Case Opened on 23:46, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Case Closed on 18:44, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Please do not edit this page directly unless you wish to become a participant in this request. (All participants are subject to Arbitration Committee decisions, and the ArbCom will consider each participant's role in the dispute.) Comments are very welcome on the Talk page, and will be read, in full. Evidence, no matter who can provide it, is very welcome at /Evidence. Evidence is more useful than comments.

Arbitrators will be working on evidence and suggesting proposed decisions at /Workshop and voting on proposed decisions at /Proposed decision.

You may add to the #Log of blocks and bans as needed, but closed cases should not be edited otherwise. Please raise any questions at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Requests for clarification.

• InShaneee (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
• 81.179.115.188 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) (anonymous user formerly known as Worldtraveller (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log))

(...formerly known as Worldtraveller)

InShaneee either does not understand Wikipedia's blocking policy, or does not think it applies to him. On January 4th, after I, editing from IP address 81.178.208.69, removed a 'WikiProject Paranormal' template from Red Rain in Kerala for the third time in three days [1], leaving reasons in an edit summary, InShaneee blocked the IP for 24 hours [2], dishonestly claiming 'vandalism' in the blocking summary. This directly contravened the following points of WP:BP:

1. Disagreements over content or policy are not disruption
2. Blocking to gain an advantage in a content dispute is strictly prohibited
3. Sysops must not block editors with whom they are currently engaged in a content dispute

Of course, this would not normally merit any consideration by the arbitration committee. However, InShaneee's behaviour since then has fallen so far below that normally expected of administrators that I think examination of his conduct by the arbitrators is now necessary. Here is an overview:

1. I first took the matter up on InShaneee's talk page [3]. I received no response.
2. I then questioned the block on WP:AN. Several administrators criticised it. InShaneee did not offer any meaningful contribution to the debate, or any attempt to justify his actions. His only statement was to say that he saw his role as 'to govern the lesser Wikipedians' [4].
3. Having failed to get any useful response from that, I inquired again on InShaneee's talk page. Again, no response was forthcoming. I continued with these fruitless attempts to start a dialogue for some time [5].
4. I then filed an RfC. It was not certified within 48 hours and was deleted. InShaneee's response to this was to begin accusing me of making personal attacks - not, one might note, because I called him a witless moron, but because I said that if he refused to justify his actions he was a terrible administrator [6].
5. InShaneee complained on WP:AN/I about my questioning of him [7], again characterising my criticism as personal attacks. Another administrator percieved a personal attack in my criticism. Two other people rejected this notion.
6. The RfC having been deleted I returned to seeking dialogue [8]. 48 days after he blocked, InShaneee finally responded directly to me regarding my questions. However, he did not offer any clear justification of why he applied the block or whether he was ignorant of or deliberately ignoring the blocking policy.
7. I responded with further questions, and he resumed his pattern of ignoring all criticism [9], [10], [11].
8. In light of InShaneee's total refusal to listen to criticism or engage in discussion, I said that whatever I could do to get InShaneee's adminship revoked, I would do [12].
9. InShaneee then accused me of harassment. He posted to WP:AN/I again [13]. User:CBDunkerson considered my post a threat, and blocked me. Other administrators strongly disagreed that any attacking or harassing was occurring. I asked for the block to be reviewed. User:HighInBC followed CBDunkerson's interpretation of events and refused to unblock. Subsequent discussion (in the link just given) has found their view unsupported by consensus.

The issues, then, are these:

1. An administrator, having applied a block clearly contravening WP:BP, has ignored all attempts to discuss this. I think it is appalling for an administrator to simply stonewall in this way when criticised for breaking policy. An administrator who refuses to justify their actions is a terrible administrator.
2. Some administrators have decided that criticising administrators is by definition a personal attack. They have also decided that attempting to start dialogue is harassment.
3. Far from expecting explanations for out-of-policy blocks from a fellow administrator, they have attacked and blocked me for these alleged 'attacks' and 'harassment', despite many other users protesting strongly about their interpretation of policy.

As an aside, InShaneee has previously unblocked himself [14]. From WP:BP - Sysops are technically able to unblock themselves...but should absolutely not do so unless they were autoblocked...Self-unblocking without a convincingly good reason has resulted in several users losing their sysop privileges.

As a further aside I note that InShaneee himself delisted a previous RfC criticising his behaviour [15], and then engaged in revert warring to keep it delisted [16]

Addendum

User:J.smith says that CBDunkerson's block had nothing to do with InShaneee. I think this shows that InShaneee certainly wanted to encourage CBDunkerson to make good his threat to block me. Perhaps I should have explicitly included CBDunkerson and HighInBC as parties to this case; I don't think it would be sensible to do so now when some arbitrators have already stated their opinion on hearing the case. Sorry if that's made things a bit confusing. 81.179.115.188 10:41, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll be the first to say (once again) that my 24 hour block of WorldTraveler two months ago was rash, reactive, and I should have sought more discussion and input before acting in any capacity on the matter. However, I think Worldtraveler (who, it is important to note, has said he has left the site, and indeed has not edited outside of this dispute since making this statement) leaves out a few key points in the 'attempts to resolve dispute' header, namely the fact that my response was an honest apology to him[17] (to which he simply lashed out at me), and I've said on AN:I more than once that I would welcome intervention from MedCab or a similar body (to which no response was given). Not only that, but as a cursory reading of my talk page will show, he's been demanding that I 'explain myself' (yes, after my apology, as well), all while saying that I'm a 'terrible administrator' with every comment. I want this resolved more than anything so I can just get on with doing what I do here. He simply wants blood, as he even shows in his diffs above. In the past few weeks, I've changed my activities on-wiki as well. Rather than attempting to solve violent edit wars (such as the Kurd/Turk disputes I was hip-deep in 6 months ago), I'm now getting back to the terribly un-controversial task of New Page Patrol. This was far in the past, I've done what I could to assuage WorldTraveler's feeling of rage, and I've moved on. I really don't see what purpose the grand spectacle of Arbitration could serve in this case. Oh, and as to the charge that I 'inappropriately' unblocked myself, as the link in my block log shows, this was on the heels of the user who had blocked me trying to unblock me, only to accidentally unblock one of my impostors (one letter off) instead. --InShaneee 01:02, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (6/0/1/0)

• Accept. Paul August ☎ 19:11, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Recuse. Kirill Lokshin 19:53, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Accept. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 23:02, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Accept. Mackensen (talk) 12:03, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Accept. FloNight 12:17, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Accept. Charles Matthews 22:05, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Accept. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 22:47, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk note

Recuse from any clerk activity in this case. Newyorkbrad 01:20, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary injunction (none)

Final decision

Administrators

1) Wikipedia administrators are trusted members of the community and are expected to follow Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Occasional lapses may be overlooked, but consistently poor judgement may result in desysopping. Administrators should in particular avoid actions that are likely to be disruptive. Administrators are not to use their tools in any dispute in which they are directly involved, such as by blocking others with whom they are in a dispute. See Wikipedia:Administrators, Wikipedia:Blocking policy, and Wikipedia:Protection policy. All editors deserve to be treated with the utmost of respect by administrators.

Passed 11-0 at 18:43, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism

2.1) While blocking policy permits blocks for vandalism, vandalism is narrowly defined as an edit made in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia. Although the committee recognizes that exceptional cases may exist, the statement from the blocking policy that "blocks should not be used against isolated incidents of vandalism" would apply in routine incidents.

Passed 8-0 at 18:43, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Courtesy

3) All Wikipedia users are expected to behave reasonably and calmly in their dealings with other users. Administrators are expected to lead by example in this area rather than criticizing inappropriate behavior. Further, administrators are expected to keep their cool even when dealing with editors who disregard policy and community norms. While personal attacks are prohibited by policy, administrators are expected to endure them without retaliating. Any response to a personal attack should come from a member of the community who was not a target of the attack.

Passed 7-3 at 18:43, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Responsiveness

4) Administrators must be willing and prepared to discuss the reasons for their administrative actions in a timely manner.

Passed 11-0 at 18:43, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Worldtraveller has edited from several IP addresses

1) Worldtraveller (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has also edited from 81.178.208.69 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), 81.179.115.188 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), 81.179.150.16 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) and 144.82.240.93 (talk · contribs · WHOIS).

Passed 11-0 at 18:43, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

InShaneee blocked Worldtraveller inappropriately

2) While in dispute with User:81.178.208.69 (Worldtraveller) over talk page content on Talk:Red rain in Kerala, and reverting rather than discussing [18], [19], [20], [21], [22], [23], [24], Inshaneee blocked the user, contrary to the blocking policy which forbids the use of blocking to gain the upper hand in a dispute. Moreover InShaneee entered a block summary of "vandalism" [25]; however, Worldtraveller had not engaged in vandalism. Further, even if 81.178.208.69's edits were, hypothetically, construed as vandalism, they were not frequent or numerous enough for policy to support a block. In discussion InShaneee initially responded provocatively [26] and offered no explanation or apology.

Passed 11-0 at 18:43, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

InShaneee did not respond appropriately to Worldtraveller

3.1) InShaneee failed to respond adequately to Worldtraveller's repeated requests to explain and discuss the block of Worldtraveller. InShaneee did not respond meaningfully until seven weeks after the events took place, at which time the matter was being escalated.

Passed 11-0 at 18:43, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

InShaneee has been warned previously

4) At Wikipedia:Requests for comment/InShaneee, substantially similar previous behavior by InShaneee was discussed at length by the community. The consensus of this discussion was that the community was concerned about InShaneee's use of blocks and lack of willingness to discuss them.

Passed 11-0 at 18:43, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.

InShaneee admonished

1) By reason of the foregoing, InShaneee is strongly admonished:

(A) To impose blocks on editors only in strict accordance with the blocking policy and other applicable policies, and in particular, not to block any editor with whom he is engaged, or could reasonably be perceived as being engaged, in a content dispute;

(B) To consult with other administrators, rather than act unilaterally, in instances where the propriety of a block or another administrator action could reasonably be questioned; and

(C) To respond promptly and in good faith to reasonable questions and criticisms concerning his administrator actions.

Passed 10-1 at 18:43, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

InShaneee's admin privileges suspended

1.1) For inappropriate use of blocks and a failure to heed prior community feedback in this area, InShaneee's admin privileges are suspended for a period of ten days.

Passed 8-3 at 18:43, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Worldtraveller

2) Worldtraveller is thanked for an exceptional quality and quantity of his edits in the capacity of content creator and urged to resume contributing high-quality content to the encyclopedia. He is requested to recognize that to err is human, including on the part of admins, accept the apology for an unfair block and that InShaneee understands that it was inappropriate not to have engaged in a full discussion of the matter, and to put aside his grievances and drop the matter.

Passed 11-0 at 18:43, 2 April 2007 (UTC)