User talk:Ground Zero/Archive 21
You might want to re-think that one. An impartial observer might notice that you were simultaneously taking sides in a content dispute (nothing wrong with that) but also acting as cop enforcing your side of the content dispute. Probably would have been better just to report it to WP:AN3, though that may well have boomaranged. --jpgordon::==( o ) 22:12, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
I see that you blocked 24.85.94.77 for 48 hours for edit warring. Presumably, you therefore think it reasonable to block another editor for the same time for participating in the same edit war, as seen here: [1] [2] [3] [4]. When we add to that abuse of administrative powers by blocking an editor in violation of WP:INVOLVED, thereby giving yourself an advantage in that edit war, doubling the length of the block seems reasonable. I have therefore blocked you for 96 hours. I fully appreciate that the editor you blocked was disruptive and uncooperative, and entirely deserved the block, but you were not the right person to impose that block, and as an administrator you should have been sufficiently aware of policy to realise that. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 11:33, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
Ground Zero (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
I am placing this request for Ground Zero and without consulting with him.
GZ and I have been involved in an ongoing edit dispute with User:24.85.94.77. All of GZ's attempts to engage User:24 in discussion of his questionable edits were spurned by the anon. Taking it to WP:DR ended when User:24 dropped out. During the last few days, User:24 has been repeatedly reverting the article to his own, poorly-written and weakly sourced version, while taunting admins to "do what they have to do" to stop him. Eventually, what had to be done was, indeed, done--by GZ.
I recognize the importance of WP:INVOLVED, and agree with JamesBWatson that an uninvolved admin should have been called in to do this. However, imposing this double-damages punitive block on a nine-year upstanding editor and well-respected admin seems highly excessive, and I don't see it serving any useful purpose to the project. There was no ill-intent in GZ's action, and whatever message blocking GZ was intended to send, it would surely have been delivered by a much shorter block, or even a warning.
Being involved in this edit war myself, I will not use my own admin powers to intervene. However, I move that the block be reduced to time served. Owen× ☎ 18:33, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
Decline reason:
GZ is quite welcome to make his own unblock request, and is quite capable of arguing on his own behalf. I don't think I've ever seen a clearer example of an involved admin making a block they shouldn't have made. --jpgordon::==( o ) 19:45, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
- My experience is that usually when one editor posts an unblock request for a block on another editor, it is automatically declined, and that seems to me reasonable. In fact, I can't ever remember such a third party unblock request being accepted. However, I will try to address the issues raised in the unblock request anyway. I am surprised by "whatever message blocking GZ was intended to send", which suggests that my meaning was not clear, so I will try again. I assume that Ground Zero is aware of the principle "do not edit war even if you are right". Ground Zero blocked an editor for edit warring, not for being wrong, for "dropping out" of dispute resolution, for "taunting admins", or for anything else. Sometimes it can be justified to block one editor in an edit war, but not the other in the same edit war: for example, I have sometimes done that if one editor is new and has never been told that edit warring is unacceptable, while the other certainly knows, because he/she has been warned about it before, or has been blocked for edit warring before. However, the one editor being "right" and the other being "wrong" is never justification for blocking one and not the other. There might on this occasion be a case for imposing a shorter block on one editor than the other, as the one was more disruptive than the other, but I think that has to be offset against the fact that one is a longstanding editor, and a longstanding administrator to boot, and certainly should know better. Giving the same length of block to both editors for edit warring seems to me reasonable. I can see a case for blocking the IP editor for longer than Ground Zero, and I can see a case for blocking Ground Zero for longer than the IP editor, but I cannot see equal treatment as being obviously unreasonable. Moving on from there, we see another point. The block was made by one of the participants in the edit war, clearly in order to stop the other person involved in the edit war from continuing, so that the editor who placed the block could get his/her way in the editing of the disputed article. That is totally unacceptable, and an abuse of administrative powers. The fact that the editor who placed the block was "right" in the dispute, and the blocked editor was "wrong" is completely irrelevant, because the point is that one does not make that judgement in one's own case. There are several things that Ground Zero could have done. (My own preference in such a case would be to ask an uninvolved admin to make a judgement, but there are other options.) Granted that, as I have explained, I came to the conclusion that it was reasonable to block both editors for edit warring for the same length of time, we are then left with the question "what do we do about the admin abuse?" My own view is that abuse of admin powers is a far worse offence than edit warring, so blocking for admin abuse for the same amount of time as for the edit war does not seem excessive. However, I would not absolutely insist on that, and if anyone would like to suggest that one and a half times as long a block as on the IP editor would have been enough, I won't quarrel. I will quarrel, though, with anyone who suggests that edit warring + admin abuse is not a more serious matter than the edit warring alone. OwenX suggests that the block be reduced to "time served", which at the time he/she posted that suggestion meant 7 hours, a small fraction of the length of the block given to the other editor for edit warring alone. I regard that as grossly unreasonable. Moreover, OwenX even suggests that just a warning would have been enough, which looks to me remarkably like confirming the accusations often levied that administrators are allowed to get away with things that other editors are blocked for.
- If OwenX or Ground Zero or anyone else thinks that I have been unreasonable in this block, then we can take it to AN/I and see what the community at large thinks. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 19:22, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
- I was under the impression that blocks were supposed to "protect the project from harm, and reduce likely future problems", not as a punitive instrument. At least this is what the relevant policy claims. This whole accounting of the ratio of block length as a function of the severity of the offence strikes me as odd and irrelevant. The project isn't being protected from any harm by this extended block of GZ, and not just because he could remove this block himself at will if his intent was to harm.
- I also find the discussion of who placed the unblock request as specious. My locus standi in this case has to do with my desire to see a productive member of the project not be barred from participation. To my knowledge, we have no policy regarding petitions on behalf of (or for) a third party, and I don't see any justification for treating such any differently than if they were placed by the blocked editor himself. I appreciate your reply, JamesBWatson, and suggest we stick to the substantive matter at hand rather than the procedural aspects. If GZ wishes me to withdraw this petition, I'm sure he will make his wish known. Owen× ☎ 20:20, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
- Well, my experience suggests that there is a very solid consensus that an unblock request is acceptable only from the editor whose block is involved. The comment from the declining admin is also consistent with that impression. As for your remarks about blocks being "supposed to protect the project from harm, and reduce likely future problems, not as a punitive instrument", my intention was precisely to prevent future harm. What I saw was an administrator acting way out of line with policy, in a way that I thought he/she must have known was against policy (but see my remarks below). I was, as I have tried to explain above, but apparently still failed, trying to convey the message that doing so would lead to a significant block, in order to deter the administrator from doing the same again. The point about the length of the block being longer than what that administrator had himself/herself shown that he/she regarded as suitable for a lesser infringement was intended to convey the seriousness, since someone who has (as I thought) deliberately and knowingly flouted policy, it seemed to me that it was important to convey the fact that this was a serious matter, and would be likely to lead to a significant loss of editing time, not a token gesture. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 09:23, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
I regret that my action has caused this amount of dispute, and thank OwenX for intervening on my behalf.
First, disagree that I was edit warring. I have been working toward improving this article for a couple of months now, and trying to find changes that would satisfy User:24. Please review both Talk:Registered Retirement Savings Plan and the article's history. In particular, please note this edit where I tried to incorporate the key valid point that User:24 was trying to insert into the article this week. I also input a bunch of edits here to reflect more of User:24's contributions after blocking the user. I have repeatedly indicated to the user that I am open to discussing further improvements to the article.
When I block an editor, it is normally after providing several warnings, as in the case of User:24. (I only block without warning in the case of blatant vandalism or a new editor doing edits on bunches of articles at the same time.) I have not come across WP:INVOLVED before, and did not knowingly violate it. Now that I know of it, I won't do it again -- I would ask another administrator to consider intervening instead. A warning based on Wikipedia policy is enough for me. I recognize that ignorance of the law is no excuse, but I want to correct any misunderstanding that I knowingly contravened this policy.
I use blocking as a last resort to get an editor to take Wikipedia policy seriously and to get them to change their behaviour. In this case where I unknowingly abused my privileges as an administrator, the block only serves to punish. I ask JamesBWatson to consider whether the duration of the block is appropriate, and whether punishing me to that extent is necessary. I don't want to take this to AN/I and take up more administrators' time. If James is not willing to reconsider, I will wait it out.
I note that User:24 has immediately restored their old version, which uses the anonymous blog presented as a source, and has the same typos, punctuation errors and incorrect capitalization.
Again, I apologize for the disruption this has caused. Regards, User:Ground Zero (not logged in) 173.206.201.90 (talk) 20:31, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
- Those IP edits may be, as they claim, from Ground Zero not logged in, but there is no way of being sure, and I have no idea why Ground Zero would edit without logging in. If it is you, Ground Zero, can you just log in and post a confirmation that it was you? Assuming that it was, I am very surprised to find that there is an administrator who is unaware of WP:INVOLVED. I am also a little surprised by your denial that you were edit warring. From my reading of what you have said, that denial is based on the fact that you believe that your actions were for the good of the project, but I would have expected any administrator to be sufficiently aware of what edit warring is to know that "but I was right" is no defence against a charge of edit warring. Indeed, it would make no sense at all to have a policy that took that line, as in almost all edit wars, everybody involved thinks they are right. Edit warring is repeatedly making the same change, not repeatedly making the same change which is a "bad" change. As I see it, therefore, your comments indicate fundamental lacks of awareness of two quite different policies, both of which I honestly thought that anyone who has been an administrator for several years would have known of. However, if it was, as you suggest, a matter of ignorance of the policies, and not, as I supposed, deliberate flouting of policies, I am willing to consider reducing the block length, since you evidently now do know about at least one of those policies (though not, apparently, the other). However, that does depend on your logging in and confirming that that is the situation: it far from unknown for an IP editor to falsely claim to be someone they are not. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 09:23, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
James, I did write those comments above. This is my first time being blocked: I actually thought I couldn't edit if I logged in. The other mistake I made was that i made comments on the talk page of the article in question. After reviewing WP:BLOCK, I see that I should not have done that, but I cannot remove the comments because my IP is blocked from editing.
Wikipedia has a lot of policies and guidelines, and I don't think anyone knows them all. In these comments, I will ask you to review two policies/guidelines: WP:AGF and WP:BLOCK.
With respect to your comment "if it was, as you suggest, a matter of ignorance of the policies", I ask that you WP:assume good faith. I have told you that it was a matter of ignorance of the policy, and not willful intent to violate it. If you assume good faith, then you won't put "if" before my assertion.
My reason for disagreeing with your assertion that I was edit warring is not that I was right. It is that I have been actively trying to resolve the dispute through the talk page and through mediation by proposing edits to try to address the issues raised by User:24 and by pointing out where their edits violate Wikipedia policy. User:24 has responded by restoring their preferred version, errors and policy violations and all, and by abandoning the dispute resolution they initiated when it did not go their way. I don't think that we should reward a user who insist on their version without regard to what other editors or Wikipedia policy say. As soon as User:24's blcok was lifted, they restored their preferred version of the page. Having said that, I now understand that blocking the editor after being involved in the dispute was an abuse of administrator privileges, so I would not handle this type of situation the same way in the future.
The second Wikipedia policy I ask you to review is WP:BLOCK. I have reviewed it, and ask that you reconsider whether it provides a basis for you blocking me. Up front it says: "Blocks are used to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, not to punish users." Further, it says:
- "Blocks should not be punitive. Blocks should not be used: in retaliation against users; to disparage other users; as punishment against users; or where there is no current conduct issue of concern.
- "Blocks should be preventative. Blocks should be used to: prevent imminent or continuing damage and disruption to Wikipedia; deter the continuation of present, disruptive behavior; and encourage a more productive, congenial editing style within community norms. Deterrence is based upon the likelihood of repetition."
I do not think there is a justification for suggesting that Wikipedia was in danger of damage or disruption from me. Further, I don't think there is any evidence of concern about repetition as this is the first time I have violated WP:INVOLVED and as I had not received any warning against doing so. Rereading your original notice of the block gives me the clear impression that you were seeking to punish me.
With respect to your decision to take the 48-hour block I imposed on User:24 and double it, I note "Duration of blocks: The purpose of blocking is prevention, not punishment."
Also, "A user who agrees to desist and appears to have learned from the matter, or where the situation was temporary and has now ended, may be unblocked early." I will leave it to you to decide if you will apply this to me.
- "In general, administrators should ensure that users who are acting in good faith are aware of policies and are given reasonable opportunity to adjust their behavior before blocking. On the other hand, users acting in bad faith, whose main or only use is forbidden activity (sockpuppetry, vandalism, and so on), do not require any warning and may be blocked immediately."
If you believe that I was acting in bad faith in blocking User:24, then the pre-emptive block was appropriate. Given the lengthy discussions I have had on the article's talk page and my extensive efforts to accommodate User:24's views, I do not think there is a case for bad faith here. A warning would have been appropriate and sufficient: I would have lifted the block on User:24 immediately and sought the intervention of another administrator, but I was not given the opportunity to do so.
Finally, it says "Administrators must not block users with whom they are engaged in a content dispute; instead, they should report the problem to other administrators." (This applies to me, not to you.) I have received this message loud and clear. I am glad that I have a better understanding of WP:BLOCK now. Regards, Ground Zero | t 19:31, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
- OK, I understand all that, and I have lifted the block. In fact, as I (apparently mistakenly) thought I had already conveyed, a simple acknowledgement that the above IP messages were from you would have been enough, as I had already understood the substance of most of what you said.
- Perhaps it isn't necessary, but there are a couple of other points I would like to briefly comment on.
- You attach more weight than I intended to the word "if" that I used in "if it was, as you suggest, a matter of ignorance of the policies". Perhaps it would have been better to have written "since you say it was..." As far as I was concerned, I intended the statement to indicate that I was assuming good faith, not, as you took it, indicating that I wasn't.
- The fact that you did not know that a blocked editor can edit his or her own talk page is another of the things that I imagined anyone who has been as administrator for a while would know, but evidently I was mistaken. A good deal of my administrative work is connected to blocked editors, such as assessing unblock requests, and such things are so familiar to me that they are rather like "grass is green". It is easy to assume that things that seem obvious to oneself will seem equally obvious to others, but I suppose an administrator who never assesses unblock requests could go a long time without ever knowing how they work. (Purely out of curiosity, I had a look at your block log, and found that you have only once ever unblocked an editor, so it's evidently not an area where you have much experience.)
- Anyway, this incident is, presumably, closed, and I hope that next time we encounter one another it will be under more harmonious circumstances. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 09:04, 3 March 2014 (UTC)