Motions

Background

On February 10, administrator Herostratus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) edited his userpage to this revision: [1]. While the content of this page was intended as a joke, it was misinterpreted by several users as an indication that Herostratus was no longer in control of his account. On February 24, administrator Viridae (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) blocked Herostratus under this assumption without making effort to contact Herostratus; in an email to the Committee, Viridae disclosed that the block was also based on unfounded allegations that had been laid against Herostratus. The incident was later brought to WP:ANI (archived discussion), when Viridae noticed Herostratus was an administrator due to Herostratus's self-unblocking.

Motions

For this case there are 12 active arbitrators, not counting 1 recused. 7 support or oppose votes are a majority.

Majority reference

Abstentions	Support votes needed for majority
0	7
1–2	6
3–4	5

• Hersfold is currently inactive, but is voting on these motions and is shown as active here.
• Cool Hand Luke has noted that he will recuse on these motions.

Herostratus strongly admonished

1) For failing to adhere to the standard of decorum expected of administrators, and for unblocking himself in direct contravention of blocking policy, Herostratus is strongly admonished.

Enacted ~ Amory (u • t • c) 15:13, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support

1. Per my rationale under 1.1. — Coren ^(talk) 03:08, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
2. Second choice. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 03:12, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
3. — Rlevse • Talk • 03:21, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
4. I am not convinced that it is essential that we adopt a motion in this matter, but this one seems reasonable and I can support it. Newyorkbrad (talk) 04:40, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
5. Please exercise more care in the future. - Mailer Diablo 04:50, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
6. The unblocking was inappropriate.  Roger Davies ^talk 07:49, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
7. Between the inappropriate humor that fooled several people and the self-unblock both. I'd prefer something stronger, but this is third choice. SirFozzie (talk) 08:37, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
8. I think everyone has probably already gotten the point - little more care with humor and please ask someone else to unblock you. Shell ^babelfish 16:37, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
9. Risker (talk) 23:14, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
10. KnightLago (talk) 23:39, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

Abstain

Herostratus desysopped

1.1) For unblocking himself in direct contravention of blocking policy, Herostratus is desysopped. He may apply for reinstatement of the tools through Requests for Adminship or through request to the Committee.

Support

1. First choice. "Thou shalt not unblock thyself" is the cardinal rule of adminship, and this is the standard response. I am also less than comfortable with Herostratus believing that such statements on his userpage aren't problematic; while intended as a joke, and clearly outrageous, it could easily be misinterpreted and damage his credibility as an administrator. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 03:12, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
2. First Choice. SirFozzie (talk) 08:36, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

1. While unblocking oneself is clearly one of the worst acts an administrator can do, this is somewhat mitigated in this case by Herostratus having reasonable cause to expect that the block was simply in error (the lack of explanation on his talk page having played no small part in that misunderstanding). It thus does not raise to the level of a desysop. — Coren ^(talk) 03:08, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
2. Per Coren. Everyone mark this down, it's only the 2nd time I haven't supported a desyssop. — Rlevse • Talk • 03:23, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
3. Largely per Coren. Newyorkbrad (talk) 04:42, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
4. My understanding is that the rationale behind preventing an admin from unblocking himself/herself is meant for circumstances where he/she has been blocked for acts of malice (such as rogue deletions, vandalism, 3RR, etc). Given the circumstances of what has happened, I think Herostratus might not been expecting such an outcome (of being blocked) and has unblocked himself in a rash act. - Mailer Diablo 04:50, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
5. Per Coren.  Roger Davies ^talk 07:49, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
6. I think this is a reasonable application of IAR; Herostratus had good reason to believe the block was a simple error (especially due to lack of communication by the blocking admin) and was communicative shortly after. Shell ^babelfish 16:37, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
7. A full-fledged desysop is not required under these circumstances. Risker (talk) 23:16, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
8. Per Coren. KnightLago (talk) 23:39, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain

Herostratus temporarily desysopped

1.2) For unblocking himself in direct contravention of blocking policy, Herostratus is desysopped for 1 week. He may apply for reinstatement of the tools by request to a bureaucrat, request to the Committee, or a Request for Adminship.

Support

Oppose

1. For the same reason as 1.1. — Coren ^(talk) 03:08, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
2. Strongly opposed. Firstly, the self-unblocking aside, Herostratus's last administrator action was in 2008, so a temporary removal of the tools is not going to make much difference. Secondly, the short time frame offered by this motion is hardly worth the effort of finding a steward to flip the bit. Thirdly, I am generally opposed to temporary desysoppings of any nature, for reasons I can go into more detail on later if requested. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 03:12, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
3. per Coren and Hersfold. — Rlevse • Talk • 03:22, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
4. Oppose, though I will grudgingly change to weak second-choice support if it comes down to a close vote between this and 1.1. Newyorkbrad (talk) 04:44, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
5. Per 1.1. - Mailer Diablo 04:50, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
6. Again, per Coren.  Roger Davies ^talk 07:49, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
7. Generally opposed to de-sysops less than 3 months; anything shorter seems more like a ding than a preventive measure. If its not that serious, we may as well just get out the trout instead. Shell ^babelfish 16:37, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
8. I believe that Herostratus has got the point, and an admonishment is sufficient. Risker (talk) 23:18, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
9. Per Coren. KnightLago (talk) 23:39, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain

Viridae admonished

2) For blocking another administrator without full knowledge of the situation at hand, and without attempting to contact the administrator to obtain such knowledge, Viridae is admonished for the poor judgment exercised in this incident.

Enacted ~ Amory (u • t • c) 15:13, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support

1. That was poor judgment indeed, and I would expect Viridae to be considerably more deliberate in the future. — Coren ^(talk) 03:08, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
2. This was a very reactionary block, and the situation on the whole could have been handled much better than it was. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 03:12, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
3. — Rlevse • Talk • 03:20, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
4. Please exercise more care in the future. - Mailer Diablo 04:50, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
5.  Roger Davies ^talk 07:49, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
6. Viridae fell for a bad (both in judgment and in nature) joke. Look before you leap, please. SirFozzie (talk) 08:38, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
7. I don't understand the block at all; if the account was compromised, it could simply unblock. There is already a procedure to handle situations like this with emergency de-sysops yet it was another editor and not Viridae who advised ArbCom of the concern. Little bit more thought first next time please. Shell ^babelfish 16:37, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

   As noted in the "background" above, I believe that Viridae hadn't noticed that Herostratus was an administrator at the time he blocked. Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:00, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

8. The fact that Herostratus is an administrator is not, in my mind, a particularly significant factor in determining how poorly considered this block is; I would have found it fell significantly below the standards expected of administrators regardless of whether the account belonged to an editor or an administrator. Risker (talk) 23:13, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
9. Agree with Shell and Risker, a poor block all around. KnightLago (talk) 23:39, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

1. In my view, under all the circumstances, this is not necessary or helpful. Newyorkbrad (talk) 04:47, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain

Clerk Notes

This area is used for notes by non-recused Clerks.

Discussion

Personally, I don't see the need to offer an admonishment to Viridae. I think he did what many admins would have done. He believed an account wasn't in control of it's operator so he blocked. The post on the userpage looked to me like Herostratus was not in sole control of his account. I think it's unfair to give Viridae a "warning" for his conduct when he was acting in complete good faith in accordance with what administrators usually do with compromised accounts. I note above some arbitrators believe that he should have emailed the committee with the concern to request desysopping - true, perhaps he should have, but it should still have been blocked regardless of whether or not it was an admin account (had the account actually been compromised) - an admin account wouldn't have been treated any differently from a non-admin account with respect to blocking. I'd ask that the arbitrators look again at the admonishment with a view to changing from support to opposition. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 20:23, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• The Arbcom is on record as beleiving that Admins and Oversighters should act first and ask questions later - even in an obvious joke scenario. Obviously, for reasons best known to themselves, this policy does not currently suit them. This is just more of the usual inconsistency that we all expect from them. I note that RLevse is having the audacity to support this admonishing motion - what a change of heart - what a shower - do we really need to bring up Randy from Boise again - to prove that the Arbs and co cannot have it both ways? ! Giano  21:59, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• I agree entirely with Ryan here. Viridae had what appeared to be clear evidence that an account has been compromised; blocking it was entirely the correct course of action. I really don't understand a line of reasoning which appears to boil down to "but he upset an administrator so he should have been more careful". – iridescent 22:14, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• As noted in the background, Viridae's block was not entirely based on the potentially compromised account issue - s/he was also acting on a series of entirely unfounded allegations. In either of these cases, the proper course of action would be to notify ArbCom rather than take action individually, which is what another user did. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 22:24, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• No, Arbcom recommend that action is taken first and questions asked afterwards. Even when it's a joke that even a half-wit can spot. They have always been quite clear about this. Brad, Risker and RLevse will confirm this. So, all 7 of you are going to have to change your vote, or Rlevse is going to look very stupid indeed.  Giano  22:29, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Could Risker please explain how she feels this differs from the occasion when her fellow arb (RLevse - who she supported) had an obvious joke oversighted. Does she feel a oversight performed oon the whim of an Arb is less of a crime than an admin blocking another.  Giano  23:18, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The difference, Giano, is that the oversighted edit wasn't obviously a joke, as many people had no idea you *were* joking; and that suppression of an edit does nothing to anyone's editing status. Blocking someone without taking the time to figure out that someone has to have control of their account to be able to post that they *don't* have control of their account, along with the other circumstances relevant to the blocking decision, was a poor decision that marred an editor's block log. The fact that Herostratus is an admin doesn't make a difference in my mind; it was a bad block, period. Risker (talk) 23:27, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Complete and utter rubbish! - are seriously suggesting that people thought Randy in Boise was an arb (allthough he could hardly make a worse job of it)? You yourself agreed that blocks and oversights should be performed and questions asked later. Now you seem to feel differently. Do try and decide what it is you beleive; it would be such a help to us poor mortals on the ground.  Giano  23:34, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Never said anything about blocks, Giano, and nobody was blocked in the Randy in Boise incident. Risker (talk) 00:46, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Having one's edits oversighted (secretly) is indicative of far worse crimes than those that can be written on one's block log by some 14-year-old in Alabama ofr Idaho or wherever it is Wikipedia is currently recruiting its admins.  Giano  08:01, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry Risker, but "this was obviously a joke" doesn't stand up for a moment. It's obvious from the original discussion - linked in the original motion, so you have to be aware of it - that until Herostratus's "It was all a joke" comment, nobody thought this was a joke either. – iridescent 23:59, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm rather astonished at Risker's concern about "a poor decision that marred an editor's block log", although what she clearly meant to say was " a poor decision that marred an administrator's block log". How many poor decisions have been made this week alone that have "marred an editor's block log", but because that editor wasn't an administrator nobody gave a damn? This is plumbing the depths of hypocrisy even for wikipedia. --Malleus Fatuorum 00:36, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Gimme a break, Malleus. I think it was a bad block, regardless of Herostratus's permissions level. He's been here for four and a half years, and that by itself warrants some further investigation. If I had written the motion, it would have said "editor" instead of "admin", but I didn't write it, and I'm not about to write a new one when this one is already passing. Risker (talk) 00:46, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'll give you a break when you deserve one. How many editors who have been here for years get blocked on a whim every day, but you don't notice because they're not administrators and so can't unblock themselves? None? You're having a laugh, but it's sad you can't see that this isn't funny. --Malleus Fatuorum 05:41, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Herostratus' "joke" was taken seriously until Herostratus explained. I suggest for admins and other "power users" the default should be "don't joke".

The same discusion make the point that a possible compromise of a "power user" account is a serious and urgent threat, as it could do a lot of damage in a hour or 2. Compare with that, a over-cautious but prompt block is a minor inconvenience. --Philcha (talk) 07:32, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• What Risker and her chums above are trying to explain here is that if an Admin makes a joke, it is hystericaly funny and all should immediatly fall about laughing, but if a non-Admin makes a joke he should be oversighted or banned (she probably secretly thinks both). Anyone who fails to appreciate the Admin's (rather poor) joke must be taught a lesson and anyone who dares to block an Admin must be stamped on. The Arbcom have performed a complete U-Turn in their desperation to stamp on Viridae - all he did was block an editor whose behaviour was erratic and whose account was considered compromised. Viridae followed Risker's own advice and acted promptly to prevent a possible situation arising and asked questions secondly. He did this openly and honestly. Now it seems Risker and her Arb chums don't feel their own advice is sound all. I have seen some strange Arbcom decisions in my time, but it now appears that just like oversighting Arbcom justice is dependant on Arbcom's whim of the moment.  Giano  07:57, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• How about "For blocking another editor, partly based on hearsay, without full knowledge of the situation at hand, and without attempting to contact the editor to obtain such knowledge ..." I think that is what is meant, anyway. --JN466 09:32, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, that wouldn't suit them, it's exactly that's the same scenario as when Rlevse had a wrongful oversight (of a very obvious joke comment) carried out and they justified it by saying Admins had to act first, do what they thought was best and ask questions afterwards. Which is exactly what Viridae did and did so very openely and honestly.  Giano  13:08, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• So let me get this straight - all the stuff he put on his userpage was basically a joke? Does that include this "incident" he referred to, because I seriously believed the local council of his area actually did restrict his internet access due to some well-documented incident I was unaware of. This is confusing. Master&Expert (Talk) 14:12, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Apparently so. But Risker says nobody could possibly have believed him, so when you say you seriously believed it you must have been lying. As is he. And he. – iridescent 15:43, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In a nutshell: It would appear so, yes. I can quite beleive that some of Wikipedia's Admins have troubled personal lives; I can't think what make Risker so reluctant to think otherwise. It seems Herostratus made a bad and bizarre joke, Viridae honestly blocked to be cautious (as advised bu the Arbcom, in particular Risker, Rlevse, Brad and Co) only to find that the Arbcom thought the joke was hysterically funny and were laughing their socks off, then stopping their mirth, they decided to admonish Viridae for blocking an admin and presumably not sharing their warped sense of humour. It is very odd indeed. I must start to crack some of muy own terribly amusing and witty jokes again soon, now that the climate has warmed to fun and games. Heard the one about the Arb who was going to retire, and then changed his mind? You'll laugh yourselves stupid at that one.  Giano  16:14, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Admins and ArbCom were supposedly elected for their good judgement. ArbCom's position on admin conduct and the like has been relatively stagnant and affected by politics. What next? Expecting something to change for the better is a futile exercise. Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:49, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Maybe, but somebody has to stand up and say "Hey, this is not acceptable." The Arbcom bent over backwards to get Rlevse off the hook, said all manner of things, no one was impressed by their shameful behaviour. Now, 5 minutes later, they cannot even remember the rubbish they spouted about "act first and question later." They never did explain why Rlevse never merely asked me, but no matter. They have proven themselves to be people without standards or consistency. They treat Wikipedia as their personal playground and dispence justice according to who is on the receiving end. We have reached a stage where bringing a case to Arbcom is similar to playing Russian Roulette, the only difference is Russian Roulette can be exiting and relatively painless. Why should Viridae be punished for following Arbcom guidance? That Rlevse has the nerve and audacity to even comment adversely on an Admins response to a "joke" shows how unfit he is to be an Admin himself, let alone an Arb.  Giano  17:42, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• This isn't about Randy, and your comments here are unhelpful. Cool Hand Luke 19:35, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Do they have to stand up and say that though? What could one accomplish (in reality) by doing so? Ncmvocalist (talk) 09:36, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is entirely about Randy! It is because of the rubbish spouted by Arbcom when Rlevse showed his ignorance of Wikipedia's protocols, maners and "in jokes" that Risker, Brad and Co ruled that Admins should "act first - question later." That is is indisputable and that is what Viridae did! The Arbcom is firmly in the wrong here and has to back down.  Giano  20:00, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Randy from Boise has zero to do with this. Absolutely nothing. Oversight has nothing to do with this. This is about an unjustified, unwarned block. If you still have a problem with the oversight in that case, please raise it through the appropriate channels, but don't use it as an excuse to wear a chip on your shoulder in wholly unrelated issues. Cool Hand Luke 20:41, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unjustified, unwarned blocks? I've had a couple of those, didn't see any Arbs giving a damn about them though. Still don't, but then I'm not an admin and so it doesn't matter if my block log bets besmirched. DuncanHill (talk) 00:43, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You've seen a lot of unjustified, unwarned blocks where the blocking admin cuts off an established account with thousands of edits doesn't bother to make a single edit announcing the block on the user's block page or anywhere else? Those are rare. Cool Hand Luke 04:15, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Luke, don't misrepresent what I said. You're not ususally that dishonest. "had a couple" is not the same as "seen a lot". DuncanHill (talk) 14:36, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nonsense, this is just the Arbcom overreacting. If it had not been an Admin blocked, the Arbcom would not have cared less. It is a near identical scenario to the Randy from Boise incident - then an Arb overreacted to a joke (a far mor obvious joke than this present one) and behaved in an underhand fashion, and all the other Arbs sprouted the most utter rubbish to get him off the hook. Amongst that rubbish was the statement and advice that it was right and proper for Admins to act first and question later. Which is what Viridae did - the only difference was unlike RLevse - Viridae did it in an honest and open manner. You can deny that all you like, but it is the truth and nothing will change that. You want one law for Arbs and another (ay whim) for everyone else. Well tough luck, that aint gonna happen! That Rlevse dares to pass a vote here is disgraceful and if you can't see that, then I am sorry for you.  Giano  21:18, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong. I believe the concern over this block lies more in its "offsites" origins than the admin bit. Cool Hand Luke 04:13, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you believe the arbitrators voting on this have any motives other than they state in the motion and their supporting comments? I don't see anything about "offsites origins". Can any non-recused arbitrators shed any light on this? 87.254.88.213 (talk) 07:23, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't. They do express it. This is like a half-baked IRC block. It was "reactionary," it lacked thought, care, and deliberation, he did not "look before he leap[ed]." Risker is pretty explicit that she is not concerned so much about the admin target of the block as the process it was arrived at: "The fact that Herostratus is an administrator is not, in my mind, a particularly significant factor in determining how poorly considered this block is; I would have found it fell significantly below the standards expected of administrators regardless of whether the account belonged to an editor or an administrator." It's all already there. Cool Hand Luke 14:52, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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. Cool Hand Luke 19:35, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You may be right that there are things to legitimately criticise about this block but what Viridae is actually being admonished for is "For blocking another administrator without full knowledge of the situation at hand, and without attempting to contact the administrator to obtain such knowledge". This is explicitly concerned with the fact that the blockee is an administrator and nothing to do with the lack of a block notice on the users talk page. I don't see how the indefinite duration is relevant either and there's no mention of tax evasion (?). The idea seems to be that Viridae should have said "Hi, some people think your account is compromised, can you confirm that so I have the full facts?" - that ties in with your point 3 but I don't see the rest as covered by this motion. 87.254.88.213 (talk) 07:43, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. I didn't participate in writing or voting for the motion. I would have written it in such a way to capture all the problems with the block. Perhaps it should be revised. I doubt it will be at this late date, however. Cool Hand Luke 14:52, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Coren, I note you support a temporary desysop. Are you not opposed, in principle, to temporary desysops? Hipocrite (talk) 22:02, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am, and I opposed it. You might have been misled by the fact that, with no support, the oppose header immediately follows the big bold "support" empty section? — Coren ^(talk) 23:57, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My bad. Why is there a proposal where the proposer doesn't even support it up? Hipocrite (talk) 11:24, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lack of telepathy. When we throw up alternatives, we try to include the "reasonable spectrum" to find the place where consensus of the committee lies even if we don't, ourselves, believe each of those alternatives is viable in that case. I've occasionally posted remedies in cases which I did not support but knew they nevertheless were possible options. — Coren ^(talk) 12:07, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For the 100th time: I really cannot see what the Arbcom considers Viridae has done wrong. The Arbcom set a precedent by saying it's right and proper to "act first and question later." If that is the correct procedure, and it's certainly their undisputed view that it is, in instances where an edit may reveal potentially embarrassing information concerning an editor (thus needing to be oversighted), how then, is that any different to a compromised account that may suddenly start to produce personal or embarrassing information? This looked to be a distinct possibility in this instance. I am still waiting for an satisfactory explanation to this - and I will not give up until I get it.  Giano  11:22, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]