User:Jc37/Sandbox/AC

Protection reversion

• Final link

Initiated by jc37 at 06:08, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Involved parties

• Jc37 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA), filing party
• Bishonen (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

• Diff. 1: User_talk:Bishonen#Notice_2

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

• Link 1: User_talk:Bishonen#Transparency

(See statement for more information)

Statement by jc37

Initial statement

Ok. This is an odd situation.

I find that the normal venues of WP:DR are unavailable to me.

Bishonen (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) has used admin tools to revert another admin's (my) actions. This is "wheel-warring"

And if one goes through Bishonen's edit history (or even merely just read their talk page history) it's clear that Bishonen has a clearly expressed opinion on this (and appears "unhappy" regarding all recent sanction of the editor in question), and very clearly re-requested the admin tools expressly to revert the admin action.

So now what should I do? Well the first step would be to contact Bishonen on their talk page to try to work this out.

Well, that's been unsuccessful.

So now what?

Revert the clearly inappropriate use of admin tools? Not a good idea, as that was recently shown by arbcom to be ill-advised.

Go to AN/I? Why? To get some other admin to revert Bishonen's action and continue the wheel warring? We've recently been shown by arbcom that that just leads to that admin being desysopped.

RfC? Same problem.

As far as I can tell, the venue for dealing with wheel warring is either arbcom or User:Jimbo Wales (And as he ceded such authority to arbcom, as far as I can tell, I'm unsure even as to the appropriateness of an "Wikipedia:Appeal to Jimbo".)

So that pretty much leaves you all.

So here I am.

I didn't open a full case, because this is fairly straight forward, and I don't think a full case was needed for this (there are no long stream of diffs necessary afaict). However, should arbcom feel that a full case is necessary, a clerk is welcome to copy my comments to start a case.

I am not explaining/clarifying the protection (though I can, should arbcom wish) because the initial protection itself is immaterial.

This isn't about whether someone agrees with the protection, this is clearly and solely about about whether such wheel warring is appropriate.

As Arbcom has shown in at least two recent cases it is not. And I have read discussions from arbcom members for years discussing the "second mover advantage".

So here we are. I've attempted to do everything by policy.

Bishonen used admin tools to wheel war. And now I am asking arbcom to reverse the wheel warring action. As far as I can tell, no one else can without risking sanction: at the very least without risking being desysopped

I'm not asking for any sanctions against Bishonen. Honestly even if I was, it would be rather pointless. What would arbcom do? desysop? Bishonen is a popular enough Wikipedian that I have little doubt that they could breeze through a re-confirmation RfA. And honestly until the recent events, I would probably have supported such a request myself. (I had read recently a discussion about Bishzilla - one of Bishonen's socks, for those who have been living under a rock : ) - running for arbcom, and I was intending to support that candidacy should it have happened.)

And besides, Bishonen has clearly shown that they actually do not care about the tools, that this was merely an action taken to further their POV of the sanctions currently against the editor in question.

I don't think this was the action of an "admin gone rogue", or other such nonsense. I believe that Bishonen willfully and deliberately followed this choice of action in opposition to current policy (and arbcom rulings).

Thank you for your time. - jc37 02:40, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Case Statement

I am asking arbcom to review/act concerning a recent situation.

I had thought (and still do) that this was a straight-forward situation of an WP:INVOLVED admin using their tools.

Bishonen (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA):

• asked for the admin tools back;
• used them to unprotect a talk page;
• then (re-)affirmed that they did so for WP:INVOLVED reasons on their talk page.

I thought that this was so straight-forward an issue that all it would require is a simple motion by arbcom, and life goes on. (Noting that this appears to be a review/action by motion.)

But when I started to look over arbcom sub-pages, apparently only arbcom members can start a thread on the motion page.

So I started the thread on the enforcement page, in reference to a recent ruling by arbcom concerning reversion of admin actions. (User:Deacon of Pndapetzim was adminished as the "second mover". And User:Kwamikagami was de-sysopped as the third (and apparently involved). The discussions concerning these results are here.)

I had decided to not start a full case, because I honestly didn't think it was necessary, as I thought this was very straight-forward. (I didn't even add diffs, as I thought this was so clear.)

I was apparently mistaken.

I've now finished reading comments by others, both at my initial arbcom request, and at bishonen's talk page, and I am honestly surprised at the confusion and misunderstandings which seem evident there. (Prior to posting this I attempted to respond to at least two specific commenters on their talk pages (here and here) which I believe have mis-read what I have said, but it seems that, for whatever reason, there is a genuine lack of understanding.)

So with that in mind, I'm re-posting the request for arbcom review/action. But here as a "case", as was suggested by several arbcom members. I will add some links/diffs, and some additional explanatory information, which should hopefully clarify.

We, as users of admin tools, should expect to respond to genuine/civil requests on our talk page to explain/clarify use of such tools.

per WP:ADMIN#Accountability:"Administrators are accountable for their actions involving administrator tools, and unexplained administrator actions can demoralize other editors who lack such tools. Subject only to the bounds of civility, avoiding personal attacks, and reasonable good faith, editors are free to question or to criticize administrator actions. Administrators are expected to respond promptly and civilly to queries about their Wikipedia-related conduct and administrator actions and to justify them when needed."

I fully agree with this, and attempt to follow this myself. (And did concerning the initial protection, both to a request by User:My76Strat here, and User:Nobody Ent here.)

And of course, the first step before reverting another admin's action is to do just that.

per WP:Admin: "Administrators are expected to have good judgment, and are presumed to have considered carefully any actions or decisions they carry out as administrators. Administrators may disagree, but except for clear and obvious mistakes, administrative actions should not be reversed without good cause, careful thought and (if likely to be objected) usually some kind of courtesy discussion."

That was not done by bishonen on wiki.

What Bishonen did was email.

As I attempted to explain on Bishonen's talk page (here and here), I tend to not respond to Wikipedia-related email (though with some obvious exceptions). This stance is supported by Wikipedia:Emailing users, which states very clearly: "If you receive an email via this feature, you do not have to reply, or you may reply on the user's talk page if you wish"

So the email in question is immaterial. And there were no privacy concerns - indeed, as I mentioned on Bishonen's talk page, she made it clear in the email that she was not sharing private information. And besides that, Bishonen themself posted the email to the wiki. And so, as shown, there are no privacy concerns.

And regardless, there was no "discussion". Sending an email to someone (myself and elen in this case) and not getting a response, while noting that they are obviously active on-wiki should not then mean one should now feel free to take unilateral action.

If I had been inactive (as many of us can be from time to time) that's one thing, but I've been rather active, and had been editing in (at least) the 24 hours previous to the reversion.

And had bishonen been an uninvolved admin, I could see how the community could potentially give them broader latitude and consider the reversion of the protection as an WP:IAR action.

But Bishonen was not an uninvolved admin. And Bishonen made that clear on their talk page while discussing it with others.

per WP:INVOLVED: "One important caveat is that an administrator who has interacted with an editor or topic area purely in an administrative role, or whose prior involvement are minor or obvious edits which do not speak to bias, is not involved and is not prevented from acting in an administrative capacity in relation to that editor or topic area. This is because one of the roles of administrators is precisely to deal with such matters, at length if necessary. Warnings, calm and reasonable discussion and explanation of those warnings, advice about community norms, and suggestions on possible wordings and approaches, do not make an administrator 'involved'.

But bishonen had spoken to "indicate bias". And had commented in ways beyond the exceptions noted in the quote above.

There are several talk page threads to link to to easily show that Bishonen was unhappy with the sanctions related to User:Penyulap, in particular the removal of Penyulap's talk page access and then my protection of the talk page.

To just link to a few examples:

Edit summary: "For god's sake. *Still* blocked from his own talkpage? Why does the sacred "blocking admin" get to own this issue?"

This speaks for itself, I think

This diff where bishonen "critiqued" Elen's choice to remove talk page access.

And now, as I've already noted, Bishonen requested the restoration of their admin tools, and undid the protection. And then noted clearly on their talk page that they did so due to biased reasons.

And so in direct response to this edit summary, I dropped a note on Bishonen's talk page, requesting they undo their use of admin tools to reverse the protection.

After bishonen declined (and I had made a subsequent attempt), I re-read through various policies and previous arbcom cases, and determined that the proper course was to request arbcom to review/act concerning this.

If I wanted a WP:3PO concerning the original protection, I could ask another uninvolved admin, or I could go to AN/I.

But since this was not about the initial protect, but concerning the reversion of an admin action, it would seem that the only avenue for that is arbcom (as I've already noted, both above and below).

Incidentally, as I have already noted, there have been misunderstandings in regards to my asking about this, which I will chalk that up to the fact that until now I had not been adding much in the way of diffs to support/explain my statements. (What I thought was obvious, was perhaps not as obvious to others who may not have taken the time to look over the edit histories in question.) And in that, I have no problem accepting that I was remiss in not making things more clear by adding diffs. (My hope is that in this request, I have done better about that.)

In this request I have not explained the initial protection (Partially due to making this even longer, partially due to trying to reduce potential confusion, etc.). However, I would be happy to should arbcom require it in opening this as a case.

Also, I had mistakenly thought that User:Elen_of_the_Roads was the blocking admin, but I now see that that was User:Coren (I may have known that back when I protected the page, or not. I honestly do not recall at this point.) Elen would appear to be who most recently blocked talk page access. I also note (for whatever it's worth) that User:Fluffernutter also modified the block at one point, and also has now commented at user talk:Bishonen#Transparency.

And finally, I believe I have followed Wikipedia policies/guidelines/best practices throughout. That said, being human, I fully accept that I can make mistakes, and sincerely welcome Arbcom's opinion/review on all of this.

I realise this is lengthy, though I have not counted words, and honestly, due to the confusion and misunderstandings so far, I'll merely cite WP:IAR, that clarity should trump brevity in this case. I'm not sure how this could be any shorter. - jc37 06:14, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Follow-up note

Per request (for example, here and here) I'm going to attempt to convey a shorter (more "brief") statement. And per this, I'll try to limit it to the specific point(s) I am asking the arbitration committee to review and (potentially) to act upon. (I've conveyed the other stuff already in the threads here and if the arbitration committee wants something there further clarified, please feel free to ask.)

As an aside, I am rather surprised at the (from my perspective) animosity I am receiving from elen. The direct (and aggressive) personal attacks are just really surprising to me. With that in mind, I'll try to take my own advice (as noted here), and just try to deal with the matters at hand, and I guess per this to stop trying to guess what elen's issues are, troubling to me though her comments have been. - jc37 20:44, 4 October 2012 (UTC)