| Revision as of 15:54, 19 October 2008 editCharles Matthews (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Administrators360,566 edits →Lack of coherent discussion← Previous edit | Revision as of 13:36, 21 October 2008 edit undoCharles Matthews (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Administrators360,566 edits placeholderNext edit → | ||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| Status: placeholder content | |||
| This concerns an unblock, by ], of a block of mine on ]. The matter has been raised several times on ]: , , , | |||
| Why don't you look at ]? | |||
| ==Harassment policy== | |||
| Slrubenstein has claimed that ''The Harrassment policy requires a pattern that demonstrates the intent to intimidate or threaten.'' This is simply false, and crucial to this issue. According to ], attempted outing is grounds for an immediate block. My block log entry mentioned outing in terms: ''Time to read WP:HARASS carefully, especially on "attempted outing"''. | |||
| “Attempted outing” is the issue here, and there is no requirement of a pattern. Further, blocks may be immediate, and the issuing of a warning is not required. Our norms and customs treat all carelessness with the personal information of others as a serious matter. | |||
| ==Blocking policy== | |||
| Slrubenstein shows no sign of knowing of the existence of ]. | |||
| There is an exception there for Oversights (I am one). | |||
| "Well, I am not sure what background you have that I do not" and "The only evidence that you cannot provide is evidence that would further out someone, and if that is the case, just say so, but it is hard for me to imagine what further evidence you could have against MathSci in this case." | |||
| Imagination is a poor substitute for knowledge of policy, in an admin. | |||
| ==Lack of communication before unblocking== | |||
| ] contains this wording: | |||
| :''Editors with administrator access will strongly avoid wheel warring, that is, overriding each other's decisions, in almost all cases, since this is in itself a serious breach of administrator policy. For this reason, blocks will not usually be allowed to become a source of conflict; rather, consensus will be sought, by means of a fair and objective examination of the matter and of any policies alleged to have been breached.'' | |||
| :''The routes to resolve a block are agreement by the blocking admin, a (very rare) override by other admins in the case that the block was clearly unjustifiable, or appeal to the Arbitration committee to make a formal ruling on the matter.'' | |||
| Instead of respecting this policy, Slrubenstein made '''''no attempt at all''''' to contact me before unblocking, less than eight hours later, and has subsequently posted long self-justifications. | |||
| ==Lack of coherent discussion== | |||
| Instead of treating this matter as “a serious breach of administrator policy”, he has come up with some reasons that he disagrees with me, including meandering analysis of my motives. And posting this sort of thing: | |||
| :“My interprtation of the evidence is that matsci is trying to figure out how to help an editor contribute without violating copywrite (or academic standards of plagiarism). Based on th other editor's user page it wouldn't surprise me if he were the author, or a colleague or friend of the author, or just someone familiar with the book - who knows? In the worse case scenario, i.e. that the user is the author, boy would I HATE to think that anyone suggesting I had my research published in a book is a form of intimidation or a threat, I would be pretty proud.” | |||
| Note that speculation on the correctness of the “attempted outing” directly contradicts ]. Given the impossibility of getting sense here, I have little choice but to ask the Arbitration committee to make a formal ruling on the matter. This will settle the merits of the original block. | |||
| Here then are the major replies I have received so far: | |||
| * | |||
| * | |||
| * | |||
| *: this claims amongst other things that if "other admins strongly disagreed with my unblock, they could have reblocked". No, two wrongs don't make a right, which is the absolute bedrock of ]. Such blocks exacerbate any situation. | |||
| ==Claims to be uninvolved== | |||
| :''Nope, don't see it. I am one of several editors who made serious, NPOV, V and NPOV edits to the race and intelligence article but it really shouldn't surprise anyone that many editors were involved in well, in a consensus. MathSci happened to be one of them but s/he and I have had very little to with one another elsewise. Our interests coincided on one page and we agreed only because both of us - in that case at least - cared about the same[REDACTED] policy, NPOV. Does this make us allies?'' | |||
| Here are some diffs: | |||
| * – Calls Mathsci “exemplary Wikipedian in every way” | |||
| * , , – requests assistance | |||
| *, and the awkwardly-archived edit “Mathsci, he is just a troll - just revert his silly or policy non-compliant edits. WP:DNFTT. Slrubenstein | Talk 10:31, 8 May 2008 (UTC)” on ], saying trollish or troll for opponents. | |||
| The word for Slrubenstein's disclaimer, I think, is "disingenuous". | |||
| ==Outcome== | |||
| Given the range of issues shown here with Slrubenstein's handling of an unblock, I am concerned about Slrubenstein's admin status and handling of the powers. It would be an understatement to say that it falls below what I would have hoped for, in an admin who disagreed with a block of mine. As I mentioned above, the block will best be looked at under policy by the ArbCom, and this RfC is absolutely not about the conduct of ]. I will take very badly any attempt to divert this conduct RfC to that matter. | |||
Revision as of 13:36, 21 October 2008
Status: placeholder content
Why don't you look at something completely different and pretty much concurrent and in any case far more cheerful and when it comes down to it also something I think matters and to which I made a contribution?