case, but his case, because that is what this is really ultimately about), which I have addressed as best I can, I am glad that you pressed these concerns and helped me see that I could address your concerns without sacrificing my own. I am very glad to hash out the general principal and glad you made space for it, and insisted we address it, on this talk page. Slrubenstein | Talk 22:39, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments on Response by Slrubenstein[edit]

Would prefer no RFC at all. A supplement to this statement with diffs would be helpful for review. DurovaCharge! 19:41, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with Durova. Reading over this RfC from a 40,000' view, it reads fairly vindictive. What do I know. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 21:49, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The RFC need not be read with blinders. There is a dispute and there was an attempt by two people to resolve that dispute. Now we are here and the Community can provide views. All parties can hear the feedback and learn from it. Jehochman Talk 17:08, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
How is that comment relevant? Editors should be able to post a simple request for diffs without getting scolded. DurovaCharge! 17:20, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am addressing "would prefer no RFC at all", and I am not scolding anybody. My observation is that this RFC has generated useful feedback, even if it is not the feedback that the initiator had hoped to obtain. Jehochman Talk 18:26, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Struck through as noted. A month after the event, Slrubenstein has already apologized and the underlying dispute has been resolved between the blocked party and the person he purportedly harassed. If undisclosable offsite evidence does exist, then RFC format cannot adequately address it. It was as a courtesy toward Charles Matthews and yourself that I made the suggestion, since you have selected a venue which is inadequate to the task. The obvious alternative would not be pleasant for anybody. DurovaCharge! 19:02, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jehochman's endorsements[edit]

I noticed Jehochman has endorsed and certified this RFC. Traditionally, one either certifies it as a filer or endorses as an uninvolved party, could you clarify which role you are taking w.r.t. this RFC? MBisanz talk 22:05, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Silly me. I don't do RFC's very often. Now fixed. Jehochman Talk 22:07, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ahh, much better, my head is no longer in danger of exploding. MBisanz talk 22:08, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment on my own behalf[edit]

I'm reading things with interest. There is so much to disagree with, I shall have to be selective. Obviously, though, if an RfC leads to a clarification of policy where it was unclear, it is not "pointless" or a waste of time at all. What would a "Request for Comment" be if it wasn't a question of getting comments from those who wished to post them?

That being said, I don't think that the policy is that unclear. I'm used to discussions where people argue from the policies as a whole. I've pointed out specifics in earlier discussions. And I've pointed out where the onus lies: if you reverse an admin action without looking into the background, that's your responsibility. There are good reasons for not putting all kinds of things on the wiki explicitly. Obviously Oversight means that not all diffs are available, and admins should act in that context.

I'll comment further as I see what most needs addressing. Charles Matthews (talk) 22:27, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Charles, last year on an administrative board a discussion over a contentious article got sidetracked because of a desire to double check that type of concern: Cary Bass had recently edited the article to remove information, and some Wikipedians were concerned that the edit might have been an unnoted Office action. On that occasion I was one of the voices who preferred caution. Cary was not available for contact at that time. When he became available he clarified that the edit had been made in his own personal role as an editor and carried no special weight; had it been meant as an Office action he would have made that distinction explicit. Smooth functioning of the project requires active obligation on the part of people who are entrusted with special roles to take the initiative and specify when those roles play a part in their actions. It is perfectly human that now and then someone who has such a function might neglect to note it in a blocking summary; when they do it is likewise appropriate for that person to accept a share of responsibility for any resulting confusion and help put the episode to rest. It is rather troubling to see oblique references to Oversight in a context that casts a cloud over Mathsci's reputation. Please clear the air: if it was used then your position becomes more understandable; if not, he deserves to have all suspicion removed immediately. DurovaCharge! 01:33, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
OK then, I'll address here why there was no reblock, since this RfC is not about Mathsci at all. What happened was this (in line with the relevant policies, which should be read). Once Mathsci had mailed me about the business, I made three points: (i) that "attempted outing" is a defined term, and I had taken the view that inviting people to "draw their own conclusion" from evidence was within the definition (obviously this makes "attempted outing" very different from "outing" - even if it's as simple as 2 + 2, people onsite should not be saying it makes 4) ; (ii) it is certainly helpful to have copyvio discussed on the site, but we should be careful here, and in discussing copyvio on the site not speculate about the identity of the poster; and (iii) there had been no warning here, since the policy specifies an "immediate" block, and that can be taken literally. Once I had got these points over, there were some further mails, and an another arbitrator (therefore knowing the background) reviewed the correspondence with Mathsci. The conclusion was that, in the full context, the block had served its purpose (logged as reading time to get familiar with what WP:HARASS had to say on "attempted outing"). Mathsci had taken a thoughtful approach to what was being discussed, and was urged to continue to contribute, just avoiding these issues around personal information. With that, the matter was closed.
I therefore dispute that the initial block was either mistaken or pointless. People must stop jumping to conclusions on partial information. In an earlier AN/I thread I had urged a measured approach in another dispute involving Mathsci, and Paul August and I were working on mediation for that. Please note that Paul August, Mathsci and I are all in the Mathematics WikiProject, and in fact I share background with Mathsci, having been a professional mathematician. One of many unhelpful conclusions Slrubenstein has jumped to is that I'm unduly harsh on Mathsci for some reason. That is simply not the case - as I told Mathsci, better me than a random admin. The outcome justifies me on that.
I also have to take issue with Slrubenstein on reading of policy. "Attempted outing", as I say, is a defined term in WP:HARASS, and is strict. It should not be disregarded unless it is "unintentional and not malicious". Not "unintentional or not malicious": if the policy meant that, it would say that. So if someone tells others on the site to deduce a real-life identity from data, that is intentional. The fact that it may not be malicious at all doesn't matter. (I wouldn't have to tell a mathematician this, naturally. But that is why the policy needs close reading.)
So in the case of Mathsci the points were made, and there was no need to reblock. I don't need to go further into the background. In fact I have said in previous discussions that the idea that everything relevant needs to be put onsite at the time of blocking is just wrong from the blockee's point of view, also. Exactly because hints once made can't be retracted. This leads back to the main point: the unblocking admin has a basic duty to ask if there anything else, in private preferably. Tell me, please, why Slrubenstein's concerns could not have been in a mail I would have answered in the morning? We're not all in the same time zone, and the site is complex enough that admins should take the proper steps, not react in a rush. Slrubenstein's correct approach would have been to say to Mathsci "this doesn't seem right to me so I'll mail Charles, CC you, and we'll try to resolve it." Given that Slrubenstein already had some of the background, and some more was on my User talk also, I can't see why not. Charles Matthews (talk) 06:01, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I can't help feeling that your quotation of so called "defined terms" is the worst sort of inflexibility. Wikipedia is not run according to authoritarian principles that demands a strict adherence to the letter of the law, if it were I would have left a long time ago. So what if "the policy specifies an 'immediate' block"? Are we a bunch of automatons who refuse to use common sense? I don't think so. In fact the Wikipedia community expects that policies should not always be strictly applied (with the exception of our three core content policies). Just face it, it was a bad block that you are justifying by saying that you absolutely refused to use common sense. Just give it up man. Admit that you overreacted and let it go. I mean a week block was absurd under the circumstances. You even admit it yourself when you say that Slr's lifting of the block didn't need to be undone because it gave Mathsci time to read the relevant policies. So by your own admission a block of a few hours or so would have sufficed. Besides Slr provides evidence that the so called "attempted outing" was simply a comment on this post. Is that post an "attempted outing"? One could argue it is. You appear to be saying that by pointing out the obvious ("even if it's as simple as 2 + 2, people onsite should not be saying it makes 4") Mathsci had to be blocked because policy demanded it. I find that sort of reasoning deeply worrying ("I was only following orders"). The common sense thing to do would have been to contact Mathsci and have a quiet word in his shell-like about your concerns. Alun (talk) 06:47, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Reject this criticism as misunderstanding the position. All blocks are judgement calls, and I have argued consistently for wide admin discretion, matched by high admin accountability. Charles Matthews (talk) 07:48, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not really surprised that you "reject" my analysis, that's just a way of avoiding responding to the substantive points I made, the equivalent of putting your fingers in your ears. If all blocks are judgment calls and you argue for high admin accountability, then clearly you should just accept that you showed poor judgment and overreacted in this case, and just move on. In fact you are trying to avoid accountability here as far as I can tell. Alun (talk) 08:33, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
BTW Slr actually did use his discretion in this case, and when he did you posted this RfC. So even if you have "argued consistently for wide admin discretion" your actions are the opposite. Alun (talk) 08:37, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Be reasonable. Anyone could open an RfC on me any time. It might have roughly the same content as this very thread. And please take my point: the things go together. Admins are required to act in unclear situations, and they can be judged not only on what decision they took, but what efforts they went to, before acting, to gather facts. When the situation is not that urgent, higher standards are applied. A word like "overreact" just blurs the issue: I strongly reject any claim that the block was disproportionate (look at the log - there is a previous and resolved issue). Did you look at the log before posting that? The point about discretion is that there is a whole traditional debate on admins: do you give them fewer powers and expect less, or more powers and expect more? I say, more powers. But I also say, and have done for years, that means a few admins are going to be found wanting. We lose about 1 in every 100 admins every year because they really aren't right for the job in some way. So my position is consistent: give people the tools, don't have over-detailed implementation guides, but hold to some central values. One of which is not backing your own admin judgement against another's, until you have both sides of the story. Slr doesn't "get" this, in my view. Charles Matthews (talk) 09:40, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think I am being reasonable. I think applying a block in this case was an overreaction, that's my opinion. Now you can disagree with me all you like, but I gave my reasons for holding that point of view. I think it's a reasonable point of view that blocking was not necessary. I think it's a reasonable point of view that this could and should have been resolved without a block. I think it's a reasonable point of view that even if "policy demanded" a block, a block is not automatically necessary, that's a judgment call, and in this case I think your judgment was faulty. We all make mistakes now and then, in this instance I think that you made a mistake. You say that admins should be "judged on the efforts they go to, before acting, to gather the facts", but that equally applies to you. You could have just as easily contacted Mathsci and warned him before you blocked him. That would have lead to a very different outcome. You "strongly reject any claim that the block was disproportionate", but also say that "the block had served its purpose (logged as reading time to get familiar with what WP:HARASS had to say on "attempted outing")". That begs the question, why did you think that Mathsci needed a whole week to read the relevant policy? If the purpose of the block was to allow Mathsci to read the policy, then a week is clearly disproportionate. So if the block was not disproportionate, then it clearly wasn't originally applied for the purpose of reading the policy. Those are mutually exclusive claims. In this context Slr's unblocking was a perfectly acceptable administrative act, and this is supported by your own statement that the block had served it's purpose by the time Slr had lifted it. It is also clear that Slr did have both sides of the story, he reviewed the block and overturned it. You can't have it both ways, if admins are to use their own judgment, then that applies equally to Slr as it does to you. As far as I can make out your gripe with Slr is that you believe that his judgment was inferior to your own. You have every right to believe this, but others have the right to disagree with you, that's what this RfC is about, and so far it's supporting Slr. Alun (talk) 10:25, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Difference between quality of judgement and quality of decision. Given the same facts, Slr might have made a different decision, but these things are discretionary. Slr decided not to ask what facts I had, but to take an independent view. There lies the problem: self-inflicted lack of information, and apparent lack of detachment (thinks Mathsci an "exemplary" editor, has asked favours in the past, and so on). Charles Matthews (talk) 12:51, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the difference is that you showed poor quality of judgment and decision, and Slr showed good quality of judgment and decision. I think the claim of "self-inflicted lack of information" is extremely disingenuous, actually the lack of information, if there was any, was because you did not indicate that any further information as available when you blocked. So the so called lack of information available was due to your negligence and no other reason. This so called "missing information" that you keep alluding too is also conspicuous by its absence. I see you don't explain why you though it would take a week for Mathsci to read the relevant policy. Why's that? You state that the block was to give time for him to read the policy, and that's why Slr's unblock was not reversed. Why did you think a week was necessary for Mathsci to read the policy? Really you have showed very poor judgment indeed, in deciding to block, in the length of the block (it appears to be punitive and not for time to read policy, a week is far too long) and in bringing this RfC, which seems to me to be because no one should have the audacity to disagree with someone on the "ArbCom". I'm left with the impression of someone who simply wants to throw their weight around because they think they somehow have authority. Maybe it's time to abolish ArbCom altogether, and abolish admins altogether, and give everyone admin tools. Alun (talk) 07:32, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So Oversight played no role; merely a series of offsite emails. Bear in mind the impression your first post to this thread (and elsewhere) creates: that Mathsci might have made a second and far more blatant privacy invasion and/or harassment, which required the use of Oversight to correct. Now if there's some useful purpose served by introducing that to the discussion, please explain what it is. Lacking clear explanation of the positive value, it does have the appearance of (1) inflating one's own importance, (2) implying a hierarchy of administrators in which people with extra ops expect special deference, (3) cavalier regard for the hard-earned reputation of one of our more dedicated contributors.

No one expects that the mention of offsite information be conflated with the details of such information. Cary merely states when something an Office action, without describing why. It's a good model to follow. In fairness, yes it is better to contact the blocking admin. Yet where you yourself agree that the block had indeed served its purpose at the time it was lifted, and over a single month-old occasion, is it really necessary to initiate formal RFC on the unblocking admin? Both of your policy readings, though they differ, are within the realm of reasonable interpretation. DurovaCharge! 06:32, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Charles, can you say why you initiated this RfC weeks after the incident? The block was on or around October 17. You wrote up a draft RfC on a user subpage, then blanked it on October 21, perhaps having thought better of it. [1] You then revived it on November 9 [2] and posted it. Did something happen between October 21 and November 9 that made you reconsider? If not, you explain the delay? SlimVirgin talk|edits 06:46, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
So Oversight played no role; merely a series of offsite emails. No, I didn't say that. Please respect my wish not to make this about Mathsci. I find it hard to take that people coming here to comment are both dismissive about the personal information aspect, and determined to wedge open a matter that has been dealt with. Anyone can see that oversight is relevant to concerns about personal information, and may be relevant to harassment as we define it.
Both of your policy readings, though they differ, are within the realm of reasonable interpretation. No, the policy is quite unambiguous. If the long, long discussion by Slrubenstein shows anything, it shows that Slrubenstein argues around desiderata for policy, and doesn't address what the policy is. Admins are bound to apply policy, or to show reason why they ignore it. Slrubenstein should be much more careful. (The occasion is not single, and the age of a month is not relevant here - I was out of the country for a time, and Slrubenstein has had ample time to consider and re-read the actual policies.
I do not wear two hats, as Cary does. When I take an admin action, I expect fellow admins to treat me as a colleague: to tell me if I'm wrong, in their view, rather than over-ride me. I am predictably on Wikipedia, for large chunks of my day. My previous "stake" in addressing disputes around Mathsci was known to Slrubenstein, who made several mistakes going about this business. Saying policy is "descriptive not prescriptive", as Slrubenstein has, doesn't cut it at all.
Here is how Wikipedia:BLOCK#Confidential_evidence reads:
If a user needs to be blocked based on information that cannot be made available to all administrators, that information is sent to the Arbitration Committee or a Checkuser for action. Those entities are qualified to handle non-public evidence, and they operate under strict controls. The community has rejected the idea of individual administrators acting on evidence which cannot be peer-reviewed.
An exception is made for administrators who hold Checkuser or Oversight privileges; such administrators may block users based on non-public information revealed through the checkuser tool, or edits of the blocked user deleted via oversight, as such an administrative action is generally viewed to be made in the user's capacity as an oversight or checkuser, although the action itself is an administrative one. All such blocks are subject to direct review by the Arbitration Committee.
I think your point on Cary is related to the "generally viewed" business, and would actually make something prescriptive out of that. Where would this lead? Basically, if I'm an Oversight and I ever add a notice "Because I'm an Oversight, do not overturn this block without consulting me", I should always add it, to avoid singling out cases. Do you really want super-admins of this kind? No, the current basic understanding is that any admin makes an effort to discuss before reversing the action of another. This is the correct policy, combined with common sense and sensitivity to the whole gamut of issues (harassment and outing being very sensitive matters). It should be prescriptive. Charles Matthews (talk) 07:12, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Charles, WP:BLOCK has rarely been as unambiguous as you're claiming. There has never been consensus that the blocking admin must be consulted before an unblock. The policy always advised it to some degree, but if it became too definitive on that point, someone would soften it. (The version you're quoting was recently changed by FT2.) The fact is that admins want to be allowed to overturn blocks without fuss if they feel that a serious error has been made. That's not wheel-warring according to every definition the ArbCom or WP:WHEEL has put forward. SlimVirgin talk|edits 07:20, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Charles, it simply isn't tenable to initiate this RFC, allude to Oversight, and then expect that no one peek around the doors you open. If matters are so secretive as that, then you have chosen the wrong venue. DurovaCharge! 07:21, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It is tenable if you and others stay on-topic. This is not a general forum. It turns out this RfC is not "pointless" at all - plenty to discuss in the procedural way, the policies, wikiphilosophies. Cui bono, by the way? Who benefits if you pursue Mathsci? Please note that admins who think "open it all up and never, ever ask Charles for private discussion" may harm those they thought they were doing a favour to. Charles Matthews (talk) 07:45, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
On the timing: I already mentioned on User talk:Jehochman the main delay in writing up the case. The "precedent" is Slrubenstein's unblock of User:Proabivouac. The scare quotes are needed: this editor's past history is massively complicated. The unblock is relatively simple: Slrubenstein unblocked in less than an hour, without consulting User:FT2. Which isn't what you should do when someone is on ArbCom probation and some other admin takes a view as to what is best to do (hastily and without comparing notes). That went by and assessing its consequences is not for here and now. What I needed to do was to find someone uninvolved to write me an opinion as to whether the background issue in that was the same as in this case (concerns around personal information). If so, it would be strong evidence. I eventually got a good opinion written for me. The conclusion is that the haste in that case can be evidence here, but the personal information factor is not a common factor. So much for that. Charles Matthews (talk) 07:24, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
To User:SlimVirgin - plain mistakes can always be undone under IAR, and I hope always will be. If Slrubenstein had started that way, matters would have been clearer (I have already said this on my talk page, as part of the preliminary discussion.) Not what happened - let's go over it. If S wants to invoke IAR, S can do it directly - no need to have an appeal template posted as formality. The reason S thought it was a mistake is somewhere in there in the posting on my page, but included with things that shouldn't be there. If M told S that there was no malicious intention (which is OK as history, I think, and plausible to me anyway), there is the issue of S simply believing M's version. It happens that S thinks M is an excellent editor (I think M is potentially an excellent editor, BTW). But that means S is not uninvolved enough to be taking such a step - NB that S has site mail disabled, so M used a previously obtained email address. Therefore ... in that scenario S should not act directly, but get some admin T to unblock. T mails me, with the whole story - T says "seems to be a plain mistake, according to S, who says no malice: am I reading this situation correctly?" Why not ... why ever not? Because if a mistake is plain enough, there will be more than one admin who sees it, and an uninvolved admin is better. S was hasty, didn't take the high road. Charles Matthews (talk) 07:37, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Would you mind posting here the reason for the delay from October 21 to November 9? It does seem odd to revive an issue that had been resolved, especially when you say there are personal identity issues involved.
Regarding your suggestion that people e-mail the blocking admin, my experience of ArbCom is that it's very hard to get them to reply to e-mails. For example, Kirill Lokshin indefblocked Proabivouac a few weeks ago. I e-mailed Kirill to ask in what circumstances he would agree to an unblock, and he simply ignored me. How should an admin proceed in a case like that, in your view? SlimVirgin talk|edits 07:46, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A bit off-topic, but my own practice is known. I would leave the admin a talk page message asking "did you receive my mail?", and go patiently on. Charles Matthews (talk) 07:56, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you; I'll give that a try. It's not really off-topic though, because the above isn't an isolated incident. My heart sinks when I have to e-mail the ArbCom about an admin action, because it's like sending correspondence into a black hole. Did you e-mail Slrubenstein about the unblock, as a matter of interest, and if not, was there a reason? SlimVirgin talk|edits 08:04, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No, because Slrubenstein has disabled site mail, having apparently had nuisance mail in the past. I wouldn't have though that necessary now, because the site mail is somehow logged (in case of people misusing it). Anyway it makes it quite hard, considering Slrubenstein apparently thinks the onus is on people to ask to be given a private email address, and I feel the onus is on an admin who disables site mail to be that bit more communicative, to one and all, to make up. Charles Matthews (talk) 08:32, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Charles, be honest: people left messages on your talk page for some time after the block, and you were non-responsive. I lifted the block after observing that you were non-responsive. As soon as I lifted the block I left a note on your user talk page letting you know. I communicated with you immediately. (By the way, if you think it is hard work to ask someone to provide their e-mail address, or to provide your e-mail address and request an e-mail ... boy, I hope you never have to have a real job!! I can't imagine anything easier!) Slrubenstein | Talk 13:11, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So you waited two and a half hours on a Friday night, and chose your moment (five minutes to midnight here). I think, frankly, a person responsive by your definition would have no life at all. You were rude, and still are rude: you make these silly provocative asides. It is old flame-war stuff (boy, I hope you never have to have a real job!!). On your own account you didn't post any query before unblocking, and sent no mail before unblocking. You are in the wrong here. The message you left is lamentable, especially if you had 150 minutes in which to compose it. Your allusion to policy is just all wrong. You don't know the policy, and apparently don't care. What more is there to say? Like ZincBelief said, you unblocked your friend while I was asleep. Charles Matthews (talk) 16:14, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oversight[edit]

Charles, I agree with what Durova said above, concerning your vague references to oversight. If your reason for the week-long block is that Mathsci posted something so terrible that you had to oversight it (or another oversighter did so, but you knew about it because you have oversight access), then your position would gain more sympathy. Perhaps you'd get just a mild slap on the wrist for goofing by not putting in the block log that the block was based on oversighted material, or that arbcom should be consulted before unblocking, and perhaps there'd be a few questions as to why this RfC was brought up a month after the event, when there's no pattern for Slrubenstein, and when it draws more attention on a privacy issue that was apparently so serious that you felt a week-long block was necessary. (The unblock of Proabivouac was a year ago, and certainly had nothing to do with hush hush, private, oversighters only material.)

We're left completely in the dark, here. It seems that the case is one of the following:

  1. Mathsci posted something that was so bad it had to be oversighted. You or someone else oversighted it, and you blocked Mathsci, failing to note in the block log that your block was based on private evidence. You are justifiably irritated that Slrubenstein unblocked, but are failing to see that his overprompt unblock (for which he has apologized) was a minor fault, like your failure to make a proper block log entry that would have prevented this, and that as he has promised to try harder to consult with a blocking admin in future, you also need to promise to make better log entries — and then move on.
  2. Mathsci did nothing that required oversight, and oversight was not used. But you believe that because you have oversight access, your blocks are more sacred than other admins' blocks, even when the block has NOTHING to do with oversight. And you're prepared to make vague public references and insinuations about oversight, to strengthen your argument that your blocks (even without clear block log entries) are more sacred than other blocks, even though such references and insinuations are placing an unjustified stain on Mathsci's reputation.

You didn't have to make those vague references. But since you did, you really need to be more direct, since you've now introduced ideas that cast a slur on Mathsci. So could you please state, did Mathsci, in October, in the event for which you blocked him, post something that you or another admin oversighted?

Thanks, ElinorD (talk) 10:53, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But you believe that because you have oversight access, your blocks are more sacred than other admins' blocks. No, not what I believe. Slrubenstein has a maverick attitude, and says unblocking should be easier than blocking, whatever that means. It obviously applies to all blocks, and any admin's blocks. The RfC is to settle things, so that Slrubenstein takes on board policy and changes to an attitude of "communicate first". My point is that the site is complicated, with Oversight being a big issue in anything around personal information.
So let me address the big picture. We are against outing. There are people who treat finding the real identities of our editors as some sort of treasure hunt, and we are therefore against helping such outers. We have two basic methods, one of which is Oversight. The other is our complete deprecation of fooling around with personal information on the site. That is why "attempted outing" matters as an issue. Saying, look, we have pieces of information A and B and when you put them together there is an obvious conclusion about identity. Why do we have a strict policy on this? Two reasons. It makes the target feel uncomfortable. See RfC comments of the target here, quite new on the site, and quite disgusted with the casual attitude. That's why it is rightly a harassment matter. And, second, it simply plays into the hands of the outers. It provides clues for the treasure hunt, and even draws attention to them. That is why speculation about attempted outing is forbidden - it makes it more and more likely the outers will be helped.
So what is our actual position? We say, in effect, all disclosures of personal information you make on Wikipedia are your own responsibility. If you get it wrong, though, we provide Oversight: in confidence, you can have such things cleaned up (within some limits). This is today's Wikipedia. This is also the Wikipedia Slrubenstein apparently knows little about. Oversight constrains anyone who wishes to say "everything that matters to the running of the wiki is out there on the wiki". That is simply not true.
So there is a huge gap in the arguments, and overall view, I'm hearing. It is all so 2004, or whatever. Anyone can appreciate how many scenarios can involve admin A who spots some info needing oversight. Let's take just one, relating to editor E but added by editor F. Admin A should act in the best interests of E, obviously, and have the oversight done. OK, that diff is gone, but what if F does the same thing to another editor D? A may have thought that the first incident was just unintentional, best dealt with very quietly, and now it is "evidence"? There any many such narratives, and I'm not saying this one is relevant here.
But the point is that oversighted edits completely shoot down the idea that admins can examine a few diffs and know what is happening in a harassment or outing issue. Here A has no special standing, but knows enough to judge that F is a problem editor. What are going to do, create an incentive for not oversighting, in terms of justifying a later block for someone acting in a possibly troublesome way?
No, wrong, wrong, wrong. The point is that Slrubenstein's model is refuted, can't work except in the most simplistic cases. There can be problem behaviour and nothing left on the site.
I hope that explains the reasoning, anyway. Utopian talk simply doesn't defend the anonymity of our users any more. Why is it that people are saying in such large numbers that it is "pointless" to speak up for the victim? Charles Matthews (talk) 12:23, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
PS If you think pressing this issue is in Mathsci's interests, have you consulted Mathsci about that? You should, you know. Let's keep the discussion general. Charles Matthews (talk) 12:27, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have sometimes been accused (with justification) of being too prolix. But in my long posts, I generally do provide the actual information that I'm trying to provide. The problem is that my posts may be too long for people to want to dig through them to look for the crucial piece of information.
Your post is longer than mine, but no matter how hard I look, I cant find the information I asked for. Let me try again.
If Mathsci posted something that needed to be oversighted, and that was oversighted, I'm much more sympathetic to you, and I lose a lot of sympathy for him. You have introduced the idea into my mind, and the minds of others, that he did. But you apparently refuse to confirm or deny it. If you won't answer, that means he did, and for extraordinary reasons, you won't say so directly, or he didn't and for even more extraordinary reasons you are using your status as an oversighter to leave an unjust suspicion hovering over him. So which is it? He posted something that was oversighted? He didn't post something that was oversighted? You refuse to say, but are happy to leave the suspicion lurking in people's minds? ElinorD (talk) 12:56, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Let me make this point: there are numerous kinds of confidential evidence. The proper handling of blocks made on the basis is under policy quoted further up the page. Since confidential evidence could also be, e.g., knowledge of real life identity, or matters deriving from confidential mediation, the example of oversight is just a for-instance. I'm not going to answer your question in the terms posed: I shouldn't. If it makes things easier, replace it everywhere by something more like oversight/results of confidential mediation/real life information/confidential things mailed to ArbCom etc.; in other words what you get to read on the closed email lists. This all counts as "confidential evidence". I'm not going to tick the boxes on what it was: it would be wrong of me. I only had to mention oversight because Slrubenstein obtusely won't understand. I have mailed Jehochman a fairly full description, in confidence, because he asked. Charles Matthews (talk) 16:02, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Charles, you think the mere existence of oversight gives you permission to run roughshod over people's rights? Sorry, but we cannot allow that maverick behavior here. If you have oversight evidence that MathSci outed someone, please start and ArbCom case. If there is an ArbCom case against him the proceedings up which are conjfidential, well, okay (I would find this hard to fathom since Mervyn basically outed himself when he wrote on his user-page, "Conversely, anyone who knows something about a topic can only write what others have said about it, but cannot quote their own scholarly writings even briefly or they have a conflict of interest," [3][4] but, well, if you say so, Charles!). Just let us know that there is an ongoing ArbCom Case, or was one. Slrubenstein | Talk 14:08, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Quick points: "basically outed himself" is denied by the editor; your speculation about it is therefore against harassment policy. And enough with the false dichotomies already. Charles Matthews (talk) 15:47, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Charles Matthews. if MathSci's edit which you've done so much to highlight "outed" the editor, then that editor put information on his user page and text in an edit on an article which is a google search away from public information showing the same text verbatim in a book with a named author. Your repeated publicising of this information is presumably against harassment policy, I'd have expected you to show more discretion. . . dave souza, talk 18:34, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Let's be quite clear, that the fault lay in the invitation. If anyone posts here information tending to make their real world information easy to research, then the responsibility is theirs. If anyone else invites others to do that research, or make a deduction, then that is always deprecated. As you can see, I have not invited anyone at any point to deduce from the fact that Mathsci and I were both mathematicians that Mathsci was someone I knew. If I had, it would have been reprehensible, quite wrong. If someone else from saying "they know each other" had invited others guess where Mathsci was during the 1980s, given that my movements are no secret, that would probably count as "attempted outing", and I certainly feel Mathsci would have felt negatively about that. The whole business is that people have to learn tact in handling the personal information of others. That means being strict with oneself in speculating and inviting others to, amongst other things. I feel saddened that others contributing to this RfC think so little of this matter. Charles Matthews (talk) 19:37, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your agreement that if anyone posts here information tending to make their real world information easy to research, then the responsibility is theirs. In this instance Mervyn posted information which made it a requirement under WP:PLAGIARISM that research be taken further, to resolve various implications of text he added and the work of an author whose books he has cited. You seem to be suggesting unwarranted assumptions from the statements Mathsci posted, which noted the public information but rightly did not draw any conclusion as to whether or not Mervyn is that author – as Slrubenstein has pointed out, that's only one possible explanation. These were valid issues at the time of Mathsci's ANI post, it's not clear to me if they've been fully resolved. However I see no reason for that to involve divulging or confirming Mervyn's identity, and as you chose to disregard relevant parts of WP:OUTING about deleting the edits, instead linking to the diff, presumably you thought it tolerable. I'm sure you were acting in good faith to ensure there was not an escalation of the problem, and it seems rather a shame that this reopening of the issue has brought so much attention to Mervyn's possible identity. . . dave souza, talk 20:41, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Focus on the merits, not the personalities[edit]

I see several editors here who have traditionally supported each other. This is not a political battle. We are discussing a relatively cut and dry matter--don't overturn another admin's actions lightly. Try to discuss. If the admin is offline, go to the noticeboards and get a consensus. This could take what, maybe an extra hour or two? That is hardly onerous. I've been involved in two ArbCom cases that were triggered by hasty unblocks:

As I have stated already, many times, I would be satisfied if Slrubenstein endorsed the idea that he will attempt to check with the blocking admin before undoing any more blocks. The validity of the original block is not material to this discussion. What we see here was a block that didn't have a very transparent explanation. In that case, clarification was needed. Jehochman Talk 13:04, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally, I endorsed the statement of dispute not because I thought something horrible had happened, but because there was in fact a dispute, and prior efforts at resolution had failed. People should be encouraged to use dispute resolution to resolve disagreements. That's what it is for. I am disheartened at those who call this exercise pointless. It is far better for everyone to express their concerns, rather than to let the matter fester. Jehochman Talk 13:11, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like Charles Matthews is being unreasonable. His desired outcome is that Slrubenstein "acknowledge" things, agree to follow policy, and (amazingly) "desist from arguing..." It reads like a demand for some kind of ritual gesture of humility before an arb and oversighter. Yet three weeks ago Slrubenstein said "I regret my rapid unblock and am sorry to have hurt Charles's feelings. I believed it was a clear error and I did so in good faith." Charles had an expression of regret, and an apology. Now he's putting himself in the wrong. He'd do better to let it go, and accept that people won't treat his actions with any more deference than anyone else's. Tom Harrison Talk 13:16, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jehochman, you write "I see several editors here who have traditionally supported each other." Please avoid vague disruptive accusations. Please deal with people straight, or not at all. To whom are you referring? Aside from Charles (and Tom Harrison, after the fact - someone by the way I have had few if any dealings with), the people who have posted recently to this page are Durova, Slim Virgin, and ElinorD. Now, please put your money where your mouth is. In which case - please provide a specific quote - are they simply "supporting me" and not asking a legitimate question in response to something Charles Matthews wrote, or discussing Wikipedia policy? I see several editors acting in good faith to discuss Wikipedia policy, and you seem to want to turn this into a Dungenons and Dragons game. Am I being unfair to you? I hope so! But please help me apologize by proving me wrong: please show us where one of the people to recently comment on this page is being partisan and not acting in good faith and not addressing policy issues? You have questioned people's good faith. Support it with evidence, or apologize to them. Slrubenstein | Talk 14:05, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed. It should be no secret by now that SlimVirgin and I have disagreed with each other more often than not (Mantanmoreland, Zeraeph, and the disruptive editing guideline, for three). First, vague allusions to seekrit evidence; now, vague allusions to alliances. Jehochman, cease and desist. DurovaCharge! 15:33, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Jehochman, you and Charles have turned this into two issues: policy, and my relations with Charles. As to policy: Jehochman, some members of ArbCom may wish to see things this way. But this is not policy. According to policy an administrator can hear a blocked person's appeal and lift a block, period. Frankly, I approve of this policy. ArbCom cannot change it, and you should not try to use an RfC to change the policy. I wouldn't lift a block for a 3RR or an outing, but policy certainly encourages me to use my judgment otherwise, and if one admin cannot protect an editor from the abuse of power of another admin, who can?
As to my relations with Charles: I endorsed Dave Souza's statement, why hasn't Charles? When I unblocked, I left a conciliatory message for Charles, who sneered at it; when i apologized he ignored me. As Tom Harrison points out, I stopped arguing, with an apology, three weeks ago. How am I to respond to Charles's continued attempt to intimidate me into submitting to his authority three weeks later? The issue here is that Charles Matthews is a bully, blocked someone inappropriately, and is getting bitchy because I reverted the block. Charles Matthews has admitted he knows MathSci. I have received a communication from MathSci just today that Charles matthews and MathSci knew each other personally when MathSci was a Royal Fellow in Mathematics at Cambridge. Charles, I think it is unseemly if not inappropriate for you to block someone you know personally. Whatever your personal feelings are about MathSci (or anyone else who has a succesful career in mathematics) you must keep it off wikipedia. If you have concerns about the ethical actions of anothe editor, for example something like "attempted" outing, leave anote at AN/I and ask another less-biased admin, an admin with no ax to grind, to consider the case and act, or just ask other admins you respect to look at the evidence. Charles, this way you avoid the appearance of a conflict of interest. This way no one will suspect that this is about professional jealousy rather than Wikipedia policy. Admins have to at least try to avoid the appearance of such things.Slrubenstein | Talk 13:25, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
OK, if Mathsci has revealed that, I can discuss it. Charles, I think it is unseemly if not inappropriate for you to block someone you know personally. No, complete nonsense. You would know much more if you had contacted me directly, and as Jehochman knows because he did. This came at the end of long and time consuming series of email exchanges of mediation type, trying to deal with a number of issues (of which you are aware from the outside).
I find this almost incredible. You attack me, incivilly and personally, for undertaking work in order to smooth the way on Wikipedia of someone next to whom I used to sit in seminars, or in the coffee room at DPMMS. You are, really unforgivably, assuming I'm motivated by jealousy? You have no basis for that. I was dealing with the matter and applied a short block to impart "clue" about an aspect of harassment policy that is not obvious to people who assume that they don't have to read it. It is nonsense you are talking, really offensive stuff. Mathsci first contacted me here and told me that we had met before relative to the Michael Atiyah page. In that matter he was correct, and so I backed up his point in discussion. In later issues at the Mathematics WikiProject, he was involved in disputes where some of what he said was correct, some went too far, and I posted to try to clarify all that. And so it went on, and I was backed up in mediation by Paul August. So, please, for an independent outside view, consult User:Paul August as to whether, as you say, I have some chip on my shoulder about this, having not been given tenure at the University of Cambridge in 1989. Or whether, in fact, finding an old colleague on the wiki, I did what I could to preserve his reputation and continuation here from difficulties. When you have done with Paul August, please consult User:FT2 about the discussions and whether we did or did not make best efforts to retain Mathsci on the wiki. And then get back to Mathsci, and confirm that over the same weekend he invited himself to the next Cambridge meetup, and offered to buy me a drink. Good grief! Charles Matthews (talk) 17:37, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Charles, all I meant to say was that I think it is better not to take administrative action - block or unblock - someone with whom we have an off-wiki relationship; I would apply this to myself as well. I regret that I expressed myself in such a way as to make it appear I was making a personal comment when I was trying to make a general point. That said, I want to thank you for the clarification and reassurance. I completely withdraw my mistaken suggestion, and moreover, want to acknowledge the efforts you have taken to preserve Mathsci's reputation, which are clearly laudible. I know you are wishing I had taken efforts to clarify all this before I wrote and what can I say, you are right, I wish I had done so and am sorry I did not. I remain a little puzzled that you then felt it appropriate to drag out the issue again into the pressure and exposure of the RfC process. I see conflicts as situations thaat impede the editing process. There were a number of conflicts going on that night at more than one article, and it seems that they have been resolved. I hope we can now reach agreement on any outstanding issues. I had hoped that my agreeing with Dave Souza's principles would help. You have not spoken to them, although I would have thought you would agree with them as well. Slrubenstein | Talk 18:55, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, that's pretty neat: all I meant to say was, and you don't strike words like "bully" and "bitchy". That was a propos of the main thrust here, which is that you should comply with stated policies in the future. If you agree that the stated policies do apply to your unblocking at any future time, we are basically done. With this business more out in the open, I think the situation is clarified. If (counterfactually) Mathsci were in Cambridge (not the case, I know), Mathsci would be in my time zone, no? So you would have unblocked Mathsci around midnight, when Mathsci and I could both have been getting a proper night's sleep. Then, I think, an email from you about this that I read in the morning would have led to a quick and uncontroversial resolution of the matter. That, I say, is counterfactual, but it will do and doesn't misrepresent anything. I was in good faith needing to focus with Mathsci on the hazards of getting involved in discussions of personal information on the site, if you don't know what you are doing. Simply put, I see an old colleague wandering around in a policy minefield where there are other open issues, and I act to stop it getting any worse and to stop other admins getting there first. That is the real story. I should like you to understand why, in effect, failing to assume my good faith has here led you astray. I don't want this kind of systematic error in the system. I want you to see (and now I think you may) that wheels within wheels operate. And I'm not bullying you, I really believe I'm showing you the reality. Charles Matthews (talk) 19:58, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thinking it over for five minutes: if you accept my version of events as close enough (I know where Mathsci is right now, but just check privately that this is all good enough) we are pretty much through with this as case study. I mean that the reasons for the configuration of policies is demonstrated by the facts of the case, now we have a reasonable narrative. We can let the whole thing drop really, if you'll AGF of my actions now. Nothing bad happened after the unblock (it might have, in various scenarios, but it didn't). Charles Matthews (talk) 20:26, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Charles, that seems sensible and reasonable to me, and off the cuff there doesn't seem to be any great disagreement. Again, everyone was acting in good faith to avoid unfortunate implications, and I hope that's resolved the issues. . . dave souza, talk 20:48, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I believe we are done, and ressentiment can go back to arm's length, as it should be kept. Charles Matthews (talk) 14:23, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(ec)Remarks I posted here subsequent to the RfC understandably led you to think I questioned your good faith when you blocked MathSci. I regret that, and I think I have made it quite clear that I regret that. Nevertheless, having reacted intemperately, it is fair to ask me to clarify this and I hope that this puts an end to the question: when I unblocked MathSci, it was not a sign that I thought your block was in bad faith. In fact, I truly and sincerely believed at that time as I do now that you acted in good faith. I thought that what I wrote on your talk page at the time made it clear that although we disagreed I nevertheless assumed you were acting in good faith. Reviewing what I wrote that night I see that I did not explicitly state that I assumed you had acted in good faith. I did not write this because I did not believe anything I had written suggested otherwise. I thought my explanation was adequate and obviously given your reaction it was not. In retrospect it seems that I should have stated explicitly that I acknowledged that you were acting in good faith, and although I reget that I did not spell it out then, I am quite happy to do so now: I believed then and believe now you were acting in good faith. I am sure that whatever we disagree on Charles you and I can both agree that it is important that we both assume good faith on the other's behalf. Slrubenstein | Talk 20:55, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest you not use Charles behavior as a defense for your own. I would be happy if you said unequivocally, "My rapid unblock was a mistake. From now on I will follow WP:BLOCK, WP:WHEEL and other relevant policies when considering unblock requests." The apology you mention above sounds like a non-apology apology. "I regret my rapid unblock and am sorry to have hurt Charles's feelings." We are not here to force any apologies in any case. As for Charles' behavior, if you, Mathschi or anybody else have concerns, dispute resolution is available. You should note that I entered this dispute on your side. I was skeptical of the block, but was rather amazed that you lifted it after I asked Charles for an explanation. It would have been better to wait for his response. I am not exactly a Namby Pamby administrator. When you saw me pull up short, that should have been a strong clue. Jehochman Talk 14:04, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"When you saw me pull up short, that should have been a strong clue." Uh, are you saying that I should surrender my good judgement to yours? Are you saying that this whole mess is really about your wounded ego, that I didn't "follow" you? Sorry, J, but the fact that I do not follow you does not mean I do not respect you as a fellow editor. If you think you were dropping some "clue" for me, well, you should have left a message on my talk page explaining what the "clue" was or at least explaining that the "clue" involved an oversight or arbcom proceeding against MathSci (of which, by the way, there is still no evidence, so much for so-called clues). Now, I am sorry if my not following you somehoe offended you, but I really wish you could accept that my doing what I think is right under the circumstances is not a personal attack against you. I did not violate BLOCK and I did not violate WHEEL. But so what? What is important is that a bully, using adminstrative tools, blocked an editor for outing when the editor did no such thing: I righted a wrong, an abuse of power. That is the issue here, and I was right to protect the rights of the editor who had done nothing wrong and was blocked by an admin who then went off-line. Do not use your mistaken appeals to policy to cover up Charles Matthew's abuse of power: WP:NOT#DEM. Stopy wiklawyering and instead focus on the fact that Charles Matthews has yet to provide any evidence to justify his block. You asked him for an explanation. He did not give you one. That is between you and him. I looked at the evidence, including past behavior, and concluded an admin had abused his power. The block was punitive, and unncessary. The actual dispute could be resolved without resorting to a block, I knew that, I lifted the block, and the dispute resolved itself over the next couple of days. This is what matters - helping editors edit articles, not your administrator-club power-games. Slrubenstein | Talk 15:24, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Slrubenstein, I have never felt the least bit offended by anything you said or did. My point was that if one admin has already delayed processing an unblock request in favor of seeking additional information, why not just wait for that additional information to appear? If you thought there was abuse from Charles, an arbitrator and somebody who is supposed to have a very high clue level, why not ask for clarification? Jehochman Talk 00:31, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Jehochman, I am relieved to hear it. The bottom line for me is this: policy does not require the consent of the blocking admin for an unblock, and it does not universally require consultation. I happen to agree that in general and in principle consultation is a good idea, but it is not policy, should not be made policy, and the current flexibility is important. I have been reverted and never took issue with it, I honestly did not imagne Charles would take issue with my correction. I really did not. For what it is worth I think it is ill-advised to block someone and go off-line, it is a good idea to find someone who will be around to do the block and if the there has been adequate AN/I discussion and the evidence is strong, it should not be hard to find a second admin agreeable to a block. I consider all editors to have a "high clue level," I try to assume good faith always. I also assume all editors, regardless of experience, make mistakes, which is why it should always be possible for someone to appeal a block and for the block to be lifted in a speedy fashion if another admin considers it reasonable. i made it clear from the beginning: my reversing the block was not a negative comment on Charles; my feeling the black was unjustified does not besmirch his experience or contributions. I am sorry to see that he does not extend the same courtesy to me, and consider that if I lifted the block it was because I felt I had good reasons to do so. To invoke our core policy, NPOV, Charles and I do not have to agree on our views of the truth, but we should be able to agre that we can have different views of the truth.Slrubenstein | Talk 00:56, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The makers of the this RFC asked for exactly what they got. The actual situation is long since resolved. This RFC can only be seen as an exercise in self-importance. I wasn't familiar with Charles Matthews before this incident, but the only thing he's accomplished here is making himself look extremely foolish. The only remaining issue here is one of personality, so it's appropriate to focus on that. Charles Matthews has the wrong personality for the kinds of positions he's in. Is he self-important because he's on arbcom, or is he on arbcom because he's self-important? This is a question worth considering. The desired outcome here should be making sure we stop putting people like that on arbcom. Friday (talk) 14:24, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I reject the argument that "There is clearly an unresolved dispute, therefore I certified the RFC/U". First of all, I'm not entirely convinced there is an unresolved dispute, from a practical standpoint. The "unresolved" part seems largely to be theoretical and emotional.

But even if we accept that there is an unresolved dispute that needs resolving, not every dispute needs to be escalated to RFC/U. I can't tell you how many times in helping out at WP:WQA, I have successfully told the involved parties, "Look, I know you hate each other, but there's no content dispute and no action to be taken, so just go your separate ways. Neither of you are getting an apology, so just get over it." Now, I could tell those people, "I can't help you; escelate to WP:ANI", but I think that doing that is irresponsible, as it would result in ANI getting swamped even worse than it already is with petty disputes that don't really require any action.

SCOTUS doesn't hear every appeal that comes their way, and similarly it's not necessary to escalate every unresolved dispute, particularly if the "unresolved" portions don't have a bearing on practical actions. So I do not buy Jehochman's argument. --Jaysweet (talk) 14:45, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I did what I could to defuse this matter informally. Charles was not satisfied with the result. He brought the matter here, a correct use of dispute resolution. If the community disagrees with Charles and supports Slrubenstein, that will be the result. Having an open discussion with the community is far better than other alternatives. Jehochman Talk 14:54, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If you seriously believe Charles is so pissed off about this one incident that he would be willing to take it to RfArb, then perhaps Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Charles Matthews should not be a red-link... Just sayin'... --Jaysweet (talk) 14:56, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Matthew Hoffman. Just saying what everyone is afraid to mention. 32.136.206.33 (talk) 14:59, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I linked to it immediately above using the anchor text "other alternatives". Jaysweet, I believe in the liberal use of dispute resolution. We should not discourage people from using established processes for resolving disputes. If anybody wants to click that red link, I will support their right to do so, just as I have supported Charles Matthews right to bring this RFC. Jehochman Talk 15:06, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is an abuse of Wikipedia "dispute resolution" processes when the so-called dispute is merely Charles's wounded ego. I urge everyone to reflect on the real priorities here: Wikipedia is the encyclopedia anyone can edit at any time. This means that sometimes editors will come into conflicts over how to edit an article. In such cases there are a variety of ways to resolve the dispute. There is only one such dispute at issue here, a dispute over editing the article Coal mining involving Mervyn Emrys and several others. That dispute was resolved, case closed. Now, I do not recall whether Charles Matthews and I have ever worked on the same article around the same time, but I know for sure that there is no dispute between us. Why am I even writing this, when I could be helping to improve a WIkipedia article? Why is Charles trying to hijack asn encyclopedia project to call attention to his bruised feelings? Let the RfC run its course if you insist but clearly most people see no conflict that needs community attention, and many would rather we get back to the business of making the world's greatest encyclopedia. That's my priority - isn't it Charles's also? I apologized to Charles, I signed onto Dave Souza's statement, I am not sure what else I can do for Charles, but I think the real question is this: What can Charles Matthews and Slrubenstein do for Wikipedia?. I think the answer is: Work on articles, like any other editor. And if in the course of editing an article we enter into a dispute, well, then we can appeal to WP's dispute resolution processes. In the meantime, let's not abuse them. Slrubenstein | Talk 15:19, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

When I want a lecture from you on writing articles, I will definitely ask. Charles Matthews (talk) 16:17, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Since Slrubenstein has signed on to my statement, he has agreed that "unblocking admins should notify the blocking admin that they are reviewing the block, but should not wait unduly long before unblocking unless reference has been made to an undisclosed reason". Charles Matthews, that seems to meet your primary demand here. I've also suggested that "blocking admins should take care to give an adequate reason or to note that there is an undisclosed reason". Your position seems to be that it's ok for a blocking admin to give an inadequate reason for the block then go off-wiki, and the block stands antil the blocking admin returns and answers queries that have been raised. That appears unreasonable to me, though of course it's always a judgement call. . . dave souza, talk 18:46, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That's very good news, Dave. I move that we all adjourn to the pub and buy each other a round (or several). Jehochman Talk 00:33, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well said Dave. This RfC is clearly supporting Slr, and I personally have no idea what Charles is expecting. Looks to me like Charles is expecting "unconditional surrender". That's not how this works, most of the respondents here have supported the views of Moreschi "This RFC seems like a major fuss over nothing" (23); Slr's response (16); Ramdrake "this looks like an overblown reaction to a simple misunderstanding" (12); ScienceApologist "This, like most User RfCs, is a monumental waste of time." (12) and JoshuaZ "First, it is a good idea for admins to consult with blockers of all sorts before unblocking. However, failing to do so on a single block, especially a questionable block on a long-time user is not that big a deal." (11). Currently a small minority support the basis of this dispute "Powers misused: Unblocking" (4). Currently there is a clear consensus that Slr did not misuse his so called "powers" (is he a superhero I wonder? "I have the power to unblock!"). This travesty needs to be put to bed. Alun (talk) 10:00, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This appears to be wandering far afield from the incident that is the apparent source of the RfC. Can we all step back for a moment? -- The Red Pen of Doom 18:34, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Enough already[edit]

This circular firing squad is doing no one any good. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 15:35, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yah, the mudpits are that way. :) This isn't productive at all.--Ramdrake (talk) 16:26, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The sad thing is that no one figures it out until everyone is shot. Of course, I'm not convinced that everyone knows how to aim. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 01:14, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Shot....won't people want some info about that :-) Shot info (talk) 07:12, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"I have the power to Unblock, your shots cannot touch me!" Alun (talk) 10:04, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rationalization and self-justification are poor indicators of truth and justice. In all the discussion he has generated on this issue, there is no indication Slrubenstein can distinguish between right and wrong. In his mind, he is always right; in his mind, his every deviation from Wiki policy was justified. And his deviations were significant. Mervyn Emrys (talk) 14:43, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What significant deviations? He didn't consult before reversing what was a bad block (Charles has agreed it was too long), which although frowned upon isn't against policy. He's apologised for that and said in future he'll do more to contact people. What is the point of continuing this? Also, you're breaching the WP:NPA policy quite significantly in your post above. I suggest you revise it. And why not let's all just move on? Like the title: Enough already! Verbal chat 15:45, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Although I have hesitated to comment, since drinks are being mentioned by Jehochman, I would like to make a small parenthetic comment as another involved user. I have already promised Charles and WJBscribe free drinks at the next Cambridge meetup - my local is the Champ, but there is alas no wifi :(. In fact, back in October I asked for the block to be reinstated, one of the principal reasons being to avoid an RfC like this. The three arbitrators saw no reason to do this, because they considered the matter had already been resolved. For those interested, the block was justified by a short ill-judged email I sent off-wiki in early July, in response to a hate message on a user page, since removed by two administrators. That is what the message cited by Slrubenstein above refers to. I do not believe there are any other outstanding matters and this has been settled off-wiki very amicably with Charles, who has been extremely helpful. Like Charles, I am a former university lecturer and college fellow at Cambridge and we know each other from there. There, however, my self-outing must end. Mathsci (talk) 16:19, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Verbal, my comment falls considerably short of a personal attack as defined in WP:NPA, especially when compared to some of the things said about me, Charles Matthews (whom I have never met) and others by Slrubenstein in the RfC to which this talk page is attached. Perhaps you should read that before you comment here? I mean the whole thing, not just the parts with which you agree. Mervyn Emrys (talk) 17:09, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, are you a psychiatrist? A mindreader? Both? Because you make a claim that Slrubenstein cannot distinguish between right and wrong, and according to DSM IV that characterization would indicate you think Slr is a sociopath, which is a personal attack. I'm really impressed at your diagnostic skills. Oh, and since I doubt you're a psychiatrist, mainly because you could be censured for diagnosing over the internet, and I know scientifically that mindreading doesn't exist, you have just engaged in a personal attack against another editor. I await your apology to Slr. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 00:00, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
OrangeMarlin, this is not helpful, and it is beneath you. I beg you to strike it out or delete it. I am sorry that Mervyn Emrys bears a grudge against me when I do not believe I attacked him and did not intend to attack him, but that it his business. It doesn't justify your calling him (or any editor) a sociopath. I do not expect an apology from him (when I made a conciliatory comment on his talk page, he deleted it, c'est la vie) but I won't make a case of it. Please there is no need to escalate this. People can judge ME's comments about my mind, and his way of dealing with conflicts, for themselves.Slrubenstein | Talk 00:07, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
He's making the accusation about you, I'm not accusing anyone of being a sociopath, because a) I'm not a shrink, and b) if I were, it wouldn't be appropriate. He accused you of not knowing the difference between right and wrong. And unless he retracts that highly inappropriate personal attack, I am certainly not going to let it slide. I did not call him anything but a personal attacker. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 00:20, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Umm, I still don't think it's beneath me. I believe in giving full-throated supported to individuals who are being treated in a manner that I do not agree. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 00:29, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Orangemarlin, allow me to echo Slrubenstein's concern. Mervyn Emrys has strong opinions, but it doesn't resolve the situation to turn up the heat. DurovaCharge! 16:33, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I strongly disagree. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 23:13, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps it would be useful if everyone would stop simply reading and responding to each others comments, go back to the top of the project page, reread the Statement of the Dispute and focus on the issues raised there. Or have you all forgotten what this is really about? Warring factions do not make Wikipedia attractive to visitors or new editors. Mervyn Emrys (talk) 20:11, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've been doing that, and it seems to me that the primary point is the question of unblocking without notifying the blocking admin. It's been discussed, changes have been made to clarify relevant policy and Slrubenstein has given an undertaking not to do that in future. Glancing above, Charles appears to be offering resolution on essentially that basis. All hopeful, dave souza, talk 20:32, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mervyn:

Alun (talk) 12:13, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re Involved view by Mervyn Emrys[edit]

I don't understand the view, so I can't endorse it - or even have a view on it. It is currently just two quotes. Could you expand upon it, either here or there? Thanks, Verbal chat 18:13, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I thought he was making a point about partisan bickering, i.e. that rather than finding a solution, this discussion seems to be about one "side" pointing fingers at the other, and vise versa.
That was my interpretation, at least.... Hopefully he can clarify :) --Jaysweet (talk) 18:17, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand it either. As far as I can see it does not give any sort of view one way or the other. Even if Jaysweet's guess is right, that's still irrelevant to the RfC. The purpose of this RfC is to determine if the community accepts that Slr misused his so called "power" to unblock. That's explicit in the statement of the dispute. Any involved view should address that issue, or it should be removed. I already asked User:AlasdairGreen27 to remove an outside view he provided here because it did not address the issue of the RfC. [5] He was prompt and courteous when he did so. I think that it is right that Mervyn gives his involved view, but I think it should be an honest and explicit elucidation of how he sees Slr's behaviour. I think it's poor form to leave cryptic quotations that are irrelevant to the substantive reasons for this RfC. Alun (talk) 06:23, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, there never was any clear "Satement of Dispute" anyway, just a launch into a desire for a massive "mea culpa". -- The Red Pen of Doom 12:55, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe, as far as I can tell the basis of the dispute is the section "powers misused" where it says "unblocking". I don't think unblocking is a "power" and I'm a bit confused about what it means to use weird language like that, I don't think anyone has "power" here except for Jimmy Wales. I am sure that unblocking Mathsci wasn't an abuse of Slr's administrative tools. No clear case has been made that Slr had an obligation to ask Charles' before unblocking. Don't admins usually post on AN/I when they block, and request that another admin take a look (I've certainly seen them do it)? And isn't it normal for another admin to check blocks (if not, why not?)? But it seems to me that in essence we're here to get community input regarding the unblocking. So far a supermajority agree that either Slr has no case to answer, or that Slr may have been a tiny bit overzealous in unblocking, but that it was a minor thing. A small minority seem to think "powers were abused". Alun (talk) 13:42, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I guess the Wikipedia:Requests for comment/SlrubensteinII#Description section does clarify why the filer placed this case. Begining with the long list of desired outcomes without any prior context threw my perception off. -- The Red Pen of Doom 14:30, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I had taken a pledge not to comment here, but I can't argue with James Madison, one of our greatest and littlest Presidents. So I had to endorse. MastCell Talk 23:21, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Mervyn I still don't understand what you are trying to say. How is your so called involved view relevant to Slr's unblock? You comment seems to be about the RfC, and the fact that it's not going your way, rather than about Slr's actions. I'm also a little concerned with your comment that anyone who disagrees with Charles must belong to a faction that is opposed to him due to a vendetta against him. At best that's not an assumption of good faith. Besides it's obvious that Charles has also been around enough to have made many "allies" as well as "enemies", and he is obviously well respected enough to have been voted onto the ArbCom, that means that in fact he has a great deal of support here. Where are those who support him in this RfC? Couldn't it simply be that Charles shouldn't have brought this RfC? Couldn't it simply be that this is a storm in a teacup. Couldn't it simply be that this is more about wounded pride than any substantive abuse of administrative tools on Slr's part? Isn't it simply the case that the reason few people support Charles' view, even though he is a well respected member of ArbCom and therefore, by definition, has a great deal of support on Wikipedia, is that this RfC simply shouldn't have been brought because it lacks any substantive basis. Or do you not accept that anyone who disagrees with you or Charles can ever be acting in good faith? I'm even more concerned with this comment "That happens a lot with city managers, presidents, judges, arbitrators, and others who try to maintain a semblance of order amidst anarchy", the types of people you refer to are officials that have been invested with "authority", no one is invested with authority here (except Jimmy Wales). Wikipedia is an anarchy, that's the way it is supposed to be. You seem to believe that anarchy means something like chaos, that's wrong, anarchy means without leaders. We don't have leaders here. Anarchistic systems do have order, they are simply not hierarchical. If you don't like that then this is simply not the place for you, I suggest that you would be more comfortable at Citizendium where there is a deliberate authoritarian system set up. I'm afraid that there is no cabal and I've noticed that those who claim there is, are usually those who don't like the fact that the community doesn't agree with them. In fact I've seem it time and again where Wikipedians will disagree on cases like this strongly, but be quite happy to agree on equally controversial subjects. But the fact is that this RfC isn't split into "factions", there is a spectrum of views in the mainspace, from "Slr was totally wrong" to "Slr was mostly wrong" to "Slr was neither right nor wrong but policy needs to be clarified" to "Slr was a bit wrong but it's no big deal" to "Slr did nothing wrong". That's what we should expect in an anarchy. Likewise those that think Slr did nothing wrong may be happy to endorse a point of view that says that Slr could have held off a bit or been a bit more careful. That's because we need to give considered responses. I'm very suspicious of anyone who tries to divide a situation like this into a dichotomy. There is no absolute right or absolute wrong. That would be factionalism, but we don't observe that in this RfC, we see a range of views. Wikipedia is not a democracy, we do not have "parties" (except possibly on an ad hoc basis), when we work, we work by consensus, and not by relative majority. I'm sorry this is turning into an essay, but what you said made me angry. Please don't give a view of the RfC or the participants of it, give a view of the situation that brought the RfC about. Thanks. Alun (talk) 11:14, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I never said what you said I said, that "anyone who disagrees with Charles must belong to a faction that is opposed to him." Look again, and try not to twist my words into something they are not. That is certainly NOT acting in good faith, or assuming I am acting in good faith. All I did was note a peculiar pattern of views and endorsements, where after the first couple of views the usual suspects show up again and again, giving the illusion of more unanimity than there may really be. What one actually finds on the RfC page is a large number of endorsements by a small number of the same people, over and over, making it appear there is more participation and more agreement than there actually is. If it walks like a faction, and quacks like a faction, it's probably a faction. That's just an observation.
Madison's reference to "parties" is widely understood as a direct reference to factions, as there were no organized political parties at the time he wrote it.
Although we appear to agree Wikipedia is somewhat like anarchy, you do not seem to understand what anarchy is. You say above "anarchy means without leaders." That is not quite accurate. There are always leaders in anarchy (usually described as provocateurs), whether or not they are recognized as persons with legitimate authority. In fact, the common dictionary definition of "anarch" is "an adherent of anarchy or a leader practicing it."
There is no such thing as an "anarchistic system" (your term) because anarchy is by definition anti-systematic. It is, in fact, disorder, if not pure chaos. Wikipedia, because some attempts are made to impose order on it, is not a pure anarchy, yet some would apparently prefer it to be so, because some resist efforts to impose any small degree of order on it--by insisting, for example, that editors and adminis follow Wiki policies concerning blocking, outing and harrassment. Sometimes that resistance looks remarkably like a filibuster, and other times it looks like mobbing. Both are apparent in this RfC.
In the Wiki article on mobbing appears the following sentence: "In the book MOBBING: Emotional Abuse in the American Workplace, the authors claim that mobbing is typically found in work environments that have poorly organized production and/or working methods and incapable or inattentive management and that mobbing victims are usually 'exceptional individuals who demonstrated intelligence, competence, creativity, integrity, accomplishment and dedication'".
Coincidence, I guess, that that description so aptly describes the current circumstance of Wikipedia concerning this RfC.
Is it usual for editors to invite other editors to leave Wikipedia as you have done here? Or might that be considered a violation of some Wiki policy? Regardless, you may very well get your wish, as it is difficult to find much respect for some of the behaviors I have seen here. Is that what you think is best for Wikipedia?
I have already given a view of the situation that brought the dispute about, which you and your friends appear to have blithely ignored. Please see endorsements at the end of the Statement of the Dispute in this RfC. Mervyn Emrys (talk) 16:01, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"and try not to twist my words into something they are not". Oh come on, that's absolutely not what I did. What I did was paraphrase what I thought you were saying when you said "Also interesting to note how many of them appear to have some sort of history with Charles Matthews, who apparently has been around long enough to get on the wrong side of a few people". If I misunderstood what you were saying, then it's a misunderstanding, pure and simple. There is no reason for you to assume I am deliberately twisting your words.
"you do not seem to understand what anarchy is". I'm certain I do, it means without rulers, see Anarchy.
"There is no such thing as an "anarchistic system" Really? The International Workers Association and the Confederación Nacional del Trabajo, would be surprised to hear that.
"It is, in fact, disorder, if not pure chaos." Ah, you should tell that to the participants of the Spanish revolution, they obviously didn't know and ignored that particular rule.
"In the Wiki article on mobbing.." Well the Wikipedia article on paranoia says "Paranoid thinking typically includes persecutory beliefs concerning a perceived threat towards yourself." I don't think either the article on mobbing, or the article on paranoia is at all relevant here. But even the devil can quote scripture.
"Is it usual for editors to invite other editors to leave Wikipedia as you have done here...you may very well get your wish" I didn't "invite" you to do anything, I am in no position to invite anyone to do anything, it's certainly not my wish that you leave, I want everyone who can contribute constructively to stay. Can you point out explicitly where I state this "wish"? I can't see that particular statement of mine that you say I made. This is a free place, anyone can edit here, and anyone can leave. I'm not entirely sure what you are getting at. If you felt threatened, then I'm sorry, that wasn't my intention.
I get the impression that you feel you have to defend yourself. I'm sorry if you felt that I was attacking you in some way, that wasn't my intention at all. I really do hope you stay and contribute. Alun (talk) 16:45, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Alun: "If you don't like that then this is simply not the place for you, I suggest that you would be more comfortable at Citizendium where there is a deliberate authoritarian system set up." Your words above, not mine. If this is not an invitation to leave, what is?
"Rulers" are not the same as "leaders," the latter being your term. We have many more leaders in the world, and in Wikipedia, than rulers. Yes, I've read the article on Anarchy. Perhaps you should too.
Take a little responsibility for your actions Alun. If you are going to spout off as you did above, you should expect a little push back, especially from folks who are not part of your faction.

Oh, and have a nice day :) Mervyn Emrys (talk) 19:31, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mervyn, the RfC has been officially closed. Please let bygones be bygones.--Ramdrake (talk) 20:31, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ramdrake, certainly, I always do. And noting the message to which I responded above was also posted after the RfC was closed, did you leave a similar message for Alun? No? Mervyn Emrys (talk) 01:12, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
My comment may have been posted after the RfC closed, but only by a few minutes, obviously I had started writing it before the RfC was closed and I could have had no way of knowing that it had closed when I posted. So the situations are not analogous. Alun (talk) 05:33, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am reminded of an interesting essay. --Elonka 05:53, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Outside view by a user who fears retribution[edit]

Both Elonka, per her sucessful but ignored recall, and Charles Matthew, per his community rejected block of MathSci, and his community rejected hounding of Vanished User, both evidencing an inability to adhere to NPOV in scientific articles and an unwillingness to uphold the disruptive editing guidelines, have lost the trust of the community and should resign their admin bits "under a cloud."

32.142.151.125 (talk) 18:02, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:
  1. Per WP:SOCK, please back this up with your registered username or withdraw it. DurovaCharge! 18:37, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
More