Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case: Difference between revisions

Edit links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Rodhullandemu (talk | contribs)
115,150 edits
→‎Blocking and unblocking: archiving as impossible to accept
Line 3: Line 3:
<br clear="all"/>
<br clear="all"/>
{{Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Header}}
{{Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Header}}

== Blocking and unblocking ==
'''Initiated by ''' [[User:Ncmvocalist|Ncmvocalist]] ([[User talk:Ncmvocalist|talk]]) '''at''' 17:47, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

=== Involved parties ===
<!-- use {{admin|username}} if the party is an administrator -->
*{{userlinks|Ncmvocalist}}, ''filing party''
*{{userlinks|Floquenbeam}} [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Floquenbeam&diff=372921014&oldid=372920606]
*{{userlinks|Rodhullandemu}} [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Rodhullandemu&diff=372937301&oldid=372934118]
*{{userlinks|Moni3}} [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Moni3&diff=prev&oldid=373037359]

;Confirmation that other steps in [[Wikipedia:dispute resolution|dispute resolution]] have been tried
* [[Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard#Block_review]]; [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Floquenbeam&diff=372921014&oldid=372920606]

=== Statement by Ncmvocalist ===
*Rod and Malleus were arguing at [[Wikipedia:BN#Asking for adminship back]]. Rod told Malleus to stop arguing at BN, and take it somewhere else. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Malleus_Fatuorum&oldid=372911364#Disruption Rod came to Malleus talk page and repeated the same.] Malleus did not post to BN again, but for the next few hours, Malleus, Rod, and others made childish insults to one another on Malleus talk.
*Rod made the following [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Malleus_Fatuorum&diff=prev&oldid=372830591 inappropriate comment] to Malleus. Malleus [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Malleus_Fatuorum&diff=372831012&oldid=372830674 responded inappropriately] to Rod with the same rhetoric. Rod responded by blocking Malleus for 31 hours for personal attacks. Floquenbeam responded by blocking Rod for 24 hours. Floquenbeam says that the block was imposed for the personal attack and has stressed that [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard&diff=prev&oldid=372913689 he would not have blocked Rod if Rod had not blocked Malleus for a personal attack]. Floquenbeam was fully aware that this would mean that [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Malleus_Fatuorum&diff=prev&oldid=372832397 Rod cannot reverse his block].
* None of Rod’s edits to Malleus’ talk page were reverted by Malleus. Also, Malleus made no unblock request or no assurance that such conduct would be avoided in the future. Despite this, Malleus was [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Malleus_Fatuorum&diff=prev&oldid=372842676 unblocked] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Malleus_Fatuorum&diff=372832510&oldid=372832397 anyway]. Rod made an unblock request but Floquenbeam refused to lift the block on the grounds that [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard&diff=prev&oldid=372913689 Rod did not make an explicit assurance].
* [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Floquenbeam&diff=372837832&oldid=372388035 Floquenbeam was advised to open a block review about his block of Rod]. Floquenbeam posted a biased version of the events and the block review went from there based on that version rather than one that was neutral.
* [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Rodhullandemu&diff=372855128&oldid=372855002 Rod declared his retirement] and has not edited since. Rod did not wheel war despite the glaring special treatment in the other party being unblocked (bait that has been used by ex-admins to unblock themselves in the past). As can be seen from [[User talk:Rodhullandemu|User talk:Rod...]], a lot of editors are not happy with this outcome, which appears to have resulted from the chilling effect of the block/unblock circumstances. A number of users have been quietly noting their suspicions that this was caused by cliques in a wiki-battle, but are not ready to elaborate (in case the same ‘clique’ go after them next, which would also cause more drama).
* Noticeably, Floquenbeam refused to accept any view that criticises his action; his only edits to the review (as of this timestamp) appear as attempts to avoid being receptive to concerns about his own role in this [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard&diff=372913689&oldid=372909619] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard&diff=372914311&oldid=372913689 ] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard&diff=372918167&oldid=372917659], despite asking for feedback in the first place. If block reviews exist for unanimous gushing praise, why does ArbCom require admins to open block reviews in these sorts of situations? Wehwalt was the only admin who stepped up to the plate and wanted to unblock Rod as time served, and although Floquenbeam authorized it, he refused to lift it himself.
# ArbCom is requested to make findings of fact as to the users who are directly involved and their role in this situation, the appropriateness of conduct and tool usage in this situation. Of relevance are the following questions (which is what really needs to be answered):
## If an administrator misuses his tools (be it as a one-off or be it often) to block someone after engaging in misconduct himself, does that mean (1) he must be blocked in response, or (2) the original inappropriate block should be discussed (and lifted) while the admin’s conduct should be discussed in the appropriate forum, or (3) something else, and if so, what?
## Does responding to incivility with incivility justify lifting a block without any assurance, unblock request, or community consensus? Does it justify keeping one party blocked while another party unblocked in this case?
## Was this an emergency situation that required blocking anyway? I was looking at the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Sarah_Palin_protection_wheel_war#Arbitrators.27_opinions_on_hearing_this_matter_.286.2F0.2F0.2F0.29 first few bullet points here].
I hope that is all that I need to post. [[User:Ncmvocalist|Ncmvocalist]] ([[User talk:Ncmvocalist|talk]]) 17:47, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

{{collapsetop|Prior response to Jeh}}
:To Jehochman, and in the meantime when it happens again with a different set of individuals, what then? The same thing? That's precisely why I've listed questions for ArbCom to look into. [[User:Ncmvocalist|Ncmvocalist]] ([[User talk:Ncmvocalist|talk]]) 17:57, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
::When this situation is encountered again with different individuals, some will continue to rely on the flawed block review discussion that resulted from this situation to justify doing the same in the next situation. Your comment helps in so far as establishing that we are on the same page, but it doesn't have the effect that the flawed discussion has on some users. ArbCom need to make a binding motion and clarify what will happen if this sort of cycle repeats itself as ArbCom is the only means of desysopping an admin involuntarily <small>(though frankly, given the number of times that the issue has been side-stepped as final chance, like in the Palin Wheel War case and other ArbCom cases/motions concerning admins, this situation ought to be dealt with at the same time; you know, I know, but others don't know??)</small>. [[User:Ncmvocalist|Ncmvocalist]] ([[User talk:Ncmvocalist|talk]]) 18:13, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
:::What exactly was that "same appropriate response" in this case? According to the block review discussion, there seems to be near unanimous support for blocking in the same fashion in spite of the 3 points you have made. Some users have commented that the project would be better off without Rod even if he retires. The toxicity of no AGF, the retirement of an admin following the handling of the block/unblock, the unreceptiveness to feedback by the other admin and a dramatic change to norms via RfCs (which appears to be what Kirill is signalling), and whatever else lets this cycle repeat itself where the project loses contributors...how does that reap more benefit for the project than a formal clarification or motion would? Should I be indifferent or something? [[User:Ncmvocalist|Ncmvocalist]] ([[User talk:Ncmvocalist|talk]]) 19:11, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
{{collapsebottom}}

;{{collapsetop|Responses to Rexxs}}
If an editor was unequivocally unblocked (without assurances/conditions) because he was trusted enough to get the hint + stop, then another editor should also be unblocked for the same reason (without being asked special questions or given special treatment). This is especially so when the block was over the same problem. Btw, where is the equivalent discussion for the unblock of Malleus? Had the same question been asked of Malleus, would he have answered differently? Did Floquenbeam give Malleus an indication that he should not assume that his comments were being condoned? Yet Rod was expected to grovel because "he started it" and Wehwalt was to [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Floquenbeam&diff=372912507&oldid=372904468 "word it in such a way that he doesn't think his actions have been condoned"]? Rod's response was entirely predictable. [[User:Ncmvocalist|Ncmvocalist]] ([[User talk:Ncmvocalist|talk]]) 20:37, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
:Rod is named as a party in this request deliberately. Other issues have not been named in this request, even as a formality, to make it clear what the scope of this request is. Where you're saying I'm adopting a position where it's ok to unfairly treat any party suggests you still do not get it. [[User:Ncmvocalist|Ncmvocalist]] ([[User talk:Ncmvocalist|talk]]) 05:21, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
{{collapsebottom}}

;{{collapsetop|Response to Rod}}
I know what this entails which is why I've kept responding here where necessary. Note that although there are factors that need to be taken into account, it in no way means that your original action and conduct was appropriate; it wasn't, and you haven't been named as a party without reason. Yes I remember that upon the article being failed, you refused to edit any articles in that topic and you also made a note that those articles would not be improved to a higher standard once you stopped editing them. Your reaction in this situation was similar. It was quite clear that you thought about that when you've interacted with me since then (or even today), but I don't bear any animosity or grudges because of it, though that interaction is largely irrelevant to the real issues at hand here. [[User:Ncmvocalist|Ncmvocalist]] ([[User talk:Ncmvocalist|talk]]) 06:05, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
{{collapsebottom}}

;General response
I make no apologies whatsoever for any of the comments I've made to date on the matter, nor am I going to add more detail to them which would involve breaching privacy concerns, nor are sanctions going to be handed out as a result of it. I stand by every single one of them unless they have modified in some way already. Floquenbeam has again skillfully evaded the actual issue. The issue is not that the block was against policy; no one suggested that, and no one suggested that he was part of some cabal, even if he wants to act stupidly by pretending that it was. The good thing that resulted from this is that we appear to have not lost a contributor after all.

The issue is administrator judgement; no amount of policy writing can change that glaring issue. We have a system by which we deal with admins who abuse their position, misuse their tools and engage in other forms of subtle misconduct that are incompatible with their position. I don't know where Floquenbeam's comments are coming from, but he (or any other admin, let alone editor) can try to spend hours on my talk page, baiting, harassing, attacking, doing whatever...I'm not stupid enough to respond in kind or to go out of my way to feed such trolling nonsense. And does Floquenbeam really want to know what would have happened if he blocked in that scenario? I would have specifically requested that he not be blocked in return; I'd deal with the root problem upon being unblocked through the proper means (because there are far more effective remedies than a mere block could achieve). That Floquenbeam would still use this route if presented with the same circumstances suggests he really doesn't get it still.

I still don't see why one party is expected to respond with assurances and what not in order to be unblocked, while another party can be unblocked despite clearly being uncivil themselves. Yes the block was by an admin who abused his position, but I have no confidence that it would have mattered as to who made the block - that process of unconditional unblock without any discussion or any grovelling (or assurances) would have still taken place. Rexxs has helpfully pointed out that Moni3 made the unblock of Malleus some 11 minutes after it was made. Just a few months earlier, Moni3 also made an unblock on the same user some 12 minutes after a block was made. ArbCom did notice this, right? [[User:Ncmvocalist|Ncmvocalist]] ([[User talk:Ncmvocalist|talk]]) 07:03, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

:Sigh...as of [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case&diff=373142464&oldid=373134237 20:46], it has ''still'' not sunk in; he still doesn't get it. [[User:Ncmvocalist|Ncmvocalist]] ([[User talk:Ncmvocalist|talk]]) 21:44, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

::He's again trivialising the real damage that was caused; nothing has changed. [[User:Ncmvocalist|Ncmvocalist]] ([[User talk:Ncmvocalist|talk]]) 14:33, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

;Response to NocturneNoir
The chances of such a discussion taking place ''and'' solving the problem, let alone elsewhere, are close to zilch - that blunt reality isn't going to change because some users (including 5 or more arbitrators) hope that it will, pray that it will or expect that it will. History speaks for itself on that point. On-wiki comments by one party indicate practically no assurance of real & significant change (and where another party has not commented, the emerging pattern of conduct or tool usage speaks for itself). The practical equivalent of this being declined is permitting this situation to repeat (with no worries for whichever users are the parties in the future); if ArbCom cannot "see" that, then they have learnt little from the past, because that's what happens when there is no binding action. [[User:Ncmvocalist|Ncmvocalist]] ([[User talk:Ncmvocalist|talk]]) 15:50, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
{{collapsetop|mid-response to NocturneNoir}}
:I think what I've said (to date) has zoomed straight over your head, and, in my opinion, the only valuable part of your response was the last sentence about the spelling of your name. I think if you made more of an effort to read and comprehend what each user did and said on the matter (particularly myself), you wouldn't have so flagrantly misconstrued/misstated my position. Steve Smith appears to have understood what it is I was saying so I don't think the issue rests with how I have been communicating. [[User:Ncmvocalist|Ncmvocalist]] ([[User talk:Ncmvocalist|talk]]) 16:54, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
{{collapsebottom}}
::You are still missing the point entirely. Administrators are expected to set an example by engaging in proper conduct even during difficult situations; actions and comments that are made after an improper action are ''especially'' relevant to and important in (restoring) the smooth functioning of this project. If the project was functioning smoothly at all times, the function that admins would serve is extremely limited - it's when something goes wrong that administrator judgement is most important, even if an admin is part of that wrong. The later issues cannot be discarded as irrelevant as we would have utter chaos if people are given a license to compound problems and do as they like whenever something goes wrong.

::In this case, real (rather than possible) damage was caused by the later actions. In contrast, no real damage was (or would have been) caused by the original action as evidenced in Malleus statement here and as I've said all along. Unlike Rod, both Floquenbeam and Moni3 have no issues with their health either prior to or as a result of the handling of this; nothing excuses their approaches because arguably, had they taken the correct approach, no damage would have occurred. Malleus block log indicates that this is not an isolated incident with respect to Moni3. We might have been able to move along if informal action served its purpose (as no formal action would have been necessary), but this is clearly still not the case here - one admin has yet to take any responsibility while another is insisting he'd practically do the same thing if encountered with the same circumstances; this outcome is not acceptable. Clearly, nothing has sunk in and the informal trout slaps (if any) have accomplished nothing. Accordingly, this request for arbitration was made so that formal action can be taken (motions are perfectly acceptable). <small>My view about the original block + conduct has already been stated in the block review and others have covered this in sufficient depth that I need not repeat the same views at infinite length; had you looked at this carefully, you would not have failed in proving whatever it was you were trying to prove. Still, I don't know how many other ways I can reasonably be expected to try to convey the point to you (or anyone else), or how much else I'm expected to say further on this matter, but that's all I can do. If you still have issues, all I can suggest is you read everything, spend more time investigating, and give a lot of thought to what has been said/done.</small> [[User:Ncmvocalist|Ncmvocalist]] ([[User talk:Ncmvocalist|talk]]) 19:52, 13 July 2010 (UTC) (That said, I named Rod as a party deliberately rather than just as a formality; the conduct + tool usage of all three admins need to be addressed. See also Wehwalt's idea. 06:52, 14 July 2010 (UTC))

{{collapsetop|later response to NocturneNoir}}
:::I understand; it's not a matter of denseness, but just a matter of having a more informed opinion/understanding; a hurdle that seems to have been overcome. :) I didn't restate my opinion from that discussion here thinking it had been read and that I'm quite over the word limit already, but it's something I'll try to bear in mind so as to avoid that misunderstanding in future. Yes, that issue of actions being too fast was a key problem here, and had the later actions been taken properly, that issue would not exist and no damage would have been caused. Matters regarding admin conduct fall within the remit of ArbCom; they are the only means of imposing any form of binding remedy with respect to admin actions or conduct; policy permits the community only to make non-binding remedies (which have been non-effective in this case). I agree with your last sentence. [[User:Ncmvocalist|Ncmvocalist]] ([[User talk:Ncmvocalist|talk]]) 05:39, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
{{collapsebottom}}

{{collapsetop|earlier response to Wehwalt}}
Indeed; that's an idea worth considering. [[User:Ncmvocalist|Ncmvocalist]] ([[User talk:Ncmvocalist|talk]]) 05:42, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
{{collapsebottom}}
:Of course your opinion counts Wehwalt and it stands out on its merits; unlike Floquenbeam, I think it's inappropriate to carry around a [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Moni3&diff=prev&oldid=373618120 "list of people who's opinion matters"] as it's not compatible with the wiki. I think I should be vocal about what I am thinking at this moment, and so I want to highlight another matter; the contradiction between Floquenbeam's desire to become an admin early this year and the lack of transparency regarding his history (prior account contributions). Requesting adminship to undertake non-controversial tasks is acceptable, even if an editor comes back after resigning their account due to "privacy concerns". But of interest is the fact that he refused to answer a reasonable question about whether he had submitted a request for adminship using his prior account during the RFA. Where privacy concerns are so grave, is there a need to attract undue responsibilities and attention? For non-controversial tasks, maybe. For situations where he consciously uses his tools in a controversial fashion, and that too, only a few months after the RFA passed? What do you think? That he has, since then, compounded the concern about his tool usage with his conduct (recent commentary, evasion of concerns, etc.) simply adds more red flags. Meanwhile, having looked at [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Moni3&diff=prev&oldid=373621061 this comment] by Moni3, I'm concerned about her fitness as an administrator too - her words are very noble, but in recognising this, I note that she has been too principled to suppress her principles for the sake of retaining the bit. Floquenbeam's and Moni3's scruples don't appear to be consistent with the expectations of an administrator on this project, and it's because of this, I have serious concerns about whether my proposals go far enough. [[User:Ncmvocalist|Ncmvocalist]] ([[User talk:Ncmvocalist|talk]]) 14:43, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

;Comment on subject of sanctions
:As has been clear, I have been reading all comments even since the filing of this request. Sanctions are needed here because if they are not provided by ArbCom, this will continue to happen - the comments and conduct of each of the parties has provided no assurance of change to the good faith concerns about their behavior and/or tool usage in such situations. I had hoped that this could be addressed short of such measures but it has become clear that no other options are available in having this situation addressed.

# Moni3 is restricted from unblocking any account where no unblock request has been made and where she has not consulted or attempted to communicate with the blocking admin. Should Moni3 violate this restriction, ArbCom will desysop.
# Floquenbeam is restricted from using tools in controversial ways (this has the effect of a probation) broadly construed. If Floquenbeam violates this restriction, if his actions reasonably suggest that he is blocking an user for misusing their tools, or if he responds to a unequal situation with blocks (may need to be worded a bit better), ArbCom will desysop.
# Rodhullandemu is warned that if he uses his tools in situations where he is unfit to do so, ArbCom will desysop. This warning includes situations where he uses tools to advance his positions in disputes where he is involved, especially where he has not engaged in acceptable conduct himself.
# Moni3, Floquenbeam & Rodhullanedmu are admonished for their role in this, the damage that has been caused, and to engage in acceptable conduct at all times.
# Rodhullandemu is counselled by the Committee to put his real life first, not wiki. [[User:Ncmvocalist|Ncmvocalist]] ([[User talk:Ncmvocalist|talk]]) 07:08, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

'''To Risker:''' I have responded to 6 out of 15 editors - that is not almost every editor who has responded on this page, so please refrain from misstating what is happening on this page. I am aware that I am over the word limit and am perfectly willing to remove collapsed comments as well as other irrelevant tid bits if arbitrators permit me to do so; that I haven't done so is purely out of courtesy for the 5 editors that I did respond to who would legitimately feel that their comments are out of context/place. [[User:Ncmvocalist|Ncmvocalist]] ([[User talk:Ncmvocalist|talk]]) 16:44, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
:'''Risker''', I don't know how you "counted" that when each part of the "General response" responded to a range of Floquenbeam's remarks (clearly I didn't address each/all remark/s so I named it "general response"). The point is if I was unsure about the position of something, I would have filed a request for clarification (as I have done previously), not a request for arbitration motion/case. I know the facts of the immediate incident, their responses, other areas of concern like prior undisclosed accounts or patterns of behavior (which I just raised), and the remedies that seem suitable - all has been stated. It is important that I am not disadvantaged in explaining the ''why'' and ''what is to be accomplished'' by accepting arbitration because others need to understand for reasons of transparency, and because this is no ordinary dispute - it relies on the fact that ArbCom deal with serious complaints regarding admins, just as there should be Ombudsman committee members to deal with serious complaints regarding functionaries.

:If you are trying to convey to me that any request I make on this page is either an accepted case or nothing, then there is no need to be coy about arbitration being a broken system. Accepted cases nowadays can go on for weeks where nothing useful emerges during that time (q.v. Race and Intelligence case) - this habit where certain arbitrators permit the endless and unproductive bickering/damage (in the form of "debating") on multiple case pages is not why parties request arbitration and it is unsatisfactory; any such "debating" has occurred before the case is accepted, be it here or somewhere else, and I did not make this request so that it could turn into another one of those. I think most of the debating has already occurred within the number of words already written on this page and the time already taken. If that fact spoils the ArbCom's political image or something, of taking weeks/months to resolve a "difficult case" with megabytes of text on their case pages, then oh well - it's better off declined or withdrawn even if that serves no good for the project. Finally, if you could be so kind as to respond to my earlier point about word count which seems to matter to you, that would be appreciated and would end the need for me to respond to you further. [[User:Ncmvocalist|Ncmvocalist]] ([[User talk:Ncmvocalist|talk]]) 18:40, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

===Response by Floquenbeam===
It would be easy to say "Should have done what Moni3 did. Sorry." and let all this blow over, and I was tempted to do so just to avoid the hassle. In spite of Ncmvocalist's unsubstantiated comments to the contrary, I'm perfectly willing to accept constructive criticism, and a couple of people here and at WP:AN have said rational, useful things I will take on board. But the fact of the matter is, after some reflection today, I think I ultimately did the right thing, and I think it's something that needs to be done more often for the good of the project, and I can't bring myself to say it was wrong, or that I wouldn't do it again. An admin who, in the future, decides not to tell another editor they're less than dogshit because they're scared they'll be blocked for it is, ultimately, a good thing. The definition of a preventative block. The kind of block that we hand out to non-admins all the time. I completely disagree that admins should be immune from this because they're admins.

I acted 100% within policy, blocking for a clear personal attack. As I tried to explain to Ncmvocalist, I expressly did not block Rod because he blocked Malleus; I blocked Rod for a clear personal attack which I was no longer willing to overlook because of his block. Rod acted 100% outside of policy. There is no policy-based argument against the block. I had nothing to do with Malleus' unblock, cannot be held responsible for that decision nor for the resulting assymetry, and in any case was willing to unblock Rod in response if he agreed to stay away from Malleus' page. On request, I put it up on AN for review, and the not-unanimous-but-pretty-clear-consensus was that the block was not out of process. His unblock request was declined by an uninvolved admin.

Ncmvocalist's snide insinuation that I did this to trick Rod into unblocking himself, and that I am part of some cabal of Malleus' friends, and that many others disagree with the block (but this can't be proved because they're scared the Malleus Cabal will punish them too) is without evidence, and should really be substantiated, or apologized for, or sanctioned. You'll note, however, that I somehow managed to control myself sufficiently not to spend several hours on Ncmvocalist's talk page, baiting and harassing him, nor did I curse at him, nor did I block him.

Others have outlined a more non-escalating way I could have done this, and I'm normally a pretty non-escalating kind of guy. But admin abuse of non-admins should not be something that should be de-escalated; it should be stamped out. --[[User:Floquenbeam|Floquenbeam]] ([[User talk:Floquenbeam|talk]]) 01:26, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

:@<s>Steve Smith</s> <small>(just noticed you had clarified your comment by adding that last sentence right before I posted a response)</small> (though you're not the only one who has said this): Regarding "''...the appropriate remedy for misused admin tools is not generally a block...''", I'm not sure if I've been unclear, or if people don't believe me, or if people don't think that this is the significant distinction that I think it is, but in case it's the former: I did not block Rodhullandemu for blocking Malleus, I blocked him for a blatant personal attack, which I was no longer willing to ignore ''because he blocked Malleus for doing the exact same thing'' (which is also the reason that insisting on a ''warning'' first is irrational). If he had not made the remark he did, but had just blocked Malleus for disagreeing with him, I wouldn't have blocked him; I would have undone the block and gone to ANI.

:@Those talking about precisely equal treatment: When I saw that Malleus had been unblocked, I offered to do the same for Rod if he would agree to stay away from the pissing contest. He declined. There is not perfect symmetry here; Rod was on Malleus' page, baiting him. Rod's behavior was worse than Malleus'. There was no risk of Malleus going to Rod's page when he was unblocked. I think insisting on exactly equal treatment is a [[foolish consistency]]. I would have given any non-admin that same offer - I wasn't going to undo my block until I had some reason to believe Rod wasn't going to restart the fight, and the second I had that confirmation, I would have unblocked. I was not asking for grovelling, or even an admission of wrongdoing. I was asking for confirmation that he would not resume the behavior I'd blocked him for, which is pretty much S.O.P. (at least when dealing with non-admins). He wouldn't say that, so I didn't.

:I'm not being coy, I've freely admitted that if Rod had not blocked Malleus, I would have let them bicker as much as they want. They're both grownups, and either one could have stopped things cold if they had wanted to, and this was on a user talk page, so the encyclopedia at large was not being disrupted. I'm not their babysitter, and generally view civility blocks as counter-productive. But this was a good for the goose, good for the gander block; you can't block someone for doing the exact same thing you just did. If you do, you're admitting that the behavior is a blockable offense, and shouldn't expect to remain unblocked. --[[User:Floquenbeam|Floquenbeam]] ([[User talk:Floquenbeam|talk]]) 20:46, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

::@Wehwalt: I don't think it would have had quite the same attention-getting preventative effect, on him, or [[Pour encourager les autres|any other admin]] who plans to compare a mere mortal non-admin to dog shit and then block them for the same thing. I also note that five people on Malleus' talk page had already told him he was being obnoxious, and that his block threats were inappropriate, to no effect. --[[User:Floquenbeam|Floquenbeam]] ([[User talk:Floquenbeam|talk]]) 22:49, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

'''Final, I think, statement''': There are several people at the AN thread who disagreed with an immediate block, whose opinions I respect. <small>(Although at the time I went to bed that night, it was unanimously supportive)</small> There are some below me here on this page, as well. Their opinions have merit, and I accept that wise, reasonable people think I should have handled it differently. I've carefully considered their opinions, weighted them against the other opinions expressed at AN - by other wise, reasonable people whose opinions I also respect - that it was a good block; along with my own thoughts, both when I made the block, and after reflection. In the grand scheme of things I still think the benefits of an immediate block outweighed the benefits of pretending RH&E didn't know at the time it was inappropriate behavior, and being the sixth person to tell him so.

There was not a right way and a wrong way to handle this, there were two imperfect ways to handle it. I chose one of them. Disagreeing with people who think the other option was better, is not "not getting it". It's "disagreeing". The community's "non-binding remedies" in the AN thread did not prove "non-effective", they proved to be different than Ncmvocalist's, and some others', opinions. ArbCom does not generally overrule the community, it usually chooses to get involved when the community is incapable of dealing with a problem. In this case, it was dealt with.

While I understand it's probably my responsibility to keep monitoring this page, I'd appreciate a ping on my talk page if anyone asks me a direct question. Otherwise, I think I'm done posting here. --[[User:Floquenbeam|Floquenbeam]] ([[User talk:Floquenbeam|talk]]) 13:56, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

=== Statement by Jehochman ===
At least one decent person has gotten overheated. Does it help to tighten the screws further? I think the parties should be given space and counseled to avoid each other. Let the matter settle down, and then see if arbitration is needed, or not. [[User:Jehochman|Jehochman]] <sup>[[User talk:Jehochman|Talk]]</sup> 17:53, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

I can answer the above questions.
# We do not block administrators for errors in using their tools. The block of Malleus should have been discussed and could have been reversed. Rod's behavior could have been noted and a warning issued. This would have been a better course of actions. Blocking Rod merely escalated the conflict.
# One error does not justify making a second error for the sake of evenhandedness.
# No, there was no pressing need for anybody to be blocked. Incivility or personal attacks should not result in blocks unless they rise to the level of harassment. Comparing somebody to "dogshit" is crude, but it is not harassment. Blocks tend to escalate personal disputes. Warnings and counseling should be attempted first.
Hopefully this helps. [[User:Jehochman|Jehochman]] <sup>[[User talk:Jehochman|Talk]]</sup> 18:00, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

: I am sure something like this will happen again no matter what ArbCom does, and the same appropriate response should be given then as now. [[User:Jehochman|Jehochman]] <sup>[[User talk:Jehochman|Talk]]</sup> 18:10, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

====Conclusions by Jehochman====
* Floquenbeam, you'd do well to use your administrator tools more conservatively. All administrators should avoid using their tools in controversial ways. At [[Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Floquenbeam]] support was less than 78% in January of 2010. A substantial minority of the community had doubts about you. If you get brought to [[WP:RFC]] over this or other matters, those doubters are could be vociferous, and numerous. You'd be wise to admit error and demonstrate that you've learned a lesson. [[User:Jehochman|Jehochman]] <sup>[[User talk:Jehochman|Talk]]</sup> 15:30, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

* Rodhullandemu, you know better. Once is a [[mulligan|mulligan (games)]]; twice is a [[WP:DESYSOP|pattern]]. See also [[Wikipedia:Adrenaline junkie]]. [[User:Jehochman|Jehochman]] <sup>[[User talk:Jehochman|Talk]]</sup> 15:30, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

=== Statement by LessHeard vanU ===

There have been many less than optimum actions taken in this matter, but I do not think any being so egregious to require Arbitration. MF has not continued their postings, RH&E is not an abusive admin, Floq has opened a discussion to discuss his actions - and very likely all parties acted in what they then thought was for the benefit of the project; hopefully a little bit of contemplation will reap more benefit than opening a case would. [[User:LessHeard vanU|LessHeard vanU]] ([[User talk:LessHeard vanU|talk]]) 18:05, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

=== Statement by RexxS ===
This isn't dispute resolution requiring ArbCom, as I can't see any dispute to be resolved. If policy on [[WP:INVOLVED]] or [[WP:ADMIN]] needs to be clarified or changed, then the process needs to be started there. ArbCom is not the means to do that. --[[User:RexxS|RexxS]] ([[User talk:RexxS|talk]]) 18:06, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
;Response to Ncmvocalist: You question the handling of the block/unblock and assert that Floquenbeam was unreceptive to feedback? Look at the discussion [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Rodhullandemu&oldid=372854700#Blocked here], especially this exchange 15–20 minutes after the block:
:*Floquenbeam: "... I see Malleus has been unblocked, so is it safe to assume that if I unblock you too, you are not going to return to his talk page and continue the pissing contest?"
:*Rodhullandemu: "Utter Bollocks. I spend somewhat 12 to 16 hours a day here ..."
:Now ask yourself, if you had received all of the responses documented on the talkpage from a user you had blocked, how would you have handled the possibility of an unblock differently? --[[User:RexxS|RexxS]] ([[User talk:RexxS|talk]]) 19:48, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
::From what I saw as this unfolded, Moni's unblock of Malleus was on the grounds that the block was unsupportable ("Oh, for Pete's sake!"), because it was made by an admin against an editor with whom he was in conflict. I hope you're not going to condone the first block as it was demonstrably a clear abuse of admin power. Floquenbeam actually gave Rod the opportunity to withdraw from the argument as soon as he saw the unblock of Malleus (in the comment quoted above) but you can see the indignant response. We don't have to make any guesses about "trust", "hints" or "stopping", because it's clear what Rod's attitude was at that point. Would you have unconditionally unblocked Rod at that point? Since Floquenbeam actually had no interaction with Malleus (although he has described Malleus' actions as foolish), it is disingenuous to ask "Did Floquenbeam give Malleus an indication that he should not assume that his comments were being condoned?". The concept of Rod being asked to grovel is hyperbole, and you need to strike that, if you wish your comments to be taken seriously. Finally, Floquenbeam's "please try to word it in such a way that he doesn't think his actions have been condoned" (some 13 hours after the block) is completely consistent with the community's disapproval of breaches of [[WP:INVOLVED]]. I assume you would not wish it be any other way. If that satisfactorily answers your concerns about handling the unblock and responsiveness to feedback, it leaves only the question of the block. I hope you would be prepared to accept the overwhelming consensus at [[WP:AN]] when the block was reviewed. --[[User:RexxS|RexxS]] ([[User talk:RexxS|talk]]) 21:14, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
:::It now appears that Ncmvocalist wants to label both Moni's and Floquenbeam's actions are more reprehensible than Rod's. First, consider whether Moni's unblock was a poor decision: how can anyone suggest that she should have gone to Rod's page and discussed it with him, or asked for a review at AN? The result of that would be that an editor remained blocked for incivility while the blocking admin (who was just as guilty of incivility, and misused the tools into the bargain) can argue the niceties of an unblock while the editor remains blocked. If you wanted to make Malleus' case about 'one rule for admins and one for editors', you couldn't do a better job. No, the block of Malleus by an admin who was in an argument of him was so far out of line that any admin should have been able to unblock immediately without fear of censure. To suggest otherwise would damage the whole concept of [[WP:INVOLVED]] and reinforce perceptions about a two-tier structure on Wikipedia. Second, consider whether Floquenbeam's block was a poor decision: If we are to believe that admins are to enjoy no special privileges over ordinary editors, then it is perfectly reasonable to say that when two parties are equally uncivil, then both deserve the same treatment. If Floquenbeam considered that the levels of incivility were large enough to warrant a block, then a block had to be applied to both parties. In that case, you can't just block the editor, but not the admin. I've already shown that Floquenbeam and Moni were unaware of each other's actions at the time, so the only question you can level at Floquenbeam is whether blocks were appropriate for that level of incivility, and would they serve a preventative purpose. You may disagree with his judgement on those two questions, but a clear majority at AN did not. When one admin thinks both parties should be blocked, and another admin thinks neither should be, then you can take one side or the other; but the consequence of arguing for a position where it's ok to block the editor, but not the admin, is to create a Wikipedia that very few editors would wish to be part of. --[[User:RexxS|RexxS]] ([[User talk:RexxS|talk]]) 23:02, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
;Response to Carcharoth: I think we would all agree with Black Kite on what might have been. But his commentary misses two important points: at 01:52 (UTC) when Floquenbeam blocked Rod, ''Malleus was still blocked''; at 02:00 (UTC) when Moni unblocked Malleus, ''she did not know that Rod had been blocked'' – Floquenbeam informed the talk page watchers at [[User talk:Malleus Fatuorum]] at 02:01 (UTC), and you can see Moni's reaction on that page. In each case the admin was being even-handed to the best of their knowledge, and it would be most unfair to criticise either of them simply on the grounds that they were destroying the parity of "both blocked or neither". Of course, nobody could then sensibly re-block Malleus because of [[WP:WHEELWAR]], and Floquenbeam did approach Rod to see if he could lift the block, as I described in response to Ncmvocalist. Equally unfortunately, Rod was clearly not interested in providing a reason for unblock at that point. What more would you have wanted anyone to do under those circumstances? --[[User:RexxS|RexxS]] ([[User talk:RexxS|talk]]) 01:32, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
;Response to Wehwalt: On the other hand, I think Moni – as an occasional contributor to the debate leading up to the block, [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Malleus_Fatuorum&diff=prev&oldid=372824028 posting to the talk page] <s>just seven minutes</s> before the block – could be pretty certain of at least one fact: Rod's block was hugely inappropriate for "‎Personal attacks or harassment", given his own comments on the talk page, which she was fully aware of. Are we to be surprised that she almost immediately reversed a block that could not possibly be supportable? Can it really be argued that it improves the encyclopedia to leave such blocks in place? If I were an admin and blocked an editor with whom I was in conflict, I'd be grateful for another admin correcting my error as soon as possible – wouldn't you? --[[User:RexxS|RexxS]] ([[User talk:RexxS|talk]]) 03:26, 14 July 2010 (UTC) <small>apologies, I mistook UTC for British Summer Time - I was an hour out</small>

=== Statement by Pedro ===
I wil add detail later, but a short note that I see no value in ARBCOM intervening here. Whilst I have interacted with RodHullandEmu positively, and note his retirement with regret, I fully understand Floquenbeam's actions and disagree with any assertion that s/he has acted in any manner that does not embrace openness or transparency; Floquenbeam has acted within Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and with the projects best interests at heart.<small><span style="border:1px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">[[User:Pedro|<b>Pedro</b>]] : [[User_talk:Pedro|<font style="color:#accC10;background:#0000fa;">&nbsp;Chat&nbsp;</font>]] </span></small> 21:08, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
:It seems unlikely that I can add any further value given the (right IMHO) declines by the arbitrators below. I agree to a substantial extent with NYB and wish Malleus, clever chap that he is, would please stop taring ''all'' admins with the same brush (or at least try harder to avoid in his often acidic commentary the implication that he feels this way). <small><span style="border:1px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">[[User:Pedro|<b>Pedro</b>]] : [[User_talk:Pedro|<font style="color:#accC10;background:#0000fa;">&nbsp;Chat&nbsp;</font>]] </span></small> 21:51, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
;Response to Rodhullandemu
I agree with Malleus below, in that if you are unwell, and if (as I suspect but I am not qualified, of course) Wikipedia is adding to your health problems then you are best to back away. Wikipedia is *supposed* to be a hobby. No established editor on Wikipedia, whatever their disputes, is likely to wish to see another editor having their well being affected. I'd like to extend my hope for a speedy recovery. <small><span style="border:1px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">[[User:Pedro|<b>Pedro</b>]] : [[User_talk:Pedro|<font style="color:#accC10;background:#0000fa;">&nbsp;Chat&nbsp;</font>]] </span></small> 21:51, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

=== Statement by Malleus Fatuorum ===
I think the facts of the matter are pretty clear, so no need to rehash them here. Rodhullandemu came to my user page after taking offence to my objections to the resysopping of [[User:RN]], during which he called me a coward, for not initiating an RfC on something or other.[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:BN#Asking_for_adminship_back] He then began to issue threats of a block for disruption, culminating in his "Meanwhile, you are less important to me than the occasional dogshit on my shoe" comment. Unlike many others here, I'm not bothered by that kind of childish invective, but if administrators are intent on punishing{{ndash}} don't let's pretend that blocking is such circumstances is ever anything other than punishment{{ndash}} then they must apply the same rules to themselves that they do to others. That they do not, is a cancer at the heart of wikipedia's governance.

Was Floquenbeam right to block Rodhullandemu? Yes, of course, if the same rules are to apply to administrators as non-administrators, but it appears there are many who don't believe that they should, and that blocking an administrator is far more serious than blocking a non-administrator. That's a view I simply can't accept. I understand that Rodhullandemu may have been feeling a little burned out, and that this unfortunate episode may not be typical of how he usually performs his administrative duties, but he was not an innocent victim in this. He pointlessly chose to escalate a disagreement over the resysopping of RN with the consequences that we have seen. That did not display the good judgement expected of an administrator. [[User:Malleus Fatuorum|Malleus]] [[User_talk:Malleus_Fatuorum|Fatuorum]] 10:31, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

I have some sympathy for the view that either both Rodhullandemu and I should have been blocked or neither of us should. What is very clear though is that Rodhullandemu should not have been the one to block me, and that at the time Moni3 reversed my block she did not know that Rodhullandemu had been blocked. In the interests of equity, I would have been quite content to have remained blocked for exactly the same length of time that Rodhullandemu was blocked. [[User:Malleus Fatuorum|Malleus]] [[User_talk:Malleus_Fatuorum|Fatuorum]] 12:13, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

;Response to MickMacNee: I was by no means the only editor expressing concerns about the resysopping of RN, but I was the only one that Rodhullandemu chose to pursue, and the only one you choose now to characterise as a troll. Strange. [[User:Malleus Fatuorum|Malleus]] [[User_talk:Malleus_Fatuorum|Fatuorum]] 16:58, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

;Response to Rodhullandemu: I had resolved to say nothing further here, but in view of Rodhullandemu's statement below I want to make it perfectly clear that I bear him no animosity at all, and neither do I bear a grudge for the block; I've had plenty of blocks, water off a duck's back. I think that his physical and mental health are far more important than continuing with this case. Those who want to initiate a separate case against me for whatever perceived misdemeanours would be better served by doing exactly that, initiating a separate case. [[User:Malleus Fatuorum|Malleus]] [[User_talk:Malleus_Fatuorum|Fatuorum]] 21:30, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

;Response to Gwen Gale: Non-administrators are routinely blocked for alleged incivility violations, as you well know. Which policy protects administrators from similar sanctions? [[User:Malleus Fatuorum|Malleus]] [[User_talk:Malleus_Fatuorum|Fatuorum]] 22:09, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

=== Statement by Verbal ===
Every single admin action taken in this dispute was wrong. RHaE should have received a polite reminder not to do what he did. Floq should not have blocked him, and Moni should have unblocked both or neither - and take it for review. To my mind Floq and Moni's misuse of tools were the more abusive as they were not involved in the dispute and should have been more reasonable. Instead they made the whole situation worse and have caused a result which has damaged the project. <span style="font-family:Papyrus">[[User:Verbal|<b style="color:#C72">Verbal</b>]] <small>[[User talk:Verbal#top|<span style="color:Gray;">chat</span>]]</small></span> 10:35, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
=== Statement by Fainites ===
There's no point looking at this as if all participants were aware of precisely what was going on at all times. RHaE's block was plainly egregiously inappropriate. He exchanged insults on Malleus talkpage, lost his temper and used his tools to "win". All that happens next is that two different admins separately use two different approaches to resolve the matter. Moni3's swift unblock and edit summary met the situation nicely. No doubt when RHaE calms down he will see that his block in furtherance of a dispute in which he was involved was not a correct use of his tools and that "Oh for Pete's sake!" just about summed it up and operated as a damage limitation exercise. Meanwhile Floquenbeam took a separate but equally understandable approach to the situation by blocking RHaE, as both editors had been rude to say the least. Trying to marry up the block of RHaE with the unblock of Malleus or equate each block/unblock doesn't clarify things at all. RHaE appears to have a long and good record. I daresay he's embarrassed enough as it is without this process highlighting everything.[[User:Fainites|Fainites]] <sup><small>[[User_talk:Fainites|barley]]</small></sup>[[Special:Contributions/Fainites|<small>scribs</small>]] 12:59, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

::Absolutely agree with RexxS. [[User:Fainites|Fainites]] <sup><small>[[User_talk:Fainites|barley]]</small></sup>[[Special:Contributions/Fainites|<small>scribs</small>]] 00:03, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

=== Statement by Xeno ===
I'm not sure why Floquenbeam is being censured here. While Rodhullandemu is a hard worker and generally clueful, his [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Malleus_Fatuorum&diff=prev&oldid=372830591 comment] was entirely inappropriate. If I ever make a personal attack of this nature, <s>please block me immediately</s> I would not be surprised or object to being blocked.

That being said, this is not ripe for arbitration. –[[user:xeno|<font face="verdana" color="black">'''xeno'''</font>]][[user talk:xeno|<font color="black"><sup>talk</sup></font>]] 15:18, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

:[[#Statement by Wehwalt|@Wehwalt]]: Blocking for personal attacks serves a preventative function in that it (hopefully) prevents future recurrence. –[[user:xeno|<font face="verdana" color="black">'''xeno'''</font>]][[user talk:xeno|<font color="black"><sup>talk</sup></font>]] 16:58, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
::(re [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case&diff=373121427&oldid=373121069]) After the block expires, of course (being blocked typically acts as a deterrent against future inappropriate comments). –[[user:xeno|<font face="verdana" color="black">'''xeno'''</font>]][[user talk:xeno|<font color="black"><sup>talk</sup></font>]] 18:33, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

*'''Point of order:''' I'm not sure where the notion came from that Floquenbeam blocked Rodhullandemu for abuse of administrator tools, but this is simply not the case - Floquenbeam used the (pre-filled) rationale ''"[[Wikipedia:No personal attacks|Personal attacks]] or [[Wikipedia:Harassment|harassment]]"'' [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&type=block&user=&page=User:Rodhullandemu&offset=20100711020000&limit=1]. –[[user:xeno|<font face="verdana" color="black">'''xeno'''</font>]][[user talk:xeno|<font color="black"><sup>talk</sup></font>]] 19:45, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

=== Statement by MickMacNee ===
Verbal said it pretty well. But Malleus and his unchecked anti-admin anti-establishment trolling is the root cause of this incident, combined with the ineffectiveness of having admins who seemingly watch him, yet routinely ignore him, or worse, excuse him, even when he is just openly telling people to fuck off for being idiots. It's frankly not hard to see why many admins just ignore him, but you lot are elected to sort this shit out when it becomes dysfunctional. That's your only job. There's a rather hilarious recent WQA that shows how well the community is handling this sort of daily incident. There's some real bizarreness in that one, but the root cause is again, the same. That's the type of unresolved issue that needs airing in any propposed case arising from the fallout of this latest chucklefest, that and the fact we have protecting admins who consider any and all discussion of his behaviour as "panty-wadding", and would rather techno-speedy-unblock him and make wisecracks about lolcats or other bullshit, than recognise their role in this ongoing dysfunctional community saga, and just freely buy into his paranoia and blame it all on a victimisation crusade by the 'civility police' or some other such rubbish. [[User:MickMacNee|MickMacNee]] ([[User talk:MickMacNee|talk]]) 16:43, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
:Re. Wehwalt, when has Malleus ever backed down in a situation like this? Had an uninvolved admin intervened in this latest saga and said anything even remotely resembling 'boo' to the goose (and part of the problem here is that isn't even happening), then I think it's beyond obvious by now that we are now in a situation where Malleus' response would be predictably to tell them to fuck off too, and the horse they rode in on, because in his own words, he's not one to be threatened, certainly not by the admin police. In negotiator parlance, he's been giving out the jump signals for months now, with his favourite but endless 'I won't be around long' mantra. Although Wikipedia seems to follow the negotiator's manual here also, and is apparently content with allowing this dysfunctional situation to go on for ever, unless or until he does the necessary of his own volition. [[User:MickMacNee|MickMacNee]] ([[User talk:MickMacNee|talk]]) 17:05, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
:Re. Malleus, I was not detailing people who raised concerns, I was talking about the out and out trollery. And the comments of Off2riorob was the only user that even remotely comes close to your patented brand of it in that section, and that's being generous. And he stopped, right when Rod told you both to shit or get off the pot, and actually, he even proposed a way to move forward. Rob's a smart lad wikiwise, he would likely benefit most positively from any arbitration finding in this respect, so I've no worry where he's concerned. And there's nothing strange about my stance Malleus, I am nothing if not consistent in my condemnation of this sort of total disfunction on the pedia, and my wish to see arbcom get off their backsides and deal with it by recognising the run of the mill admins aren't capable in this regard, primarly thanks to the bloke who invented the WHEEL way back whenever. If you wanted to imply something more, accepting you can't invoke the usual, and if you have actually put any thought into it, then go for it. I'm all ears. [[User:MickMacNee|MickMacNee]] ([[User talk:MickMacNee|talk]]) 18:10, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

=== Statement by Wehwalt ===
I unblocked Rodhullemu, which is why I believe I am being asked to comment here. I am not otherwise involved in this dispute.

I have had occasional contact with Malleus and Moni3 from time to time, generally in the FA pages. I have had no to minimal contact with the other actors.

I have Malleus's page watchlisted (his talk page is usually fun to watch and a young editor whom I informally mentor posts there, so I like to keep an eye on things) and I became aware of the block situation when I logged in yesterday morning. I read over all the posts on the various pages. I was concerned about the loss of Rodhullemu to retirement, since he seems to be a quality editor, and I queried Floquenbeam to see if he would consent to an unblock or do it himself, on the ground there was no risk of harm to the project on an unblock (retired editors are rarely a problem, and if he did come back, he would be watched) Floquenbeam assented, setting a condition that I not approve Rodhullemu's actions, which I did not when I left a note on Rodhullemu's talk page after I did the unblock. That's the limit of my involvement, and I went by the book on this one, per [[WP:BLOCK]]. I consulted with the blocking admin, who gave his consent.

My opinion is that both were bad blocks. Rodhullemu should have asked an uninvolved admin to look at the situation. However, Floquenbeam also erred. Rodhullemu's comments were no more than a response in kind. If two editors choose, on a user talk page, to each give as good as they get, as long as it doesn't get out of hand, the matter does not necessarily greatly concern me, at least it will clear the air, and four letter words do not trouble me. Responding with a block without first warning was poor adminship by Floquenbeam in my opinion. Had a responsible admin jumped in there and told them both to back down, I think they would have. In fact, they certainly would have, since neither wanted to be blocked. Whatever the stated reason, Floquenbeam's block does risk looking like like tit-for-tat, in which case it was wildly inappropriate, since individual admins do not block each other for poor use of the tools. After all, a block does not prevent use of the tools, so where is the prevention in that?

To continue with "a plague on all your houses" as the bridges burn merrily, Moni3 was ''way'' out of line in the unblock. The unblock was probably justified. But it should have been done by the book. Consultation with the blocking admin (who was still free to edit his talk page and did). The fact that it is the second time Moni3 has unblocked Malleus in this manner is a grave concern. I don't believe in cliques, but why feed the trolls? If it is that far out of line that an edit summary of "Oh, for Pete's sake" is appropriate, bring it to AN/I and let someone else do the work. Perhaps it is time to revise policy so that the "clear error" exception to consultation under WP:BLOCK cannot be used more than once by any admin with respect to any editor. Right now, the people who are convinced that there are admin cliques and admins form a thin orange line are busily taking notes.

But what really disgusts me is the implication in all these threads, even by admins and other editors who should know better, is that blocks are punishment. Tit for tat. It's OK if I'm blocked as long as the other guy gets at least as long as I do. If I ever say that, please block me. I think a lot of borderline RfA candidates could give the answer on this one: Blocks are not punishment, should last only so long as to ensure that the blocked editor will come back and keep the peace. The project is large. We will not complete it, and we need all the help we can get. I'm fairly disgusted at just about everyone here. That is why I intervened yesterday, when I had tried to avoid controversy for months after getting my fill of it late last year. However, I see no good in ArbCom taking this case (which is certainly a safe thing to say, looking up at the scoreboard). What effective action could it take? I should add: Many of the people who are involved in this dispute are high-quality content contributors, and I am appalled to see all of this. Get back to work.--[[User:Wehwalt|Wehwalt]] ([[User talk:Wehwalt|talk]]) 16:48, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

@Newyorkbrad: I'm not clear, is it that we allow long term contributors more leeway, or admins are leery of blocking them because most seem to have friends who will unblock chop chop? Seems to me someone asked about "vested contributors" last election in the sea of questions. Do those who were elected after answering that question intend to do anything about it? I don't want to get into names here, but this ''is'' a problem.--[[User:Wehwalt|Wehwalt]] ([[User talk:Wehwalt|talk]]) 18:25, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

@Xeno: No one reoffends while blocked, kinda like after the death penalty, there are few recidivists. The explanation is given at the time of block. What does the time factor mean? Unless you are saying that you think they will cool down in that time? (Trick question)--[[User:Wehwalt|Wehwalt]] ([[User talk:Wehwalt|talk]]) 18:28, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

@Floquenbeam: In what way would a warning and strongly urging Rodhullemu to cut it out not have stopped him from acting further, or further justified a block if he did not? If Malleus was still on his twelve-minute cruise, Rodhullemu could have been strongly advised to reconsider the block as well? --[[User:Wehwalt|Wehwalt]] ([[User talk:Wehwalt|talk]]) 22:13, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

@NcmVocalist: I agree, this matter could be disposed of by motion. One idea would be for the AC to restrict Moni3 (especially after her [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AMoni3&action=historysubmit&diff=373245950&oldid=373220026 apparent unwillingness to post here]) from a third unblock of Malleus or from unblocking anyone without consultation with the blocking admin. The other two admins could be severely cautioned, and Rodhullemu told by the committee to put his real life first, not wiki.--[[User:Wehwalt|Wehwalt]] ([[User talk:Wehwalt|talk]]) 20:39, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

@Rexxs: If Moni3 was unaware of Rodhullemu's block, prior to her being told that after she reversed Malleus's block eight minutes later, then it is very clear that she did not spend those eight minutes investigating the facts.--[[User:Wehwalt|Wehwalt]] ([[User talk:Wehwalt|talk]]) 02:34, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

@NcmVocalist: To the extent my opinion counts for anything, I consider what you have proposed generally appropriate, though, as you note, fine tuning is needed. I don't know if anyone has been following the conversation on Moni3's talk page, but it's pretty clear she still doesn't get it (summary style "All I did was reverse a bad block"). However, given that no arb has posted to this discussion in 2 days, ''and'' this request has not closed despite being down 0-5, my guess is that that they are huddled away on their email list and will let us know what they come up with in due course. Should be interesting.--[[User:Wehwalt|Wehwalt]] ([[User talk:Wehwalt|talk]]) 10:05, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

=== Statement by Gwen Gale ===
Rodhullandemu had no call at all to block Malleus for lack of civility over a spat they were both tangled up in. Floquenbeam's block of Rodhullandemu wasn't fitting at all, admins who botch with the bit aren't blocked for it and I don't see how "symmetry" blocks are ever preventative, blocks should be dealt with only from the standpoint of a single user's behaviour, even if more than one editor does wind up being blocked. Civility lacks are always an unhappiness but a warning to both editors would have been more than enough and yes, it's true, the community doesn't support civility blocks for mere snark by productive editors. I'm posting this mostly to ask anyone who reads this to think about civility and if need be, to please be more civil (or say nothing at all). I don't see anything for arbcom to do here, though. [[User:Gwen Gale|Gwen Gale]] ([[User talk:Gwen Gale|talk]]) 19:41, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

* r to Malleus, had someone else blocked both you and Rodhullandemu, this RfAR wouldn't have been started, although both blocks would likely have been swiftly undone. [[User:Gwen Gale|Gwen Gale]] ([[User talk:Gwen Gale|talk]]) 13:50, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

=== Statement by Rodhullandemu ===
I am currently neither physically nor mentally fit to offer a full statement. Should I become able to do so, I would hope this would be sooner rather than later. That's all for now. [[User:Rodhullandemu|<span style="font-family:Verdana;color:#0000FF">Rodhull</span>]][[User_talk:Rodhullandemu|<span style="font-family:Verdana;color:#FF0000">andemu</span>]] 21:05, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
*@Pedro; I think you've probably nailed it. My personal circumstances are such that Wikipedia is pretty much all I have. Here, I can make a contribution based on my abilities and experience, and I obviously have a view on how that should be done. Certainly, open warfare isn't a way forward, and it is inimical to my values that abuse should be a normal, and indeed tolerated, means of discourse here. [[User:Rodhullandemu|<span style="font-family:Verdana;color:#0000FF">Rodhull</span>]][[User_talk:Rodhullandemu|<span style="font-family:Verdana;color:#FF0000">andemu</span>]] 01:23, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
*@Malleus and others. This project is two things; it is a collaborative experience, and a learning experience. Having spent the time I have committed here, I am in no doubt that both are important. Here, and elsewhere, we have a classic dichotomy between those who provide valuable content yet regard other editors, who may not be seen to do so, as unworthy, and open to insults and personal attacks. In particular, accusing the whole body of admins as "corrupt" is so grossly egregious and libellous, as to warrant blocking for disruption regardless of content creation. This isn't Jimbo's original vision of a "collegial environment". And yet, time and time again, these editors subvert that principle, and get away with it, because they have their claque of supporters. Enough. I regard as a principle of editing here that two things are beyond argument: (a) Commitment to improving content and (b) basic civility towards fellow-editors. If you can't subscribe to '''both''', I suggest you don't belong here. Whereas I may occasionally "lose my rag" with the frustration of dealing with those who don't get it, I don't make a career out of it. [[User:Rodhullandemu|<span style="font-family:Verdana;color:#0000FF">Rodhull</span>]][[User_talk:Rodhullandemu|<span style="font-family:Verdana;color:#FF0000">andemu</span>]] 01:36, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
*Meanwhile, there was no request on my Talk page to review my block of Malleus; there was no discussion or warning about personal attacks prior to my blocking by the newish admin Floquenbeam; even IP editors are given that courtesy, and it is accepted wisdom that Admins are only ordinary editors, but with extra buttons. I can only assume, in the absence of such dialogue prior to blocking, that it was intended to be punitive and retributive rather than preventative, and thus outside of policy. As for the disparity of unblocking, I cannot comment on that. [[User:Rodhullandemu|<span style="font-family:Verdana;color:#0000FF">Rodhull</span>]][[User_talk:Rodhullandemu|<span style="font-family:Verdana;color:#FF0000">andemu</span>]] 01:45, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
@Ncmvocalist
You've started this process, and as such, should be responsible for seeing it through. It's your baby. My previous experience of you (in a [[WP:GA|GA review]]) is that you don't necessarily see the wood for the trees, and your comments above seem to be combative, if not defensive. No matter. The next time I drive up Oxford Road in Manchester, I will be reminded of you. Sadly, the nearby Plaza Cafe on Brook Street is no longer. Shame. [[User:Rodhullandemu|<span style="font-family:Verdana;color:#0000FF">Rodhull</span>]][[User_talk:Rodhullandemu|<span style="font-family:Verdana;color:#FF0000">andemu</span>]] 01:11, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
<br>
@Rlevse: Zackly so. My block of Malleus was was a mistake caused by (a) combination of (unaware) 7.5% cider as opposed to my usual 5.3%, with [[Piriteze]] and [[Prozac]]; (b) the failure of Malleus to realise that when you are given good advice, to take it. You can push an [[WP:AGF|principled]] editor only so far in such circumstances. Would that I could rewind the clock, but I can't. If I could do so, I would do so even to the extent that my parents were still alive, and able to give me some support. But that isn't going to happen. Some people have all the luck, but I'm not one of them. Cheers. [[User:Rodhullandemu|<span style="font-family:Verdana;color:#0000FF">Rodhull</span>]][[User_talk:Rodhullandemu|<span style="font-family:Verdana;color:#FF0000">andemu</span>]] 01:07, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

=== Statement by NocturneNoir ===
Apologies if I'm sticking my nose where it quite doesn't belong, but I've got quite a bit to say. Can it be generally agreed that all of these admin actions, two bans and an unban, were improper? Recognizing that all of these were without comments, much less community consensus is surely the first step. But that doesn't quite solve our problem, does it? Instead of saying that this is wrong (and it quite probably is), isn't it more useful to look at why this happened, and work to prevent this in the future?

When this was happening (and I was not present), I'm almost sure this was fast-paced; a [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=block&user=&page=User%3AMalleus+Fatuorum&year=&month=-1&tagfilter= quick] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=block&user=&page=User%3ARodhullandemu&year=&month=-1&tagfilter= look] reveals three minutes between Malleus's ban and Rod's ban and eleven between Malleus's ban and unban.

I'd like to argue that these admin actions moved at ''way'' too fast a pace. There are some parts of Wikipedia where speed is undoubtedly relevant for admin actions (attack pages and such) but for something like this, there needs to be a firm rule that time is ''not'' of the essence and that discussion is highly preferred over quick shots. We're not cowboys firing from the hip at the first sign of provocation.

Rod's wrong to block, but he was clearly hot-headed and involved. Moni3 is involved; her opinion of Malleus and his place in Wikipedia is very decided and she really should deist from unblocking him in the future without a community okay. Floquenbeam likely got caught up in the "admins should be held equally responsible" bit of talk (which is true, mind you); the problem lies in the instinctive personal attacks block: any normal editor would be warned prior to block, however, Rod's attacks had continued for some time, no? In the view that Rod did not appear to be stopping and was, in fact, escalating via blocking, a preventative block was appropriate. Floquenbeam's later post to AN asking for a block review was absolutely the proper thing to do. I'm not great at judging consensus (note the lack of a mop in my hands) but it appears AN either agrees with with the block or thinks everybody was at fault in the whole debacle. Personally, though, Rod's not some random editor mouthing off; he's a decorated editor and due respect should have been given prior to a block, such as with a firm warning. I really find Rod and Moni's decisions downright wrong, but not actionable, and Floquenbeam's a bit too reactionary, but again, not actionable.

While I do agree that a block-first ask-later policy is definitely needed as a preventive measure, unless there is clear damage being done to the encyclopedia, it shouldn't be enacted. There needs to be more of "We don't block long-time editors, even with checkered pasts, without consensus" (ignoring, of course, compromised accounts). ArbCom's not the right venue for such a discussion, but I do feel such a discussion needs to, and will eventually, take place. [[User:NocturneNoir|<font color="000033">ɳ<small>OCTURNE</small>ɳ<small>OIR</small></font>]] <sub>[[User talk:NocturneNoir|<font color="555555">talk</font>]] // [[Special:Contributions/NocturneNoir|<font color="555555">contribs</font>]]</sub> 14:20, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

;Response to Ncmvocalist
First off, are you punishing for a singular incorrect action? The community at large needs to let Floquenbeam, Moni3, and Rodhullandemu that what they did is ''wrong'' and should '''not''' be repeated in the future and has done so. I don't, however, see long-term admin tool abuse, and thus no ArbCom case. You seem to be making a mountain out of a molehill here; there's no reason to assume the negative and think that this sort of thing will happen again after the reprimands have already been handed out. I mean, what are you trying to achieve here anyway? If it's a declaration that the blocks are unsound, it seems the community has already provided that. As for your "ArbCom is requested to make findings of fact as to the users who are directly involved and their role in this situation, the appropriateness of conduct and tool usage in this situation." request, you don't need ArbCom to decide such things; Wikipedia has already provided a verdict. I really hope you're not shooting for desysoping because that would be really quite too far.

Also to this point, your tone shows a clear distaste for Floquenbeam and Moni3's actions, but none such dislike for Rod's. Do you find Rod's actions completely proper? Your views seem a bit biased to me. Shouldn't there also be a finding of fact that involved admins should not be blocking? I can't be bothered to dig through ArbCom archives, but I'm willing to bet one of these findings have already occurred.

Also, the second half of my name is Noir, not nair. [[User:NocturneNoir|<font color="000033">ɳ<small>OCTURNE</small>ɳ<small>OIR</small></font>]] <sub>[[User talk:NocturneNoir|<font color="555555">talk</font>]] // [[Special:Contributions/NocturneNoir|<font color="555555">contribs</font>]]</sub> 16:13, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

:Let me try to pick through some of your points just to prove I'm not a complete blockhead then. "Btw, where is the equivalent discussion for the unblock of Malleus? Had the same question been asked of Malleus, would he have answered differently? Did Floquenbeam give Malleus an indication that he should not assume that his comments were being condoned?" is entirely irrelevant because the original block was improper. Sure, if this was a legitimate block, this conversation sure as hell should have happened, but it wasn't. Slightly to your point though, Moni should not have unblocked sans discussion with Rod. "Yet Rod was expected to grovel because "he started it" and Wehwalt was to "word it in such a way that he doesn't think his actions have been condoned"?" shouldn't have been even necessary since Rod's block was improper (I don't, however, agree that he was expected to grovel; merely to state "Okay, I was wrong to use personal attacks and block" would have sufficed). "The practical equivalent of this being declined is permitting this situation to repeat (with no worries for whichever users are the parties in the future); if ArbCom cannot "see" that, then they have learnt little from the past, because that's what happens when there is no binding action." What kind of binding action do you want? Vague assertions like those aren't helping my understanding. If the issue at hand really is "administrator judgement" as you say, everybody is of the opinion that the judgments have been poor all around and that really requires no ArbCom intervention. I can see the double standard you're pointing at and guess what? None of these blocks should have happened to begin with. Thus, my previous comment: "I really find Rod and Moni's decisions downright wrong, but not actionable, and Floquenbeam's a bit too reactionary, but again, not actionable." still stands. Trout the lot and then drop it.

:Am I good now, or am I still missing the point entirely? Also, I hate to harp, but you still haven't answered whether you find Rod's block acceptable or not. Maybe it's just me, but I find the tone with which you use when talking about Rod to be very different with that of Floquenbeam. [[User:NocturneNoir|<font color="000033">ɳ<small>OCTURNE</small>ɳ<small>OIR</small></font>]] <sub>[[User talk:NocturneNoir|<font color="555555">talk</font>]] // [[Special:Contributions/NocturneNoir|<font color="555555">contribs</font>]]</sub> 18:18, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

::Okay, finally understanding what you're trying to achieve, and I do agree that a formal declaration of fault needs to happen. Not sure if ArbCom is the right venue for such a thing though, but certainly these uses of admin tools need to be addressed. Apologies for my denseness; there is quite a good deal of material to hack through and I don't have the greatest amount of time. <small>I'll be honest; most of the material I read prior to my first post was skimmed. I would argue, however, if you did declare in your opening statements that Rod's block was improper but Floquenbeam's block / Moni's unblock was ''more'' improper to you, I would have understood far better. I'm not the only one to make such a mistake: if you read the statement by RexxS, he also saw the same as I. In your response to him, you noted that Rod's action was "predictable", but that only exacerbates my view that you're letting Rod off the hook.</small>

::If I'm allowed, I really think everybody should slow down and think of their actions. This entire thing went to hell because people were impatient. Also, I definitely support Wehwalt's idea of a motion, though I'm not entirely sure how the severe caution of Floquenbeam would work when community consensus is divided with support leaning toward an endorsement of the block. I personally think AN is wrong and Floquenbeam should have discussed with Rod on his talkpage in lieu of blocking; had Rod continued to insult Malleus and disregarded an official warning, you would see a very different case before ArbCom right now. [[User:NocturneNoir|<font color="000033">ɳ<small>OCTURNE</small>ɳ<small>OIR</small></font>]] <sub>[[User talk:NocturneNoir|<font color="555555">talk</font>]] // [[Special:Contributions/NocturneNoir|<font color="555555">contribs</font>]]</sub> 21:06, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

===Statement by Balloonman===
What a cluster#@!$. First, the initial block was clearly inappropriate. One should NEVER block somebody with whom one is actively engaged. One should always seek outside help (The only exception would be if the engagement were solely a result of admin actions (eg a warning wherein the blocked party escalates it) and only if the admin's hands are clean. Even if this started out as a warning, the blocking admin lost the high road and got involved on a personal level.) That was not the case here. I have no problem with Flo's actions. I don't necessarily agree/disagree with them, but Flo's blocking rationale is justified as was his rationale for not unblocking without assurances that hostilities would not resume. Reasonable people can disagree here. Moni3 did absolutely nothing wrong. He unblocked a person whom he felt was unjustly blocked by a person who abused the tools. His failure to not unblock the blocker is not a shocking. A) he could have felt the same was as Flo and B) may not have realized that he had been blocked. In other words, no sanctions whatsoever against Flo/Moni3.

As for the comment below about "flo" being a common nickname... it may be, but is there any doubt that in this limited context whom people are referring when taking about Flo?

As for NYBrad's comments to M.F. I will echo them. I know that M.F. can be an ass (I am not saying that he is, but he can be.) He knows it and he has a thick enough skin that he knows that I say it with the utmost affection ;-) That being said, I encourage him to embrace NYBrads statement, well said.---'''[[User:Balloonman|<font color="purple">Balloonman</font>]]''' ''[[User talk:Balloonman|<b><sup><small>NO! I'm Spartacus!</small></sup></b>]]'' 16:59, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

=== Clerk notes ===
:''This area is used for notes by non-recused Clerks.''

=== Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (0/7/0/1) ===
* Decline as premature. I see no evidence that any substantial efforts at dispute resolution (such as one or more requests for comment) have taken place; in the absence of a convincing reason for bypassing the preliminaries—and none has been presented so far—I see no need for the Committee to intervene so abruptly. [[User:Kirill Lokshin|Kirill]]&nbsp;<sup>[[User talk:Kirill Lokshin|[talk]]]&nbsp;[[User:Kirill Lokshin/Professionalism|[prof]]]</sup> 18:22, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
*'''Decline, and comment:''' Ncmvocalist, please change all references to "Flo" in your statement to the correct name of the person you refer to; we have several users who are known by that "nickname of a nickname". I also note that the block was fairly widely supported on the applicable thread on [[WP:AN]], so this seems to have already been discussed by the community and found to have at least a general consensus. <p>I am concerned about the fact that the community generally, and fellow administrators particularly, seem to be unwilling or unable to communicate to administrators when they show signs they are "burning out". Any administrator who is spending [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ABishonen&action=historysubmit&diff=372824251&oldid=372823498 at least half his life] on Wikipedia by his own admission, needs some guidance from people he trusts and respects. This is not healthy for the project, for the admin, or for the users with whom the admin comes in contact. The inability of administrators to recognise when they need to step away for a while, and the unwillingness of their colleagues to encourage them to do so, almost inevitably results in events such as what is seen here. <p>I do not think that a case is necessary at this point, in the absence of other community discussion. [[User:Risker|Risker]] ([[User talk:Risker|talk]]) 19:02, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
**'''Note to Ncmvocalist:''' Please stop. You have now posted over 3200 words on this request, and have responded to almost every editor who has posted here. That is not the purpose of this page; the objective here is to provide sufficient information for the arbitrators to determine whether or not a case is warranted. Your regular restatements of your personal interpretation of the policy, and the sanctions that you wish to see put in place, are unhelpful in that regard. [[User:Risker|Risker]] ([[User talk:Risker|talk]]) 15:25, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
:::Ncmvocalist: Your "general responses" I counted as responding to everyone else who had posted. You miss my point. You are debating here, and you have already given every impression of having "decided" this case before it is even accepted (q.v. your posts from 21.44 on 12 July, 14:33 on 14 July and 07:08 on 15 July). Henceforth, and for any future cases in which you wish to make a statement, please just make your statement, and save the ongoing debate for cases that are accepted. [[User:Risker|Risker]] ([[User talk:Risker|talk]]) 17:03, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
*Having read the AN discussion (so far), I largely agree with what Black Kite said: ''"Rod shouldn't have blocked Malleus (obviously); Flo shouldn't have blocked Rod, and Moni3 shouldn't have unblocked Malleus given that Rod was blocked. Either the both of them stayed blocked or neither. The actual correct thing to have done would have just been to unblock Malleus, told both Rod and Malleus to grow up, and then ask the community if there was a case for an RFCU based on Rod's incorrect use of admin tools."'' I couldn't have put it better myself. If an RFAR or RFC had been opened on Rodhullandemu's use of the admin tools, a clear community disapproval or desysopping would have been one possibility, but Floquenbeam's block (and Moni's unblock) escalated and complicated matters and removed any possibility of that question being addressed in a calm manner. I'll close by also fully endorsing what Jehochman said, especially this bit: ''"We do not block administrators for errors in using their tools."''. If an admin makes an error with their tools and refuses to accept that, or consistently and egregiously misuses their admin tools, bring it here for a stern reprimand or desysopping. Will wait for further comments before deciding whether to decline or accept. In particular, before deciding either way, and in order to get the full story here, I would expect to see statements from Malleus Fatuorum, Floquenbeam, Moni3, Wehwalt, and Rodhullandemu (though I realise the latter has declared he is retired). Could the clerks notify those I mentioned who haven't been listed as parties to the request? [[User:Carcharoth|Carcharoth]] ([[User talk:Carcharoth|talk]]) 22:54, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
**Responding to the comment [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case&diff=next&oldid=372999342 here], I would suggest (with hindsight) that unblocking Rodhullandemu and waiting for consensus at the WP:AN thread to be clear, and then opening a request here to see if the use of admin tools needed to be examined. But you are right that the timings here do ameliorate things somewhat, but that is a reason to move slower on such matters. If there had been more discussion and less blocking and unblocking, things might have calmed down a bit. Edging towards declining this, given what Floquenbeam has said, but would still like to hear from Malleus Fatuorum, Moni3, Wehwalt, and Rodhullandemu (who I note has been editing again). [[User:Carcharoth|Carcharoth]] ([[User talk:Carcharoth|talk]]) 02:47, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
***On further consideration, in the hope that all those who have commented here so far and were involved in this incident have learnt something from it and will handle future incidents like this in a more collegial and less confrontational manner, '''decline'''. Further, what Wehwalt said [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case&diff=373107057&oldid=373106556 here] makes a great deal of sense, and I agree with what Malleus says [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case&diff=373149253&oldid=373145254 here]. Rather than wait for Moni3's statement, I've left a note [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Moni3&diff=373220026&oldid=373210707 here] letting her know that while I am declining the request, she should still feel free to make a statement if it would help clarify what happened here. [[User:Carcharoth|Carcharoth]] ([[User talk:Carcharoth|talk]]) 08:02, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
* '''Decline''', per Kirill and Risker. &nbsp;[[User:Roger Davies|<span style="color:maroon; font-variant:small-caps">'''Roger&nbsp;Davies'''</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:Roger Davies|'''talk''']]</sup> 00:05, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
* '''Decline''' and I think I was close at one point to launching into one of my "Have every one lost their (bleeping) minds?" rants. I think many of the actions taken in this issue were ill conceived. More discussion, better judgement and more cordiality is required by all. However, I want to speak on another issue involved here. Administrators who feel burned out are encouraged to take a break, renounce their tools if need be to reduce temptation. In almost all cases, I'd be willing to give them back without a RfA.. I went through that myself at one point where my frustrations (combined with ill health) boiled over, and I came back stronger for it. I encourage EVERY editor or administrator who feels burned out to take breaks as needed. We are all volunteers. We do not get fired if we don't show up to edit Wikipedia every day. The encyclopedia will be here when you return, if you wish to. We lost one administrator in the last 24 hours because they burned out in a spectacular manner because no one could suggest they needed a break. [[User:SirFozzie|SirFozzie]] ([[User talk:SirFozzie|talk]]) 07:27, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
::Agree with Brad after further review. Do not see a need for an ArbCom case, but I want it to be clear to the parties that this was NOT handled well, and I don't want to see people repeating their mistakes (and I'll call it that. Mistakes.) [[User:SirFozzie|SirFozzie]] ([[User talk:SirFozzie|talk]]) 20:00, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
*Awaiting any additional statements, leaning toward declining. I find myself in agreement with all the other arbitrators' comments so far, and endorse those views in lieu of repeating them. Several of the other commenters have also made valuable observations that everyone involved in this episode, parties and others, should think about. I would also like Malleus Fatuorum to think about the fact that his consistently uncivil and uncollaborative tone over the past several months would have resulted in a lengthy block long ago, were it not for his valued substantive contributions to Wikipedia, whose quality and scope is widely respected as superior. I have never enlisted in the so-called "civility police," but it remains very unhelpful for a long-term editor to consistently accuse his colleagues of "corruption" and all manner of other ills, as a matter of course every time there is a good-faith disagreement about some issue (such as whether inactive administrators should be resysopped on request or how long a period of inactivity should be allowed). I am sure that Malleus Fatuorum would not appreciate the collaborative environment if every editor here consistently spoke of everyone else as he so often does. We do, of course, allow somewhat greater leeway to long-term editors who are making valuable contributions to Wikipedia, and those contributions can be of many sorts. In a way, there is an isomorphism between the lenient treatment that Malleus Fatuorum receives in light of his contributions to Wikipedia, and the latitude that he accuses some administrators of receiving in light of theirs, although I suspect that the irony of the situation will be entirely missed on him. In any event, I'd appreciate his toning it down a notch. [[User:Newyorkbrad|Newyorkbrad]] ([[User talk:Newyorkbrad|talk]]) 18:17, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
::To Wehwalt: as a practical matter (as opposed to an aspirational one), it's probably some of each. And I have very mixed feelings about it, but to a certain point, it's inevitable and necessary that when an editor violates the norms of the site, his or her prior editing record is going to be taken into account when administrators decide how to react; the only question is how much so. After all, if Malleus Fatuorum were to post tonight that "Newyorkbrad is a corrupt SOB," no one will give him an award for etiquette and discretion, but neither will anyone react the same way as if a new user made that statement in his first edit, either. (This has, incidentally, been recognized in the principles in several of this committee's decisions. <small>Um, meaning the principle of proportionality of sanctions, not the part about Newyorkbrad.</small>) [[User:Newyorkbrad|Newyorkbrad]] ([[User talk:Newyorkbrad|talk]]) 18:38, 12 July 2010 (UTC) <small>The part about Newyorkbrad was implied. [[User:Steve Smith|Steve Smith]] ([[User talk:Steve Smith|talk]]) 19:39, 12 July 2010 (UTC)</small>
::'''Decline'''. Although I do not believe action by the committee is necessary, I hope that an incident like this one will not be repeated. [[User:Newyorkbrad|Newyorkbrad]] ([[User talk:Newyorkbrad|talk]]) 19:47, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
*'''Comment''' - I believe that action is needed here, but would like to see if we can stop short of a full ArbCom case, and would like to wait a few days to that end; if there has been no progress, then I will change to accept. My preliminary comments are that i. both principals behaved poorly, ii. both should accordingly have been treated equally, iii. that instead of both being treated equally, the one who was an administrator took it upon himself to block the one who wasn't is completely unacceptable, and iv. per Carch and Jehochman, the approprate remedy for misused admin tools is not generally a block (unless that block is somehow preventative of additional misuse). I recognize that Floquenbeam's stated reasons for blocking Rodhullandemu was not to "punish" him for misusing admin tools, but rather to enforce symmetry in remedy. [[User:Steve Smith|Steve Smith]] ([[User talk:Steve Smith|talk]]) 19:39, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
*'''Decline''' Firm trouts all around. <span style="font-family:Verdana,sans-serif"> — [[User:Rlevse|<b style="color:#060;"><i>R</i>levse</b>]] • [[User_talk:Rlevse|<span style="color:#990;">Talk</span>]] • </span> 00:53, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Revision as of 02:39, 16 July 2010

Arbitration Committee proceedings

Currently, there are no requests for arbitration.

[edit]
Open cases
Case name Links Evidence due Prop. Dec. due
Venezuelan politics (t) (ev / t) (ws / t) (pd / t) 20 Apr 2024 04 May 2024
[edit]
Recently closed cases (Past cases)
Case name Closed
Conflict of interest management 13 Apr 2024
Mzajac 7 May 2024
Request name Motions  Case Posted
Amendment request: Conduct in deletion-related editing none (orig. case) 30 April 2024
Clarification request: Palestine-Israel articles 4 none (orig. case) 8 May 2024

No arbitrator motions are currently open.

Requests for arbitration


Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case&oldid=373737106"