| Revision as of 22:39, 7 March 2011 view sourceElen of the Roads (talk | contribs)16,638 edits →Response to Silverseren and Nuclear Warfare: this is my opinion← Previous edit |
Latest revision as of 04:44, 6 April 2011 view source Roger Davies (talk | contribs)Administrators34,587 edits link |
| (110 intermediate revisions by 18 users not shown) |
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
|
|
{{NOINDEX}} |
|
{{RFARcasenav|case name=Rodhullandemu|clerk1=Tiptoety|clerk2=Salvio giuliano|draft arb=|draft arb2=}} |
|
|
|
{{ombox |image=none |text= This page has been ]. {{#ifeq:yes|yes|For the decision, click ]; the evidence can be found in the .}} |
|
{{ArbComNav}} |
|
|
|
}} |
|
{{notice|Create your own section to provide evidence in, and '''do not edit anyone else's section'''. Keep your evidence to a maximum of 1000 words and 100 ]. Evidence longer than this will be refactored or removed entirely.}} |
|
|
|
|
|
Anyone, whether directly involved or not, may add evidence to this page. Create your own section and '''do not edit in anybody else's section'''. Please limit your evidence to a maximum of 1000 words and 100 ]. Giving a short, concise presentation '''will be more effective'''; posting evidence longer than 1000 words will not help you make your point. Over-long evidence that is not exceptionally easy to understand (like tables) will be trimmed to size or, in extreme cases, simply removed by the Clerks without warning - this could result in your important points being lost, so don't let it happen. Stay focused on the issues raised in the initial statements and on diffs which illustrate relevant behavior. |
|
|
|
|
|
It is extremely important that you use the prescribed format. Submitted evidence should include a link to the actual page diff in question, or to a short page section; links to the page itself are insufficient. Never link to a ], an editor's contributions, or a ] for all actions of an editor (as those will have changed by the time people click on your links), although a link to a log for a specific article or a specific block log can be useful. Please make sure any page section links are permanent. See ]. |
|
|
|
|
|
This page is not for general discussion - for that, see the ]. If you think another editor's evidence is a misrepresentation of the facts, cite the evidence and explain how it is incorrect '''within your own section'''. Please do not try to refactor the page or remove evidence presented by others. If something is put in the wrong place, leave it for the Arbitrators or Clerks to move. |
|
|
|
|
|
Arbitrators may analyze evidence and other assertions at ]. /Workshop provides for comment by parties and others as well as Arbitrators. After arriving at proposed principles, findings of fact or remedies, Arbitrators vote at ]. Only Arbitrators (and clerks, when clarification on votes is needed) may edit the proposed decision page. |
|
|
|
|
|
__TOC__ |
|
|
|
|
|
==Evidence presented by Elen of the Roads== |
|
|
] is a prolific admin and anti-vandal fighter, and is often very helpful to new editors, but he can also be ], has a habit of ] articles, ] and using admin tools in disputes, resulting in several appearances at ], and two blocks by other admins. I do recognise that admins and vandal fighters get a great deal of flak and can regularly end up at ANI, but ] These problems go back to 2008, but seem to have increased in frequency and severity in the last nine months or so. |
|
|
|
|
|
===Earlier problems=== |
|
|
* - ANI report: edit warring then indefinitely blocking the other editor (Betacommand) |
|
|
|
|
|
* - ANI report: edit warring over a source, then indefinitely blocking the other editor (new editor). Block reduced to time served. |
|
|
|
|
|
* <em>"Just fuck off, will you? We don't need your shite"</em>, followed by (to the same user) <em>"I'd rather die than let people like this edit here"</em> —the edits in question about which he'd <em>"rather die"</em> were, four pieces of trivial vandalism to the birthdates of minor celebrities, and a joke edit to ]. |
|
|
|
|
|
* - ] edit warring, followed by blocking the other editor for three months. IP had its block reduced to 2 weeks on the instructions of ArbCom. Rod then semiprotected the article, to stop the same IP editing it: <em></em> |
|
|
|
|
|
*- overturning a block on an editor who was supporting him in an edit war. (GriffinofWales) Block by Prodego. |
|
|
|
|
|
* - ANI report - inappropriate indefinite block of editor as a vandalism only account (block reduced to time served), plus extraordinarily ] attack on an IP editor questioning the block <em></em> |
|
|
|
|
|
* ANI report- see also . Editor (]) was indefinitely blocked for disruption, without warning or discussion, following two edits., . |
|
|
|
|
|
* <em>"I'm here at least twelve hours a day, and seven days a week, minimum … don't criticise me for playing the admin card, because above most other editors, I have the right to do so, because I am committed to our mission"</em>. |
|
|
|
|
|
* - block of editor with whom he was in a heated argument. It was an edifying discussion. Rod said <em></em>. Then he said <em></em>. Then the other guy (Malleus Fatuorum) said <em></em>. Rod then blocked the other guy for 31 hours, and was subsequently blocked himself by Floquenbeam for 24 hours. Both blocks were subsequently overturned. |
|
|
|
|
|
===Conduct unbecoming - unsuitable comments in block and edit summaries === |
|
|
Following this, there is a long interval punctuated by comments, mostly it must be said aimed at vandalising editors. I've worked in customer service for years so I do know what it's like, and I dare say most people have had days when we long to tell someone to f*** off. There is a need to cut some slack for our volunteer admin corps on those occasional bad days, but admins are generally expected to behave with a certain amount of decorum. |
|
|
|
|
|
* Blocking reason <em>"Vandalism-only account: enough crap"</em> |
|
|
|
|
|
* Rod closes a discussion at ANI in which he has been involved with the summary: <em>"Going nowhere; as usual, no consensus for anything in particular; we have better things to do here: Nothing will happen. Wankers"</em>. (This appeared later in another ANI report) |
|
|
|
|
|
* Blocking reason: <em>"Vandalism: tosser, knobhead- your call, but unproductive"</em> |
|
|
|
|
|
* Block notice: <em>"You have been ''']''' from editing for a period of '''31 hours''' for stupidity. Go away."</em> |
|
|
|
|
|
* Actual post is unproblematic - edit summary is <em>"rfor fuck's sakle shut up and let me reply!!! Q wanker!!!"</em> (You wouldn't think it was the same person - this appeared later in an ANI report.) |
|
|
|
|
|
* Blocking reason <em>"Vandalism-only account: username doesn't help, even if you have such a small penis".</em> (]) |
|
|
|
|
|
* Comment on block of user with Japanese name: <em>"And I thought Japanese women were such delicate people, worthy of respect. There are obviously exceptions"</em> |
|
|
|
|
|
* Blocking reason: <em>"Fuck off. I'm upping your block until you learn some manners." </em> (Schoolblock) |
|
|
|
|
|
* This is an odd one. The block reason says sockpuppetry and adding unsource material. In fact, the user is adding copyvio, he's made five or six edits to an article on a tv show - and the added material was copyright, as can be seen from the talkpage . The user has also edited logged out, and Rod has accused him of ]. The user's contributions confirm that the edit which caused the block appears to be the one on the user's talkpage, where he said the IP was him editing logged out. |
|
|
|
|
|
* <em>"For fick's sake, NO, NO, NO, and NO again. Get to know your own pet band's history, you maroon."</em> |
|
|
|
|
|
* Blocking reason <em>"Revoking talk page access: inappropriate use of user talk page while blocked: removing block notices is disapproved; kindly grow up, if you can."</em> |
|
|
|
|
|
* Response to editor with whom Rod is in a dispute. The response is not unreasonable, but the edit summary is <em>"Forget the amoeba until he grows up, please"</em>. |
|
|
|
|
|
===Reported at ANI === |
|
|
In and amongst this, there were several ANI reports. |
|
|
|
|
|
* ANI report Following the 'wankers' closure. |
|
|
|
|
|
* ANI report at which Nuclear Warfare threatens to request a block if he has to strike any more of Rod's unseemly comments. |
|
|
|
|
|
* ANI report which reveals that Rod is claiming not to have made the 4 Nov edit (above) with the strange edit summary . He later admits that he did make it but was not ] at the time. |
|
|
|
|
|
In the course of , Rod was asked to stay away from Malleus Fatuorum, as it appeared that every time their paths crossed, a serious amount of arguing broke out. |
|
|
|
|
|
===The final straw === |
|
|
* Edit war on ]. Rod made a ] reversion which was reverted by Malleus Fatuorum. Rod then reverted seven times between 23.00 on the 13th and 02.00 on the 15th (27 hours), reverting not only the reversion of his change, but the inclusion of a source to support the original version.(Full sequence: , , , , , , , , ) Rod was making these reverts while with the editor who was reverting him. I would have said both were edit warring, the issue is that an admin is supposed to know better. |
|
|
|
|
|
* The final straw as far as ArbCom were concerned - this is what sparked the decision to move to desysop. An IP kept changing the spelling of ] to Ralegh - which is the spelling used by the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, so it's not just vandalism, even if doing it without edit summaries, discussion etc wasn't particularly helpful. Rod twice reverted the spelling change, and the IP was eventually blocked by another administrator. Malleus Fatuorum, following a discussion that had been going on elsewhere about the ODNB and various names, then the article to ] at 22.06 and started a discussion on the talkpage. At 22:14 ] changed the spelling to match and Rod blocked them for 31 hours without warning, citing "Abuse of multiple accounts, or at best meatpuppetryy" . The move was reverted at 22.18 and discussion ensued. In the meantime, Rod at 22.14 that Malleus had moved the page. You can read the discussion for yourself, but in the course of it, Rod said <em>"I've already taken MF's Talkpage off my watchlist, but if I see him vandalising, it's my job to deal with that."</em> There was a proposal for an interaction ban, which had general support although the exact form was not agreed (should both editors be banned from each other). Rod's reaction was to replace his talkpage with the words </em>. |
|
|
|
|
|
===Responses=== |
|
|
====Response to Tijfo098==== |
|
|
To be honest, I never formed an opinion as to who was right or wrong in terms of the content - it was the edit warring that got my attention. ] (]) 14:16, 7 March 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
He said somewhere (edit summary, talkpage?) it was a support of the original contention. I have no opinion on whether there is merit in the contention. "I am right" is not grounds for edit warring, and is usually something both sides are saying.--] (]) 21:57, 7 March 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
====Response to Silverseren and Nuclear Warfare==== |
|
|
In my opinion, the evidence above warrants a desysop for the admin concerned. If he or NW has a different opinion, it might be helpful to make it more clearly. |
|
|
|
|
|
As to NW's concerns, I personally can entirely appreciate them. Arbcom are not going to thank me for saying this, but (in my opinion) their absolute conviction that Rodhullandemu needed protecting from himself, and that a public case should not be launched because it would have a terrible effect on him was, while sincerely held, an inappropriate case of what ] used to call the nanny state. There may occasionally occur a situation where shocking and confidential information from a third party necessitates a desysop without onwiki comment. This was not that case. With all the evidence onwiki, and the other party pressing for public comment before the motion was posted, with hindsight I believe it ought to have been done by case and that was that. This is a personal view. I know some of the other Arbs and some of the community also believe that it would be better for Rod not to hold this case at this time. --] (]) 22:14, 7 March 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
==Evidence presented by Tijfo098== |
|
|
===Clown article=== |
|
|
With respect to the ] article, myself and 71.141.88.54 found that Rod was basically right about content there; please read the last top-level section on the talk page . Sure, one can argue about the style of disagreement, but MF seems to be wrong about content, promoting pseudo-scientific memes propagated in the mass media in "Misplaced Pages's voice", and being quite disagreeable with anyone disagreeing with him. (Am I in hot water now?) 13:41, 7 March 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
Elen, you gave the impression that you did parse the matter at a semantic level when you wrote "with the inclusion of a source to support the original version." ] (]) 20:39, 7 March 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
==Evidence presented by Silver seren== |
|
|
===NuclearWarfare discussion=== |
|
|
There was recently a discussion over on NuclearWarfare's talk page, which you can find ]. NuclearWarfare had copied over the discussion to continue it with the users involved, where previously it had been held at WJBscribe's talk page ]. The discussion had been initiated by Arbitrator Coren in response to WJBscribe's statement before the case was opened ]. Arbitrator David Fuchs also commented a single time in the discussion. Arbitrator Shell Kinney also began joining in with the discussion. I believe the information and discussion between these users is pertinent to this case, especially made by NuclearWarfare. With , I formally submit this discussion as informational evidence for this case. <font color="silver">]</font><font color="blue">]</font><sup>]</sup> 21:10, 7 March 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
==Evidence presented by {your user name}== |
|
|
''before using the last evidence template, please make a copy for the next person'' |
|
|
==={Write your assertion here}=== |
|
|
Place argument and diffs which support your assertion; for example, your first assertion might be "So-and-so engages in edit warring", which should be the title of this section. Here you would show specific edits to specific articles which show So-and-so engaging in edit warring. |
|
|
|
|
|
==={Write your assertion here}=== |
|
|
Place argument and diffs which support the second assertion; for example, your second assertion might be "So-and-so makes personal attacks", which should be the title of this section. Here you would show specific edits where So-and-so made personal attacks. |
|