Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/SlrubensteinII

Quasi-response to Birgitte

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)

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)

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)

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. Durova^Charge! 21:01, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

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)

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)

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. Durova^Charge! 21:43, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

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)

By opening this request for comment, Charles has undertaken the obligation to make certain things explicit himself. Durova^Charge! 22:13, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

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)

• Frankly who knows how Charles would have reacted if Slr had approached him or how Slr would have responded. Just because people have adopted untenable positions now, doesn't mean this outcome was inevitable. 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. It is the unblocking admin who is responsible for the results own actions. An inadequate blocking summary would be no protection from the ramifications of a poor unblock. Why take the chance and unblock without being certain of situation? You see a block you disagree with. Since you do not agree with the block you cannot claim to understand the whole situation after a cursory look. Your choices are 1) unblock assuming the blocking admin is mistaken/malicious/stupid/over-reacting/whatever 2) contact the admin so you may find out which of the above actually applies or *gasp* discover that your initial judgment was mistaken/malicious/stupid/over-reacting/whatever. Isn't better to know why a block was wrong before overturning it rather than just relying on your non-unanimous decision that it is wrong?--BirgitteSB 21:26, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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. Durova^Charge! 17:18, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

@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)

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)

Comments on Response by Slrubenstein

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

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)

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)

How is that comment relevant? Editors should be able to post a simple request for diffs without getting scolded. Durova^Charge! 17:20, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

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)

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. Durova^Charge! 19:02, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Jehochman's endorsements

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)

Silly me. I don't do RFC's very often. Now fixed. Jehochman ^Talk 22:07, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Ahh, much better, my head is no longer in danger of exploding. MBisanz ^talk 22:08, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Comment on my own behalf

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)

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. Durova^Charge! 01:33, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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. Durova^Charge! 06:32, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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. Durova^Charge! 07:21, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)