Herostratus LIVES!, (you won't believe this) Options

[One]

Incidentally, does anyone outside of Wikipedia ever actually use the word "admonish"?

ya, mormons

Do Mormons use the word "redact" as well?

If by "Mormons" you mean "lawyers," yes.

If, say, JzG had blocked a user for (1) a bad joke (2) indefinitely, (3) without warning, (4) without talk page explaination, (5) for reasons that were demonstrably false, I doubt WR would have the same reaction. That said, I think self-unblocking should be a bright-line rule for desysopping (and that's on top of the idiocy of the joke), so I'm surprised on both sides.

This post has been edited by One: Thu 4th March 2010, 6:15am

[Zoloft]

Herostratus is open to recall. I wonder if he'll pull an Elonka?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Wiki..._open_to_recall

He's not actually given any criteria, though, so whatever you say he can just adjust the criteria so as not to fit. (Under Elonka's criteria, he'd be recalled instantly, FWIW; SirFozzie and Hersfold are both calling for his desysopping and they qualify as "Senior Wikipedians" under the convoluted rules she made up.)

He has now, upon being poked, agreed that Mbisanz's criteria would be fine.
Mbisanz's Recall Criteria

[MZMcBride]

From this post by One:

Viridae blocked a user (1) based on a joke, (2) indefinitely, (3) without question or warning, (4) without talkepage explaination, and (5) as a "tax evasion" pretext for a suspicion that was manifestly false, if the admin had ever bothered to actually check. An admonishment is well-deserved. Don't do this.

That said, I thought unblocking yourself was one of our few bright-line rules. If you were hit with a bad block (which Herostratus was), you should remove it through request like everyone else. If Herostratus is so uninformed on our current practices, desysop is prudent.

Let's take a look at this, shall we?

(1) Based on a joke made by whom? It's been firmly established that, at best, the joke wasn't fully understood to everyone. And it was the person being blocked who was making the joke (in rather poor form).

(2) Indefinitely. This is where you can be sure there's a red herring. "Oh my God, he blocked him indefinitely!" That shit's, like, permanent, dude. Or something. It's not like we do in nearly every case of emergency blocking.

(3) If you believe an account is compromised (which was the suspicion here), you don't warn or question, you simply block. Still not seeing anything out of the ordinary here.

(4) Without talk page explanation. And this is where we hit another sure-fire red herring. Viridae posted to Herostratus' talk page, informing him that Viridae had started a thread on a noticeboard. In that noticeboard post, he explains his reasoning for the block. So much for it being unexplained.

(5) This is the only valid part of your post.

Regarding self-unblocks, no, they're not actually a bright line rule. If you'd like, I can look up every case where a user has unblocked themselves. Herostratus saw an obviously bad block and overturned it. It's the same thing that many others have done. Off the top of my head, here's Misza13 doing it after an obviously bad block. So much for that argument as well.

Without trying to intentionally cast aspersions on your motives (though I do take note that you've finally stopped beating your wife), it seems you have a penchant for recusing in name only. The other Arbitrators are more than capable of making any relevant arguments or responding to criticism on the Motions page. If you choose to not involve yourself, I think there's an expectation of some level of self-restraint.

All of that said, as I noted somewhere on this site, I don't think a caution for Viridae is out-of-line, but there's no compelling case (at least in this incident) for an admonishment. Though, as you noted here, this admonishment is largely a pretext. Same shit, different day.

Just my two cents!

[MZMcBride]

Regarding self-unblocks, no, they're not actually a bright line rule. If you'd like, I can look up every case where a user has unblocked themselves.

For the curious: http://p.defau.lt/?NTfjNbQ4U0acDcKmpH7dTQ

[Alison]

Regarding self-unblocks, no, they're not actually a bright line rule. If you'd like, I can look up every case where a user has unblocked themselves.

For the curious: http://p.defau.lt/?NTfjNbQ4U0acDcKmpH7dTQ

I remember this one. She was blocked when Robdurbar (T-C-L-K-R-D) aka 'Wonderfool' went on the rampage with a sysop bit;

| unblock | 20070419101352 | Riana | fucking ridiculous |

And VoC - here's one for you;

| unblock | 20090907040004 | Gamaliel | administrator fail |

[Viridae]

Tax evasion is still tax evasion. It is still a crime. In this case, a compromised account is still a comropomised account. He was blocked because he had apparently intentionally shared his account password (explicitly not allowed) any further investigations into more serious allegations were immediately handballed to arbcom. Doesn't change the fact that the account appeared to be compromised. If that hadn't been the case no block would have occured.

(Nine days clean)

[everyking]

Tax evasion is still tax evasion. It is still a crime. In this case, a compromised account is still a comropomised account. He was blocked because he had apparently intentionally shared his account password (explicitly not allowed) any further investigations into more serious allegations were immediately handballed to arbcom. Doesn't change the fact that the account appeared to be compromised. If that hadn't been the case no block would have occured.

(Nine days clean)

When you start talking about being "clean" because you haven't edited, I think that's the beginning of the end.

[Viridae]

Tax evasion is still tax evasion. It is still a crime. In this case, a compromised account is still a comropomised account. He was blocked because he had apparently intentionally shared his account password (explicitly not allowed) any further investigations into more serious allegations were immediately handballed to arbcom. Doesn't change the fact that the account appeared to be compromised. If that hadn't been the case no block would have occured.

(Nine days clean)

When you start talking about being "clean" because you haven't edited, I think that's the beginning of the end.

WP os definitely a habit. One that needs breaking.

[One]

(4) Without talk page explanation. And this is where we hit another sure-fire red herring. Viridae posted to Herostratus' talk page, informing him that Viridae had started a thread on a noticeboard. In that noticeboard post, he explains his reasoning for the block. So much for it being unexplained.

Look at the times. This was just short of three hours after the block. He only made the post because Herostratus had the idiocy to unblock himself. Herostratus then asked Viridae on his talkpage for an explaination. Rather than reply with an explaination, Viridae then (only then) started the thread was to get support to have him blocked again, not to discuss and review his block, which had already been overturned.

All of that said, as I noted somewhere on this site, I don't think a caution for Viridae is out-of-line, but there's no compelling case (at least in this incident) for an admonishment. Though, as you noted here, this admonishment is largely a pretext. Same shit, different day.

Just my two cents!

Not true. Giano and others are claiming that this admonition is because the blocked user was an admin. Many of the comments make clear that this interpretation is wrong. They are concerned mostly that the block was done without independent analysis and without care.

Without trying to intentionally cast aspersions on your motives (though I do take note that you've finally stopped beating your wife), it seems you have a penchant for recusing in name only. The other Arbitrators are more than capable of making any relevant arguments or responding to criticism on the Motions page. If you choose to not involve yourself, I think there's an expectation of some level of self-restraint.

No problem. I recuse when I'm acting as an advocate. I believe that any advocacy should be on-wiki so that it can be publicly examined. Some arbitrators in the past did not think this necessary, and freely advocated from the list.

As someone in favor of transparency (for ArbCom, anyway), I hope that you can appreciate this.

This post has been edited by One: Fri 5th March 2010, 1:52pm

[Viridae]

Since when was a talk page explanation required? If it had been more ambiguous than "user has appeared to clearly admit sharing his account" I would have given a reason. As it was, I considred it pretty fucking obvious considering that poor taste joke went up not two weeks before.

You know what? I dont actually give a shit either way.

[MZMcBride]

All of that said, as I noted somewhere on this site, I don't think a caution for Viridae is out-of-line, but there's no compelling case (at least in this incident) for an admonishment. Though, as you noted here, this admonishment is largely a pretext. Same shit, different day.

Just my two cents!

Not true. Giano and others are claiming that this admonition is because the blocked user was an admin. Many of the comments make clear that this interpretation is wrong. They are concerned mostly that the block was done without independent analysis and without care.

I'm with Risker that it doesn't make much difference at all who the blocked party is or what user rights they have. Where we diverge is why this particular bad block rises to the level of an admonishment. It was a bad block, it was overturned, and, at least from my perspective, everyone had moved on... until ArbCom came in with motions.

There's a very real risk of pissing off dedicated contributors without any benefit in cases like this.

Without trying to intentionally cast aspersions on your motives (though I do take note that you've finally stopped beating your wife), it seems you have a penchant for recusing in name only. The other Arbitrators are more than capable of making any relevant arguments or responding to criticism on the Motions page. If you choose to not involve yourself, I think there's an expectation of some level of self-restraint.

No problem. I recuse when I'm acting as an advocate. I believe that any advocacy should be on-wiki so that it can be publicly examined. Some arbitrators in the past did not think this necessary, and freely advocated from the list.

As someone in favor of transparency (for ArbCom, anyway), I hope that you can appreciate this.

I think that's very fair. I might go further to say that due to the inherent extra access by Arbitrators, no advocacy would be preferred. However, if there is going to be advocacy, on-wiki is assuredly better than off-wiki in cases like this.

[GlassBeadGame]

Funny that this has degenerated into a discussion of the rights of Wikipedians. No regard is now given to the child protection issues. I believe Eric has indicated that Herostratus' edit history is replete with pro-pedophile edits. Nobody seems inclined to take a hard look at this. He has been required to provide no verification of his legal status and is taken at his word despite deliberate falsehoods. This is now about posting explanations of blocks, admin self-unblocking, and ArbCom admonishments. Viridae did a good thing here and quibbling over a block or other wonkery dilutes the point. The child protection concerns relating to Herostratus need to be followed up.

[MZMcBride]

Funny that this has degenerated into a discussion of the rights of Wikipedians. No regard is now given to the child protection issues. I believe Eric has indicated that Herostratus' edit history is replete with pro-pedophile edits. Nobody seems inclined to take a hard look at this. He has been required to provide no verification of his legal status and is taken at his word despite deliberate falsehoods. This is now about posting explanations of blocks, admin self-unblocking, and ArbCom admonishments. Viridae did a good thing here and quibbling over a block or other wonkery dilutes the point. The child protection concerns relating to Herostratus need to be followed up.

You really think nobody has taken a look at Herostratus' edits? If there's evidence of pro-pedophile edits or advocacy, feel free to point them out.

Otherwise, I think it's safe to assume that EricBarbour is full of shit and can be (and should be) ignored in the future. He's largely to blame for creating this mess, built up on assumptions and misunderstandings without any basis in fact.

[One]

I'm with Risker that it doesn't make much difference at all who the blocked party is or what user rights they have. Where we diverge is why this particular bad block rises to the level of an admonishment. It was a bad block, it was overturned, and, at least from my perspective, everyone had moved on... until ArbCom came in with motions.

There's a very real risk of pissing off dedicated contributors without any benefit in cases like this.

This is a very fair point. Such admonishments are capricious. Quite often, arbitrators don't think that a situation even deserves comment. You can see this view clearly in NYB's comments.

The problem is that ArbCom is often concerned about the appearance of cover-up. When users are demanding judgment, we are in no position to say "move along now." Maybe we should say "no action necessary" more often, but in this case it was decided they should weigh in. When they weigh in, they're committed to examining all parties involved in the exchange, and fault was found here on all parties.

I agree with you that this could have been treated as a no harm no foul kind of thing, but it was apparently thought that findings would reduce drama. If there were going to be findings, I thought these were reasonable.

[Malleus]

I agree with you that this could have been treated as a no harm no foul kind of thing, but it was apparently thought that findings would reduce drama. If there were going to be findings, I thought these were reasonable.

The findings were predictable, but what really stirred up the dust was Coren's foot-in-mouth comment about how administrators ought to be treated differently from regular editors: "blocking another administrator without full knowledge of the situation at hand, and without attempting to contact the administrator to obtain such knowledge". Sad really.

How many administrators ever fully investigate the situation before issuing a block? None? Why is it more important to investigate fully if the blockee is an administrator?

This post has been edited by Malleus: Fri 5th March 2010, 8:35pm

[Zoloft]

So... should editors try to recall Herostratus or not? I think his odd 'joke' and his immediate unblocking of himself probably merit it, but I'd hate to see it fail, 'cause that would cement his grasp on the tools.

Opinions?

[Malleus]

So... should editors try to recall Herostratus or not? I think his odd 'joke' and his immediate unblocking of himself probably merit it, but I'd hate to see it fail, 'cause that would cement his grasp on the tools.

Opinions?

No. It would just be seen as an attempt to cause that thing most wikipedia apologists abhor, "dramah". Nothing else matters to the wikiwhores except to keep the fires damped down; reform is impossible, justice is unnecessary ought to their refrain.

[MZMcBride]

The findings were predictable, but what really stirred up the dust was Coren's foot-in-mouth comment about how administrators ought to be treated differently from regular editors: "blocking another administrator without full knowledge of the situation at hand, and without attempting to contact the administrator to obtain such knowledge". Sad really.

How many administrators ever fully investigate the situation before issuing a block? None? Why is it more important to investigate fully if the blockee is an administrator?

The potential for drama and disruption is much higher and there's a presumption that administrators and other users with "higher" user rights are generally behaved.

This has been a main sticking point for you for a long time, though I'm not sure why that is. From what I've read in your comments, you have this idea that all users should be treated and judged equally, though I can't find any basis for this in the real world or on Wikipedia. If a district attorney is considering an indictment, I think he or she would be far more hesitant when the suspect is the mayor than when the suspect is simply an average citizen. That's normal. It may not be ideal, but I don't know why it's something to make a fuss over or constantly point out.

Further, the extra user rights, power, or whatever else may end up being very disadvantageous to the person being scrutinized, as their actions will often be judged more harshly than someone else's. More and more, we've been seeing administrators thrown out for conduct that normal users would be left alone over. This is particularly true in cases of off-site "misconduct," as yanking the administrator bit is the only means of petty recourse.

[Malleus]

The findings were predictable, but what really stirred up the dust was Coren's foot-in-mouth comment about how administrators ought to be treated differently from regular editors: "blocking another administrator without full knowledge of the situation at hand, and without attempting to contact the administrator to obtain such knowledge". Sad really.

How many administrators ever fully investigate the situation before issuing a block? None? Why is it more important to investigate fully if the blockee is an administrator?

The potential for drama and disruption is much higher and there's a presumption that administrators and other users with "higher" user rights are generally behaved.

Not by me there isn't.

The findings were predictable, but what really stirred up the dust was Coren's foot-in-mouth comment about how administrators ought to be treated differently from regular editors: "blocking another administrator without full knowledge of the situation at hand, and without attempting to contact the administrator to obtain such knowledge". Sad really.

How many administrators ever fully investigate the situation before issuing a block? None? Why is it more important to investigate fully if the blockee is an administrator?

This has been a main sticking point for you for a long time, though I'm not sure why that is. From what I've read in your comments, you have this idea that all users should be treated and judged equally, though I can't find any basis for this in the real world or on Wikipedia. If a district attorney is considering an indictment, I think he or she would be far more hesitant when the suspect is the mayor than when the suspect is simply an average citizen. That's normal. It may not be ideal, but I don't know why it's something to make a fuss over or constantly point out.

You are perfectly at liberty to ignore basic human rights and freedoms, but I will simply draw your attention to Article 7 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights: "All are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to equal protection of the law. All are entitled to equal protection against any discrimination in violation of this Declaration and against any incitement to such discrimination."

Where in that does it say that mayors or other elected officals should be treated differently from other citizens?

[NotARepublican55]

Tax evasion is still tax evasion. It is still a crime. In this case, a compromised account is still a comropomised account. He was blocked because he had apparently intentionally shared his account password (explicitly not allowed) any further investigations into more serious allegations were immediately handballed to arbcom. Doesn't change the fact that the account appeared to be compromised. If that hadn't been the case no block would have occured.

(Nine days clean)

When you start talking about being "clean" because you haven't edited, I think that's the beginning of the end.

Yeah I know - God created man and woman for the sole purpose of editing His Free Encyclopedia 9 hours a day, 7 days a week. When one of God's Children claims to be "tired" of editing His Encyclopedia, that is a sign that the End Times are upon us.

If, say, JzG had blocked a user for (1) a bad joke (2) indefinitely, (3) without warning, (4) without talk page explaination, (5) for reasons that were demonstrably false, I doubt WR would have the same reaction.

If the user had made pro-pedophilia comments on WP and a "joke" about being arrested and court ordered to stay off the internet, then I doubt anyone would care if the blocking admin was JzG, Viridae, or Brad Pitt for that matter.

And either way, Viridae did leave an explanation and the block was reversed immediately, so no harm done and much ado about nothing. And now Viridae is getting slammed just for making the best call he could. Sad.