Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/Admin User:Mikkalai blocked for 48 hours, review requested

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard‎ | Incidents

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Dc76 (talk | contribs) at 14:14, 29 October 2007 (→‎My stand). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

(Moved from main AN/I page for length reasons -- 57K)

I have blocked Mikkalai (talk · contribs) for 48 hours, after a warning for edit warring which was followed by a personal attack and a clear statement of intent to continue edit-warring with Ludvikus (talk · contribs) over the article Chinese in the Russian Revolution and in the Russian Civil War. See my extended reasons at User talk:Mikkalai#Personal_attacks_and_edit_warring.

Mikkalai is an admin, so I would be grateful if other admins could review my actions here. Thanks! --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 08:31, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse block - edit warring with a clear statement that it would continue. ViridaeTalk 08:34, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

According to the revision histories, you gave Mikkalai a final warning at 19.04 on 20 October and Mikkalai last edited the article at 18.30. You blocked him at 09.35 this morning. This doesn't really sit right. The block appears to be because Mikkalai refused to agree to stop disrupting but since the last warning no further disruption of the article has taken place. This can't be the right way to deal with this situation. Reading the talk page quickly it appears that the other engaged user is also being very disruptive. Have they been blocked? NO it appears not. And the article was protected at 3 am this morning - 6 hours before this block was issued. Since the article is protected I fail to see what disruption this block is supposed to prevent? Frankly this strikes me as a very poor decision given that Mikkalai had over 100,000 contributions to the project last I looked. Sure he can be difficult and uncooperative but how does this block help us build an encyclopaedia? I have unblocked Mikkalai. Spartaz Humbug! 09:29, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Spartaz, might that be a rash and quickly made decision? Would it not be better to wait until there has been more discussion before defying the block? -- Anonymous DissidentTalk 10:00, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(ec) Perhaps but I took the view that this was manifestly not the right way to deal with this that an unblock was the right way forward.Spartaz Humbug! 10:52, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Spartaz, we only ever block users for what we can infer about their future behaviour from their past conduct. Typically an intention to continue edit warring is inferred from recent edit warring, but a statement to that effect serves just as well. Furthermore I find your implication that having a large number of edits excuses such behaviour to be quite disgraceful. How many edits would you say are necessary to excuse wheel warring? --bainer (talk) 10:35, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Where am I wheel-warring? I have overturned the block once. That's not a wheelwar that's a difference of opinion. If there is a consensus that I was wrong and someone reblocks I won't unblock again so that's hardly a wheelwar. In all cases we need to consider the impact on the project of any block. Mikkalai is a long term standing editor whose contribution to the project is enormous. Of course we give editors like him more rope - just look how much rudeness and incivility and all round disruption that the arbcom accepts from other well established editors. The edit that he was blocked for took place around 9pm last night and he was blocked aprox 12 hours later without further disrupting the article. Sure we can infer but a quick look at the page history and the protection log tells us that the disruption has ceased and will not resume. Did you also see Mikkalai's request for the page to be protected to end the edit war? Spartaz Humbug! 10:59, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
. You overturned another admin's action without prior discussion: that's wheel-warring according to WP:WHEEL.
You are also wrong about the timing: the edit for which Mikkalai was blocked was made at 04:35 this morning, 7 hours after the page was protected. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:52, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No it's not wheel warring. It's an application of Bold, Revert, Discuss to an admin action. It would become a wheel war if you re-blocked, which I trust you won't do. Guy (Help!) 12:06, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for pointing that out. I now see what you mean. I still stand by my point. I don't accept that I was wheelwarring and I do not agree with the block as protecting the article has ended the disruption. Blocks for incivility are rarely effective and in this case have no value with someone like Mikkalai who is otherwise an extremely valuable contributor to the project. Especially as the problem is excacabated by his having to deal with an extremely disruptive user who has just returned from a 6m block. You seem to have decided that his being an admin means he deserves blocking more than a non-admin and that's simply not right. Spartaz Humbug! 12:03, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just so you know it, Ludvikus is a known troll who since his return from a 6 months block has been badgering Mikkalai to the point where I'm amazed that he hasn't resorted to incivility yet. This is Jacob Peters all over again. Are we going to block the troll or the people who correctly reverts him (Mikkalai in this case) ? EconomicsGuy 09:53, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ludvikus is indeed highly disruptive, and is under final warning, and the article is protected. But that does not alter Mikkalai's stated intention to edit war, which as it stands we can expect to resume when the protection is lifted. When other admins have already intervened and issued warnings, it is highly disruptive for an editor to states their intention to continue edit warring, and an editor who has been an admin for more than 3 years really has little excuse. I think it is highly regrettable that Spartaz lifted the block without further discussion. I don't intend to wheel-war, but having come here to discuss my actions, I expected that other admins would extend me the courtesy of discussing the block before lifting it. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:19, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(ec)What was your block preventing? Your message on Mikkalai's talk page says that he has been blocked for personal attacks. If that was the case then why did you say that you would unblock him if he promises not to disrupt the article further? That doesn't make sense unless the reason for the block was the threatened further disruption. Since the article has been protected what benefit does the block achieve? It can't be to prevent personal attacks because you were willing to unblock if the disruption stopped. Secondly, why are you treating him differently because he is an admin? Sure, we all expect admins to behave a bit better then non-admins but imposing different block standards because if this gives admins an unwarranted extra status that we do not have or deserve. This is manifestly wrong - especially in a case where Mikkalai was not acting in his admin capacity. Finally, I thoroughly agree that Mikkalai has serious civility problems but punitive blocks are not the answer.Spartaz Humbug! 11:01, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Spartaz, did you actually read what I wrote? When I issued the block, I did indeed say "A block is a preventive measure, so I will of course lift the block immediately if you can promise that to stop edit warring". The threat was that Mikkalai explicitly said "I am at war with this person", which means that the differences are unlikely to be confined to one article. "You also seem to have missed that this was explicitly not a punitive block, which was why I promised to lift it if the threat of edit-warring was withdrawn.
I'm really rather annoyed abut this. I brought the block here for discussion, and rather than discussing it, you promptly overturned it. What on earth is the point of an admin bringing their own action for review if they are supported by one other editor but then promptly reverted without further discussion on a mistaken understanding of he nature of the block? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) —Preceding comment was added at 11:43, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry if you are upset about this. I have had my blocks overturned before and I agree its not always nice but I honestly believe that you made a dud call here. Firstly, if you are not familiar with Mikkalai, he uses very stark language that often reads very aggressively. Stuff that he has done to me in the past has left me fuming and early on in my wiki-career I got blocked after edit warring with him that happened because I was so incensed by the way that he was responding to me that I totally lost my call. I'm certainly not his friend. I do however recognise his value to the project and I have very rarely found his admins actions to be anything other than spot on. Sure he used intemperate language in the heat of the argument - and your adding a templated warning to his talk page was probably not the best way to get his attention - But you surely must have read his own request for the article to be locked to halt the edit war. The article was locked 6 hours before you blocked Mikkalai - did you notice this? - because it was the first thing I noticed when I went to review the block. In this case, what could the block have prevented? by Mikkalai's own words the edit war would have ended at that point. How could a block be anything other than punitive? Spartaz Humbug! 11:54, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You are quite entitled to believe hat I made a dud call, but you should have discussed before overturning.
And yes, of course I noticed that the article was locked before I blocked Mikkalai. The reason he was blocked (rather than warned again) is that his statement that he was "at war" came about 9 hours after the page was protected. I'm sorry, Spartaz, but you really have acted very poorly here, by overturning a block when you were wrong in your understanding of the reasons for it, and wrong in your assessment of the timelines. I have therefore reinstated it. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:14, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
EconomicsGuy, please take a look at User talk:Ludvikus. Admins Banno, BrownHairedGirl and Until(1 == 2) have all been in contact with Ludvikus over the last few days over this very issue; Banno particularly gives some very sage advice here. Ludvikus is under close attention and will not escape sanction should he continue to edit war or engage in other disruptive behaviour.
We don't accept provocation as a defence here. Yes, we often expect administrators to put up with all sorts of crap from disruptive editors, and maybe sometimes that's unfair, but that's just the way it is. A measure of understanding should of course be extended in this type of situation, but in no way does that go so far as to entirely excuse declaring an intention to edit war. --bainer (talk) 10:35, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I offer no defense against those valid counter arguments. I'm simply puzzled by why an editor who returns from a 6 months block for trolling is only blocked for 24 hours for disruption of an AfD where as an admin is blocked for 48 hours for the intention to disrupt (sorry for the borderline wikilawyering but it puzzles me greatly how this happened.) EconomicsGuy 10:51, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rubbish. The edit in question was made in the heat of the moment but we then had 12 hours of no disruption and the page was protected. Where was the consideration there? Spartaz Humbug! 11:03, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
WP:CIVIL please Spartaz. In response to EconomicsGuy, the purpose of a bloc is to prevent disruption, not to punish. The 24-hour block on Ludvikus solved the problem at AfD; I selected 48 hours for Mikkali because as an experienced editor, Miklalai can have have been in no doubt out the unacceptability of edit-warring. However, I am open to suggestions of the appropriate length of block for Mikkalai if 48 hours is considered excessive. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:30, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
CIVIL? Beg pardon? Exactly what did I do that was uncivil? Spartaz Humbug! 11:43, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Referring to another editor's contribution as "rubbish", above. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:52, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
o_O That's a very interesting interpretation of incivility. Saying something is Rubbish isn't uncivil in the UK - it simply means that you strongly disagree with the point made. Spartaz Humbug! 12:06, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I endorse this block, actually. The edit warring, the personal attacks, and the statement of the intent to war more really makes me think a (48 hour) block is indeed justified. -- Anonymous DissidentTalk 11:08, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Bad idea. Mikka is here to build the encyclopaedia, and in my view solves many more problems than he creates; he is trolled by many POV-pushers as a result. Guy (Help!) 11:10, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I don't know Ludvikus, but if EconomicsGuy's statement (Ludvikus is a known troll who since his return from a 6 months block has been badgering Mikkalai to the point where I'm amazed that he hasn't resorted to incivility yet.) is correct, then I would say it makes complete sense to me to unblock Mikkalai and perhaps discuss Ludvikus's recent edits instead. --Aminz 11:23, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
BTW, I think Mikkalai shouldn't have reverted BrownHairedGirl's edit-warring notice without any explanation. Instead he could have discussed the situation with BrownHairedGirl. --Aminz 11:30, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'd agree with that - I'm certainly not defending Mikkalai's civility here as he could certainly benefit from improving his interaction with other editors. Spartaz Humbug! 11:43, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As a fellow grumpy old bastard I can quite see where Mikka comes from on this, and my experience with him is that he will always give a straight answer to a straight question. Warnings to admins are rarely a great idea. Requests to clarify or reminders that they may be getitng a bit heated, with an offer to help if needed, are much more likely to be productive. Unlike many of busy admins, Mikka is a prolific editor of content. We absolutely do not need to lose people like him. Guy (Help!) 11:54, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
We wouldnt lose people like that if they didn't go around edit warring and making statements to the effect that they will continue to do so. Edit warring is inexcusable in EVERY situation and most certainly inexcusable in an admin. ViridaeTalk 12:09, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Why don't you tone it down a notch. El_C 12:25, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And while you're toning it down, you take a look at Ludvikus (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), the user Mikka was talking about reverting, you'll find masterpieces like this: [1]. Guy (Help!) 15:31, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Based on this discussion, I make it no consensus that this block should stand. BrownHairedGirl says that she reinstated it. Since I'm accused of wheelwarring for my actions, would anyone care to comment on whether reinstating the block is a wheelwar and whether it reflects the consensus on this page? Spartaz Humbug! 12:25, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Undoing the block unilaterally would be a wheel-war. Even if groups of admins and non-admins agree with each other, those groups can still engage in a wheel-war regardless of who does the actual admin actions. That's my view, anyway. When is consensus reached? Who knows? It does seem silly to let the block run down, but the best thing to do would be to persuade BrownHairedGirl that her action in reinstating the block was inappropriate and ask her to unblock. Equally, you can ask for a separate review of her action in reinstating the block. My view is that even if BrownHairedGirl had seen a case for reinstating the block, she should have said that and let others take the decision, not her. The one thing wrong with all this is that short blocks can have expired before any consensus is reached. Carcharoth 21:09, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Block reinstated

As noted above, I have reinstated the block, because it has become clear through discussion that the Spartaz (who lifted the block) had misunderstood the reasons for the block and the timing of the actions leading to the block, and had not even seen that at the time of the block I closed my comments to Mikkalai with a promise to immediately lift the block if Mikkalai withdrew the satement of intent to edit-war.

I'm going to leave it that. I think I have said what needs to be said, and I will leave it to others to see if they can reach a consensus on where to take this situation. However, I stand by my promise to Mikkalai that "I will of course lift the block immediately if you can promise that to stop edit warring", and invite any other admin to lift the block if they notice such an assurance before I do ... or, of course, if there is a consensus here to lift it. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:27, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ooh, that's not good, since, technically, that does count as Wheelwarring, which, itself, greatly escalates this incident. Please reconsider. El_C 12:32, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I most strongly disagree with this action. Its wheelwarring and there is no consensus that the block was correct. Please reverse yourself. Spartaz Humbug! 12:34, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The re-block was completely unnecessary; I've unblocked Mikkalai, per consensus, and per the fact that he stopped hours ago, and is discussing on the talkpage. Maxim(talk) (contributions) 12:39, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What consensus????? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:45, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In addition to what I wrote above, I will lift my re-block if you also agree to reverse your lifting of the block, since your initial lifting of the block was based on a failure to understand the reasons for which it was applied. I came here to seek a review of my actions and to seek a consensus, not to invite the unilateral overturning of my actions by admin who didn't fully read the extended explanation which I provided for the block, despite the fact that at the time of overturning the only other commentator supported the block. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:44, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What happened to try to make an encyclopedia better, no matter what rules there are? Mikkalai cares for the encyclopedia, and actually writes it, we need more admins like that. Blocking him, especially for 48 hours, isn't going to solve anything. And what's the point of me reblocking him so you'll unblock him?! Maxim(talk) (contributions) 12:49, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest that if you have issues with my actions you take them out on me and not on Mikkalai. Your original block was harsh and isn't supported by a clear consensus in the discussion. Reblocking was pointy, petty and wheelwarring - which is staggering given that you had criticised me for wheelwarring shortly before it. I suggest that you go and do something else before this gets even more out of hand. Spartaz Humbug! 12:50, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Spartaz, it really would be a very good idea for you to try and do some basic reading of wikipedia policies and guidelines before participating in discussions on issues like this ... as well as trying to read a blocking admins's reasons before you overturn a block. I'm sorry if that's difficult for you, but reading is kinda crucial around here.
I'm not taking out on Mikkalai my genuine frustration and disappointment at your failure to read before acting or or even to understand why it is a good thing to read before acting. Mikkalai was blocked for his clear statement of intent to be "at war" with another editor, when the other editor was already under warning and the page concerned had already been protected. When you have done your reading, please can you kindly tell us all where exactly in any guideline or policy it says that edit-warring is acceptable behaviour from someone who makes good contributions elsewhere?
It'd be good to know what you come up with, for future reference. Is there a quota of acceptable edit wars for those who you think of as good editors, or is there some threshold at which disruptiveness is given a free license? I look forward to the links. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:09, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
o_O That's called playing the man not the ball where I come from. If I wanted to continue this argument I might also say that you can start yourself with reading up on WP:DTTR, WP:CIVIL, WP:WHEEL and WP:AGF and WP:BLOCK since we don't do punitive blocks. I'm still very confused. Did you block Mikkalai for being uncivil or for threatening to edit war in an article that was locked? If its the latter, the threat is really meaningless given that Mikkalai had already said that he wouldn't mind the article being locked in the wrong version . Prolific good faith editors have always been given more latitude then the policies strictly allow. I don't think this argument is healthy so I'm going to step out. Perhaps I was wrong to unblock but can you honestly say that your reblock was correct given that at that point the count was 3 in favour of your block and 3 against? Feel free to have the last word but please try and address that last question. Spartaz Humbug! 13:22, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The ball here is the admin who unblocked without taking the time and trouble to actually read the blocking reasons, or to check the facts before making a whole series of demonstrably false assertions about the course of events. After all this time, you are still asking questions about why Mikkalai was blocked, the answers to which are clearly set out in the detailed reasons I gave for the block. If you haven't read and understood those, five hours after you impetuously lifted the block, please don't waste time citing anything at anyone else. Read before acting, eh? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:45, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No it isn't. Your block was challenged, you need to justify it, not simply re-impose it. Several people have suggested that why is unliekly to help. You have not addressed those concerns. Guy (Help!) 13:55, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sigh. If you re-read the discussion, you'll see that most of the points raised in objection were simply wrong. It was alleged that block was punitive, when it was explicitly preventive; it was claimed that the page was protected after the threat to editwar, when the protection had taken place 9 hours before the threat; I was told that the block was lifted because I should have promised Mikkalai not lift the block if the war-threat was withdrawn, which I had done. And so on. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:51, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And if you read it you'll see that your block was widely reckoned to be wrong. And reinstating it was wheel warring - something which you know to be wrong, even if you assume that only people reversing your actions are doing it. So that's two mistakes. I recommend you stop at that. Guy (Help!) 15:25, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This was not a situation that required blocks, and nor was it a situation that required wheel-warring - and yes, BrownHairedGirl, wheel-warring is exactly what you did. Nor am I seeing an explicit promise to continue edit-warring from Mikka, or even an implicit one. Blocking by rote is unlikely to help matters in any situation. A more holistic approach is needed sometimes. Moreschi Talk 14:18, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ludvikus was being a disruptive menace, and is in the last-chance saloon; I and a few other admins have been trying to deal with the dispute by acting even-handedly. Edit-warring is always deplored, and nobody here has provided a plausible explanation of how or why it is acceptable for an admin to announce an intention to proceed with it. However, I'm not going to argue this any longer; someone else can take the trouble of dealing with these two edit warriors, and take whatever action they feel like. On the basis of what I have read here, and the jibe about blocking-by-rote, I have to wonder whether that will bear any resemblance to policy or guidelines, but if some admins want to make things up as they go along, I'll leave them to it. Have fun with Ludvikus and Mikkalai! --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:51, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wheel-warring is always deplored as well, you know. You are in no position to lecture anyone about policies and guidelines, particularly as they related to admin actions, so let's cut the hypocrisy, shall we? Moreschi Talk 14:58, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Right, let's see. I engage with the parties to a conflict follow policy and guidelines, apply a block, set out the reasoning at unusual length, go the extra mile by asking for comments at ANI, and then someone who didn't even bother reading what I had written (let alone do some of the more onerous work of actually checking the timelines before pronuncing on them) unblocks in the face despite the balance of views at that point being 2:1 in favour of the block ... and I end up getting called a hypocrite because I insisted that an unblock should be done on the basis of a consensus? Thanks a lot, pal. Now, are you going to deal with that edit war, or did you just pop in to criticise after the fact? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:36, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What's the point in asking for a review if you're not prepared to receive criticism? ~ Riana ⁂ 15:38, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I expected to receive informed criticism, or . The first section of this review consisted mostly of one verbose editor who wouldn't read and who acted on that basis, and I object strongly to that. There were several more thoughtful contributions too, on both sides, which were welcome. I accept that that there has later appeared to be an emerging consensus that prolific editors should be allowed to edit war, which I accept, even though I think it is a very unwise approach. What I don't accept is the sniping, which is why I would be delighted to now leave this whole situation for someone else to sort out, safe in the knowledge that there is no penalty for inaction. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:24, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That's the biggest pile of BS I've seen outside of a really big barn. You didn't just insist upon the supposed incorrectness of the unblock. You yourself darn well reinstated your original block, which you are not allowed to do under any circumstances. Have you actually read Wikipedia:Wheel war? If not, I highly recommend that you do so. Oh, and accusing everyone who disagrees with you of being mysteriously "wrong" apriori doesn't look good either. Moreschi Talk 15:46, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The principle of fairness doesn't always work on Wikipedia, sometimes, to keep the content contributors happy, you have to be sensible, but unfair. Blocking an excellent contributor such as Mikkalai just to be fair to someone who's being extremely disruptive, probably is fair, but it's completely devoid of any application of common sense. Nick 15:18, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's not just fairness, it's also a matter of actually resolving the situation and calming the was which make some areas of wikipedia into no-go zones for anyone but the most battle-hardened. I don't see how it helps to defuse a content dispute for an editor to declare war on another editor/. There are plenty of content contributors who add a lot of content to to the encyclopedia and don't feel entitled to go around stoking conflicts, and their ability to work effectively is undermined if others appear to be given a licence to stoke conflict. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:36, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
For what it is worth I think the block was justified, and that the unblock was a little confusing. 1 != 2 15:22, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, saying that you are dealing with the situation even-handedly is just another way of saying you were successfully trolled -- a troll initiated a conflict, drew a productive editor into it, and then you treat both parties as if they have the same motivation, or as if they are both acting in good faith, when they don't and aren't. Christopher Parham (talk) 18:59, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I intentionally avoided making any judgement on the content; there are other channels to examine content issues and I have rarely found it helpful for an admin to try making a rapid assessment of the merits of different views of a subject with which they are unfamiliar: that's what dispute resolution is for. Ludvikus's histrionic approach makes it very difficult to determine exactly what the underlying issues are, which was why he was repeatedly warned by me and others to be civil and to set out his concerns clearly if he wanted other editors to engage. However, both editors had already been warned to take time out.
Mikkalai had not even responded to my earlier warning on his talk page, merely deleting it without comment, before making his declaration of war. Where in that is the evidence of good faith?
Mikkalai's talk page is routinely blanked, so there is no quickly-readable record of his interactions with other users, which often helps provide a picture of someone usually well-behaved who has had a momentary outburst. The evidence before me at the time (without spending hours researching Mikkali's contribs history) was of someone not just rejecting all attempts at problem-solving, but with a previous record of edit-warring on the same page and without the support of other editors on that article. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:23, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In the future, I will do my best to listen very carefully to what User:BrownHairedGirl has to say in order to avoid any possibility of disruption. Although I do not agree with her assessment as to my alleged disruptiveness, I very highly respect her actions in practice - particilarly that she has been even-handed and imposed a 48-hour Block on such a very powerful, influencial, Administrator, such as User:Mikkalai. At the moment I see no other Administrator anywhere near her calaber. You should all learn and absorb her example. She is a great asset to Wikipedia. From what I see going on here - where the majority is ganging up on her - just because she apparently sided against one of the good old boys at Wikipedia makes me really want to leave Wikipedia forever. Nevertheless, in the immediate future, I promise to go out of my way to listen very carefully to her counsel so as to avoid any possible disruption on Wikipedia. At this stage of my experience at Wikipedia, I know no other Administrator whom I respect more than her, or vwho comes anywhere near her in fairness. I can promise you all this. All that will be required in the future from me, is a simple message from BownHairedGirl, and there will not be any indication of "disruption" whatsoever from me. As for you all, I think you should look very carefully at the amazing Conflict of Interests which clearly manifests itself when Editors are also Administrators.
Cheers, Yours truly, --Ludvikus 15:19, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Personal attack by said Administrator after 48-hour Block was Unblocked

It seems to me that Administrators' are just too powerful to have their misconduct curtailed. Here's the latest "personal attack" on a fello Wikipedian:

It seems to me that this Administrator has so many friends in the Administration at Wikipedia that he will not desists in personal attacks. Why should there be two standards for that kind of misconduct, one for Administrators, and one for the rest of us. Yours truly, --Ludvikus 17:30, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Peace offering rejected - edit waring to continue

Certainly not by me, User:Ludvikus.

  • Here's my Peace offer to Administrator User:Mikkalai which he has summarily rejected as trolling:
  • For the sake of the Article, here's my Peace offering which Mikkalai rejected as trolling.:

I truly would like to make Peace with Mikkalai. But I cannot figure out what I should do - except that he implies that that I need lessons in logic or visit a shrink - both of which I disagree with. Yours truly, --Ludvikus 19:53, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

focus on the main block

Rather than arguing about wheel-warring, we should first resolve the main issue: should the block on Mikkalai be lifted early? The reasons for the block are listed here. I see opinions in both directions (lift vs. let stand) above; it should be possible to reach a consensus, possibly by compromising on a shorter block length. — Carl (CBM · talk) 14:45, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Yes it should be lifted, and then we should talk to Mikka about what the problem is. Guy (Help!) 15:26, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Comment: A block because of promised action ("war") until confirmation of good conduct is obtained, is a correct use of a block. To unblock isn't wheeling, but was rash, especially given that 1/ someone else had endorsed so far and 2/ the matter was brought for discussion. The fact that uses "stark" language is his/her lookout... if he states, as an admin, he is "at war", he must expect this will be taken as such unless confirmed otherwise. Editors and admins are not expected to be perfect, but their general judgement is expected to be good.

That said, BrownHairedGirl was deeply incorrect to reinstate. The fact that in her perception and view, "it had become clear" he was in error is not the same as consensus (if consensus had existed, others would have acted too). That reinstatement is a canonical example of a wheel, though not the worst degree of it.

So now we have two issues,:

  1. An administrator who has stated as hyperbole that they are "at war" (but is also a "prolific creator" of good content), who knows well that policy prohibits disruptive approaches and that this will be taken as provocation, declaration or incitement, and whose words were reasonably and predictably taken at face value, and
  2. An administrator who acted on reasonable grounds, sought additional eyeballs when appropriate, and then due to feeling others had not read the matter and were in clear obvious error, has wrongly wheeled by reinstating their block when reversed.

That is where it stands. The concerns are likely to be future conduct. Would anyone object if both administrators were asked to comment if they will avoid such actions in future? I think that is one of the first things that needs to happen to resolve this. FT2 (Talk | email) 15:31, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • An admin has no need to promise good conduct before being allowed to get on with controlling the disruptive edits of a tendentious editor. Ludvikus is the problem here, as a look at the history of the dispute will immediately establish beyond any possible doubt, and right now I imagine he's laughing up his sleeve. Guy (Help!) 15:34, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think you'll find widespread disagreement with the notion that such statements are a necessary, desirable, acceptable or essential aspect of being "allowed to get on with controlling the disruptive edits of a tendentious editor". Administrators have to deal with far, far more disruptive editors than Ludvikus. I've never found such wording to be other than inflammatory and unhelpful. The purpose of blocks is to prevent disruptive conduct. It is hard to argue that words which inflame a situation (are likely to cause a reaction, will probably provoke), won't be perceived reasonably as "disruptive" by many admins. Invariably the best course for any experienced editor is to be WP:CIVIL and calm as they do their necessary actions. So you are right that no promise is needed before controlling a disruptive editor. But the question wasn't that at all. It was: "The concerns [of others] are likely to be future conduct. Would anyone object if both administrators were asked to comment if they will avoid such actions in future?" FT2 (Talk | email) 15:39, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We're getting hung up on Mikkalai's use of the word war here. When read in context it's more along the lines of "I'm not going to let a troublemaker defecate all over this article." Wikipedia has a long history of protecting trolls and troublemaker's right to disrupt, for months on end, and then hammering the admins who get momentarily exasperated dealing with them. In hindsight, if anyone should have been blocked it's Ludvikus, not Mikkalai. By the way, thank you BrownHairedGirl for asking for this review. --Duk 19:01, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think that Mikkalai's response was more than a momentary outburst, (see for example his reaction to a warning from another admin that the page would be protected) but I respect the right of other admins to differ on that point.
Thanks, though, for your your kind words about bring the issue to review; you are the first person to do so. From the way this request was received though, I can only say that it was a damn fool mistake on my part to bring it here. Not because people disagreed, but because after an initial spat of outbursts from those who someone who didn't want to read block reasons but felt absolutely entitled to denounce others as rubbish, much of the rest of it has made feel like I had arrested someone's dying granny on a trumped-up charges rather than taking the latest in a series of steps in an escalating content dispute. We could have had a perfectly sensibly discussion about how to deal with a conflict between between one histrionic and hyperbolic editor and the determinedly non-communicative edit-warring we-all-hate-police admin, but what's not what happened.
Next time I block an editor, I'll set out my reasons again on the user's talk page, and leave it all to whoever picks up the unblock request to do whatever they feel like. Coming here has been much more grief than it's worth, so I'll follow the example of the vast majority of blocking admins, and stay clear. I hope that whoever else deals with Mikkalai and/or Ludvikus has a lot of luck. They'll need it. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:04, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It is clear that over the last week botyh Mikkalai and Ludvikus have been acting in a manner that justified a block. Both have been staying just under 3RR several times now. I implore the admins here to watch this page and act fairly to both parties as neither is really coming out as "more right" in this situation. 1 != 2 15:26, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Promise to make every effort not to cause "Disruption"

Cut & Paste to be here on the Bottom:

In the future, I will do my best to listen very carefully to what User:BrownHairedGirl has to say in order to avoid any possibility of disruption. Although I do not agree with her assessment as to my alleged disruptiveness, I very highly respect her actions in practice - particilarly that she has been even-handed and imposed a 48-hour Block on such a very powerful, influencial, Administrator, such as User:Mikkalai. At the moment I see no other Administrator anywhere near her calaber. You should all learn and absorb her example. She is a great asset to Wikipedia. From what I see going on here - where the majority is ganging up on her - just because she apparently sided against one of the good old boys at Wikipedia makes me really want to leave Wikipedia forever. Nevertheless, in the immediate future, I promise to go out of my way to listen very carefully to her counsel so as to avoid any possible disruption on Wikipedia. At this stage of my experience at Wikipedia, I know no other Administrator whom I respect more than her, or vwho comes anywhere near her in fairness. I can promise you all this. All that will be required in the future from me, is a simple message from BownHairedGirl, and there will not be any indication of "disruption" whatsoever from me. As for you all, I think you should look very carefully at the amazing Conflict of Interests which clearly manifests itself when Editors are also Administrators.
Cheers, Yours truly, --Ludvikus 15:19, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from a non-admin

I just wanted to say that the above discussion cost the 1,400+ administrators on Wikipedia a good deal of credibility in my book. It's like watching a police abuse video. Not the underlying incident but the discussion and the aftermath here are disillusioning. I won't call anyone out because I'd rather all of you guys think about how you handled yourselves but I see wheel warring, harsh language, name-calling and other incivilities, faction forming, and rashness on the part of multiple administrators. More than that I see a lack of dignity and cool-headedness. When administrators fight among themselves, how am I supposed to respect the legitimacy of their actions out in the field? I sometimes come across uninformed decisions and abuse of privilege by admins and I'd like to think it's an aberration. Ideally you should be on best behavior, rising above personal matters, because people look to you for an example. If you lose the respect of those you serve you undermine not only your own effectiveness but the whole system you're trying to uphold. It's probably a perennial proposal but this and some other incidents are a strong argument that all admin appointments should be probationary, for a limited duration after which reappointment is necessary, and/or subject to a lot more scrutiny. Wikidemo 16:05, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's in the system. Admins have to work their way down to the level of qualification for ArbCom. (SEWilco 16:13, 22 October 2007 (UTC))[reply]
I would like to mostly agree with Wikidemo. This sort of thing costs the project lots of good will. I don't know about specific reforms to the admin system (I have my ideas, that don't seem like they'd get much consensus were I to propose them at this time), but I think we are headed on one of two directions 1) an increase in this type of "wheel-warring" disruption and erosion of community goodwill or 2) an arbcomm subcommittee to deal with admin actions and conflicts only. --Rocksanddirt 17:42, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A brief perusal of the contributions in the last few days has been over the top. Squabbling like children is not attractive, especially when an admin is party to it. --Haemo 06:09, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sad to say, I have seen this analogy of the law enforcement officer before. Despite claims that the position of administrator is janitorial in nature, the connection to police misconduct seems to come up more often than I care for.
One person's mop is another person's firearm, I guess. --Aarktica 17:55, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The reason is simple. Power over other people, without appropriate oversight, leads to abuse. Also, power corrupts. That's as true for custodians as it is for law enforcement (and truly, if you ignore the gun and handcuff aspect and just concentrate on the desk work, admin duties are closer to law enforcement than floor mopping). Wikidemo 03:28, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Resumption, as Promised, of Edit War by Administrator after 48-Hour Block Terminate

This is to inform you that this Administrator /Editor has done precisely what he has promised. And more than that. He has now unilaterally Reversed for the third time. I do not see an interest in staying on at Wikipedia much longer, if there is this kind of double standard - one for Administrators, and another for the vast majority of the rest of us editors. Yours truly, --Ludvikus 18:17, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Will I be weeping tears? Crocodile ones, perhaps. Given the outright nonsensicality of your edits, my sympathy is non-existent. Chinese shadows, indeed...Moreschi Talk 19:43, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Moreschi is an admin? If so I find the tone of the preceding comment highly inappropriate as per my comments in the above section.Wikidemo 20:06, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Bah. I'm no longer calling BS anything other than exactly that. Moreschi Talk 21:02, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Regardless of the merits of Ludvikus's complaint, he is being nearly disruptive enough (in my opinion) to earn another sabatical away from wikipedia (another 6 mo ban/block). --Rocksanddirt 21:42, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, Moreschi has already been to the article and to the talk page, so his "BS" comment is not "unhelpful". Basically, this article survived two AfDs. In the first one people from all over Eastern Europe were very embarassed to find that for the first time in years they all agreed on one thing: that the article should not be deleted. Now [User:Ludvikus|Ludvikus]] is trying to kill the article by having it renamed (and he is succeeding, they are actually voting on a new name at the talk page) and therefore is trying to get in a text which has no connection at all with the topic, except that it mentions the word "Chinese". It might as well have been "Chinese cooks", "Chinese astrologers" or even "Chinese checkers" - he would still try to get it in. I was thinking of leaving English wikipedia, but this is so over the top, I think I should stay on a little. Paul Pieniezny 21:49, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know what the quotes around "unhelpful" are for - I don't see that anyone used the word. Inappropriate tone is more like it. IN this section's discussion an administrator is condescendingly called hypoctical and her comments here a "pile of BS." Whoever is right or wrong about the disputed article, the editors' behavior, and what is blockable I don't know and I don't really care to know. I'm just pointing out that bickering, off color language, etc., erode one's confidence in administrative deliberations.Wikidemo 01:35, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That's news to me. I had no idea that Eastern Europe was so interested in the Chinese in the Russian Revolution. For the sake of salvaging the interests of Wikipedia (whatever they might be) I'm certainly prepared to let the article's name stand as it is. I always thought that "a rose by any other name smells just as sweat." I had no idea that the interests of Eastern Europe turned on the name of that article. As I matter of fact, I just offerred to leave the article in the hands of Administrator User:Mikkalai. I certainly do not wish to start World War III over that article. But why hasn't anyone told me that that's what is meant by disruptiveness at Wikipedia? Cheers. --Ludvikus 05:34, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, Ludvikus is blocked now, for better or for worse. It is probably a good thing. But he was right about one thing, Mikallia did show an intent to continue edit warring, was blocked for that, unblocked because of some reason I don't understand, and then continued as indicated to edit war. I am glad that one disruptive editor has been blocked, thought I think for too long, but we have another who has been unblocked, and has continued since. Now that Lud is gone perhaps the disruption from Mik will stop, but I want to make it clear that we do not benefit Wikipedia by letting established editors edit war. 1 != 2 17:28, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to comment on the double standard applied to certain editors. I think the position that experienced editors are entitled to be uncivil (which is what you're saying if you say they should not be blocked for incivility) is tantamount to biting newbies, because newbies are deprived of that privilege. If anything, experienced editors should be held to a higher standard, because they have been around long enough to know better. I also find it ironic that Mikka was unblocked without a legitimate effort to discuss the block with the blocking admin, because Mikka certainly feels free to undo other admins' actions without any discussion with them. Right or wrong, admins are entitled to an opportunity to defend their actions per our blocking and deletion policies. I know there's no cabal, but certain editors have managed to put themselves in a position where it is very difficult to criticize their actions or block them without people jumping down your throat. Disclosure: Mikka has been very uncivil to me in the past and also reverted my admin actions without prior consultation with me. (And I acknowledge that my actions were erroneous, but they were done in good faith and I deserved a chance to discuss them first before being reverted and attacked at ANI. -- But|seriously|folks  00:39, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't been terribly active here recently, but on reviewing the whole procession of events I actually support BrownHairedGirl's judgements on this occasion. If one takes the step of bringing it here for an honest review only to be crapped all over by those who disagree simply because they think the blockee was somehow justified in breaking policy, all that is going to happen is that admins won't bring blocks here for consideration, which will be a sad day for transparency. Orderinchaos 12:06, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My stand

Mikkalai should not have been blocked for being disruptive on his talkpage. The admin who blocked Mikkalai, along with those admins that symphatize with the admin, should have their tools removed and never be allowed to become admins again, on any Wikipedia. --Thus Spake Anittas 15:42, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(...says the guy with the history of harrasment and personal attack blocks...) HalfShadow 17:59, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. --Thus Spake Anittas 19:25, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have no idea what is the matter discussed here, and what POV Anittas is taking. But I'd like to translate some of his words addressed to a third party [2], which are only one in a long suit of such cases of graphic language:
Credeam ca este posibil sa port o discutie din asta cu un roman, chiar daca o fi el din Oltenia sau Muntenia, si chiar daca o fi avand el mentalitate de sarb-ortodox fanatic. Acuma vad insa ca ai dat cateaua pe mine si deja a inceput sa ma latre. Daca mai continue sa latre, cred ca o sa treazeasca tot satul. Poti tu sa fi dragut si sa o chemi inapoi?
[I thought that it is possible to have such a discussion with you as a Romanian, even thought he [you] would be from Oltenia or Wallachia, and even though he [you] would have mentality of fanatic Serbian-Orthodox. However, now I see that you have put the she-dog on me and she already started to bark at me. If she continues to bark, I think she will wake up the whole village. Could you be nice and call her back?]
The only thing that saved this user from RfC was that such language he used mostly in talk pages, in super-long discussions that few people read, not in articles or commentaries to edits. Therefore, please be aware of this when you read a comment by Anittas. :Dc76\talk 14:14, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents/Admin_User:Mikkalai_blocked_for_48_hours,_review_requested&oldid=167842027"