Wiktionary:Votes/2008-02/Reprimand of User:Connel MacKenzie

Definition from Wiktionary, the free dictionary
Jump to: navigation, search

Reprimand of User:Connel MacKenzie

  • Vote ends: 17 February 2008 24:00 UTC
  • Vote starts: 11 February 2008 0:00 UTC

Support

  1. Symbol support vote.svg Support DAVilla 00:07, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
  2. Symbol support vote.svg SupportRuakhTALK 00:16, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
    Though I must say, this whole exercise seems a bit pointless. Even if this vote gets large numbers of contributors coming out the woodwork to vote "support", I've never seen Connel's opinion changed by large numbers of people disagreeing with him (e.g. in the argument over undefeatable a while back, and in the more recent argument over פ-ח-ד). Invariably he decides that they're all conspiring and trolling and lying and vandalizing and acting in bad faith, or that most of the commenters mean something very different from what they actually wrote, or that one of them has somehow managed to deceive and delude the rest of them. For the reprimand to accomplish something, he'd have to actually come out of it believing he acted wrongly, and to the best of my knowledge, he's not capable of believing that. (Obviously I hope I'm wrong, and who knows? But I hope we have a back-up plan.) —RuakhTALK 00:24, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
    I don't know if he'd want to either, but as far as the capability of believing that, he most certainly does have it. Never having held a vote like this is good enough reason to hold up confidence and continue on the same track. Given our past tolerance of precisely the same arguments you point out, I could not consider a harsher measure without taking this one first.
    I assume that he will be willing to resign as checkuser regardless of the outcome, given that he's lost the support of a number of regulars, and given what a chore it is anyway. DAVilla 00:51, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
    Re: "Given our past tolerance of precisely the same arguments you point out, I could not consider a harsher measure without taking this one first.": O.K., fair enough. For all his hard work here, he merits a chance to prove he can turn a diplomatic leaf if we prove we care that he do so. —RuakhTALK 02:38, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
    I think we cannot just tack on resignation of checkuser duties to this vote in the way you (DAvilla) appear to above; if this is something you believe is appropriate, it will have to be a separate discussion/vote. ArielGlenn 06:09, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
    I did not intend to imply that. I wasn't sure it could be considered a "harsh measure" if he voluntarily steps down, is all. Regardless of the outcome means no matter which way this vote goes. Checkusers are highly trusted individuals, so losing even a little support does not bode well. But yes, it would have to be a separate discussion, as you say. If my assumption is incorrect, I will strike my comment, as I did not mean to mix the two issues here. DAVilla 06:21, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
  3. Symbol support vote.svg Support Atelaes 00:43, 11 February 2008 (UTC) While this admittedly feels like a betrayal for all of Connel's work, that whole display was fairly ridiculous (and it's not the first one we've ever seen). Atelaes 00:43, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
    Just a clarification, I'm not supporting a removal of CU status (and the text of this vote does not state anything relating to that). Atelaes 06:05, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
    Correct, it does not state such. That is a separate issue. DAVilla 06:12, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
    Atelaes, your comment sums up this issue quite well (although I nevertheless abstain). — Beobach972 16:43, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
  4. Symbol support vote.svg Support. Connel, you need to learn to give new editors (and old) the benefit of the doubt. Even people who come here to play foolish games can potentially be converts to helping the project (and there is plenty for which we need help). People who come here and make innocent beginner's errors should be treated like people who are, in fact, trying to help. And not everyone who has a difference of opinion over what should be included is plotting to sabotage the dictionary. bd2412 T 01:14, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
  5. Symbol support vote.svg Support Conrad.Irwin 08:41, 11 February 2008 (UTC) I think Connel is an amazing contributor but if anyone else tried this level of disruption they would be blocked indefinitely. The subject of this vote is a bit narrow - however the principal still holds; I am basing my vote also on the follow up conversations, in particular the refusal to accept community consensus. Conrad.Irwin 08:41, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
    I wonder whether it would be better to vote on a policy of reprimanding contributors, in general, who (eg) fail to assume good faith and then fail to accept community consensus, and then reprimand individual violators in accordance with the policy. Of course, I could see others taking the position that this is just such a reprimand, in accordance with AGF. — Beobach972 16:43, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
  6. Symbol support vote.svg Support Keene 14:01, 11 February 2008 (UTC) Even if it is only a symbolic thing, but I think that the outcome of this vote will not be so important, but this a good platform for the numbers of users who want to have a say to say it without being themselves reprimanded in return. --Keene 14:01, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
  7. Symbol support vote.svg Support DCDuring TALK 17:42, 11 February 2008 (UTC) As much as I am in awe of Connel's enormous past and continuing contributions, his initial block of a user with a good history of mostly small contributions seems wrong, though a human reaction to distaste for a user's personal style. That he then became uncontrollably defensive when a WP editor took an advocacy role for the user, leading to an obscenity seems wrong, though a very human reaction. That he does not see that there is a problem in using tools well-suited for use against new users whose contributions are solely vandalism and trolling against a user who has made positive contributions over months seems wrong, though also human. I hope that he can see this reprimand as intended, as specific to this type of behavior. Given the absence of explicit discussion about policies in this area, stronger measures seem inappropriate to me at this time. DCDuring TALK 17:42, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
  8. Symbol support vote.svg Support Jusjih 02:02, 12 February 2008 (UTC) Based on his contributions and logs, some actions are not clearly explained, such as "Stupidity" as the reason to block someone. It might discourage inexperienced users.--Jusjih 02:02, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
    A quick note that often "Stupidity" is the easiest reason to block someone, and often the edit that results in the "Stupidity" block is one that looks like it was done by someone with sub-par maturity. Not in anyone's defense, but if blocking people with "Stupidity" as a block message was, indeed, blockable, most of the active admins would be blocked at least once or twice. --Neskaya talk 04:17, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
    Please note that stupidity was not the reason used in this particular case. DAVilla 05:42, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
  9. Symbol support vote.svg Support Thisis0 08:44, 14 February 2008 (UTC) I have been that newbie bitten, and hard, by Connel, and not just a few times. Recently, through personal messages, I've come to understand Connel's good intentions and respect them. However, this vote and this action is important as the only way for the community to convince this person to stop being a complete and utter dick. Though I would ask whether such clear and consistent personality functions are alterable. I've read him say many times that he doesn't know what he did wrong or what to change. The truth is, it won't change. I would like to ask him if we need to consider the presence of Asperger syndrome or something similar, for perspective. I value Connel's goals and his technical expertise, but no amount of bureaucratic contributions can excuse consistent, rampant, and continual abuse of other editors. What are we if not people? People come before kilobytes. Wake up. Kilobytes. Ask how many kilobytes were spent over the last year just discussing how to censure something Connel has done or written, only to hear the answer again that there is no mechanism whatsoever to do so. Connel, knowing your goals for this project, I really really hope you can be here to see them to fruition. -- Thisis0 08:44, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Oppose

  1. Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Versageek 06:24, 11 February 2008 (UTC) This may be largely academic, but as long as stupidity remains on the dropdown of official block reasons, I can't support sanctioning an individual admin for failing to be civil.
  2. Symbol oppose vote.svg Strong Oppose SemperBlotto 07:51, 11 February 2008 (UTC) One of the most useful members of this Wiki community. If the vote is to block him, this Bureaucrat would not implement it.
    That's your choice. Now aren't you glad you were nominated? ;-) DAVilla 14:49, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
  3. Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Dvortygirl 08:05, 11 February 2008 (UTC) What, and give him a day off? Yes, he goes in swinging. He also gets a heck of a lot done. What of it?
    Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Visviva 08:25, 11 February 2008 (UTC) Was Connel's behavior out of line? Absolutely. Do we have clear criteria for what sort of admin behavior is out of line, and how it should be dealt with? No, not as far as I can tell. In this context, I am not comfortable meting out ad hoc remedies based on criteria decided after the fact. Also, I am concerned that this vote is really more about Connel than about the specific act(s) in question. While this is perfectly understandable, IMO it is not constructive for us to make this into a personal issue. -- Visviva 08:25, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
    I hate to say it, but I think we have to make this a personal issue. If it had been another admin involved in this incident, we'd have been shocked, would imagine the admin was just having a bad day, and we'd leave a comment asking the admin to apologize. With Connel, it's "*sigh* This again", and for once we've decided to actually formalize the comments we've always made. —RuakhTALK 13:50, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
    My problem with making this a personal issue is that it focuses us on reacting to the past rather than preparing for the future, and thereby creates a comforting illusion that we have addressed the issues here, when we actually have not. Those issues, as I understand them, are twofold:
    1. A seriously dysfunctional relationship between a leading, prolific admin and the rest of the community. This is aggravated by the fact that the user in question has taken on responsibility for a large number of highly important tasks -- not, as far as I can tell, because the user has any craving for power, but simply because nobody else can be arsed to step up. This (at least the last part) is not really Connel's problem, it's ours.
    2. A cowboy culture of adminship, where we shoot first and ask questions later. Now, there are good reasons why we have this style and not the pimply-hall-monitor style of Wikipedia ("Now this is your final level-1 warning. If you do that again, you'll get a level-2 warning."), reasons which include our astronomical article-to-editor ratio and the restricted focus of the project ... however, we could definitely benefit from slightly more restrictive guidelines for admin conduct. Again, this is not really a problem with Connel; he just happens to be more visible and belligerent than most.
    Both of these, as I see it, are issues which pose a potential long-term threat to the project; I would much rather have us focus on them than on individual incidents or users, however much certain incidents may make us want to hit certain users with a cluestick. -- Visviva 16:34, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
    Your concerns are understandable, so please let me try to address them. I do not consider this to be an ad hoc remedy. This is not the first time an action against Connel has been suggested. Connel himself would agree to voting as a way of determining if action should be taken. The majority here would not wish to desysop, and blocks are the way inappropriate behavior is dealt with for non-admins. Was the behavior inappropriate? The guidelines we have, which only Connel objected to, state:
    "'Assume good faith' means, 'give the benefit of the doubt regarding a contributor’s intentions when it is reasonable to do so.' [] Wiktionarians are encouraged to assume that errors are well-intentioned. When you disagree with someone, remember that he or she may be trying to help the project. [] Well-meaning people make mistakes, and editors should correct mistakes without assuming that they are deliberate or malicious. [] When you encounter a mistaken edit, it is generally best to do the following:
    Correct it (either by fixing or by reverting). Do not accuse the editor of malice or deception, because a casual correction or revert is easier to take in a good-natured fashion.
    If it might not be obvious what the problem was, leave a message on the user's talk-page, identifying the edit in question and explaining what was mistaken about it [] . If the user has not yet received the welcome message ({{welcome}}), include it. [] "
    DAVilla 14:38, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
    You make a good case there. AGF should have some kind of teeth in it. I'll strike my vote and sleep on it. -- Visviva 16:34, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
    ...and I think I'll leave it struck, which I guess means that I abstain. I still don't see this as a particularly good step, but it doesn't seem particularly bad either. -- Visviva 11:35, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
  4. Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Ivan Štambuk 13:15, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
  5. Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Tawker 15:41, 11 February 2008 (UTC) - blocking over this is a little extreme and would serve no constructive purpose. Blocks are preventative not punitive. Treating them as such would be a mistake. -- Tawker 15:41, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
    Thank you for your clear thoughts. I believe Visviva has the same objection, but what would the two of you suggest? What is the least severe reprimand, corresponding to how sever of an offense? Desysopping cannot be our only option. DAVilla 16:05, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
  6. Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose GerardM 15:45, 11 February 2008 (UTC) I think that this request is very much over the top. This should never have gone this far. I think that requesting this "reprimiand" is in itself as problematic. It is a clear indication of power play. GerardM 15:45, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
    Per "power play", please see User talk:DAVilla/2007#CheckUser. DAVilla 16:05, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
  7. Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose \Mike 17:41, 11 February 2008 (UTC) - I cannot support this. In particular not when the only case brought forward as evidence has every indication of being "the straw that broke the camel's back": there seems to be plenty of things going on beneath the surface which I understand people want to punish Connel for - but which is merely alluded to here. I wouldn't consider, as far as I've been able to follow the case presented here, that this would be a blockable offense. Then, one could perhaps wish that Connel also learned that in order to fully utilize that the pen is mightier than the sword, the pen has to be handled a little differently from a sword when fighting with it... But neither would that be blockable, I believe. Besides, I agree with Tawker above, about punishment vs. prevention. \Mike 17:41, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
    There are good reasons why Wikipedia does not permit administrators to be blocked over the "abuse of administrative privileges". w:Wikipedia:BLOCK#Inappropriate administrative actions. --EncycloPetey 18:00, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
    I am not a Wikipedian, as I have no professional knowledge to contribute there, and have been bitten at least once for a legitimate edit as an anon. Connel is fond of saying we are not Wikipedia, and has refused to apply standards on Wikipedia that have not been accepted here, including the guideline in question (edit:) before it was approved. We do not have an Arbitration Committee so I don't know who to refer this to. At the same time I trust that the rules at Wikipedia have evolved over a number of similar disputes, and I am willing to strike the one-day block given the objection here if some punishment can be devised, despite the fact that it would not be swiftly applied. DAVilla 19:21, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
    But your underlying assumption is that people should be punished, and so punishments must be devised and implemented. --EncycloPetey 19:28, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
    My underlying assumption is that we should not be complacent in this matter. If there is an argument against punishments, then sure, we can consider something else. DAVilla 19:45, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
    I do not wish to turn Connel away by building a full case against him. I want the community to determine whether his behavior was inappropriate, since he continues to insist that it was not. A few editors have felt that much harsher punishment was necessary, but I would never hope for the situation to escalate to that point. DAVilla 19:21, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
  8. Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose. I'm not sure why we're voting on this. This not a policy, nor a (permanent) flag. Also, the vote is toothless: whether the consensus is yea or nay, the bureaucrats can ignore it and do what they want. But since the vote is in place, I'm voting to oppose. Should Connel have bit the newbie? No. But, as several people have noted, a block, as applied to any user, is not a reprimand: it's a measure designed to stop the person from editing. A one-day block makes the person stop editing immediately and gives him a chance to read a bit of Wiktionary before editing it; in the long run, this will better his edits, if he chooses to return. Sometimes, a fifteen-minute block, with a talk-page message, may suffice (as, perhaps, in the case of an editor about whom we may AGF but who is nonetheless inadvertently messing up many pages in a short time period); sometimes, a three-day block is better (as, perhaps, in the case of an editor whom we fear will return after a day to vandalize some more). In Connel's case, if the block is to be preventative, it would need to be a six-month block (that's a guesstimate), for less than that would not be enough to let him think over his actions. But that's if it's to be preventative; in my opinion, we don't want to prevent his editing for even a day: he's a top-notch contributor (both to content and to meta-content). The block in his case would be purely punitive; and that's no reason to block. DAVilla asked above what else to do, if not block. Perhaps nothing; I don't know; but that does not change my vote in this vote. Finally, I don't think that one instance of biting a newbie (which, note, is what the vote proposal refers to, and nothing more) is sufficient to block, even if a block were appropriate as a punitive measure.—msh210 18:12, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
  9. Symbol oppose vote.svg OpposeCelestianpower háblame 21:04, 11 February 2008 (UTC). Sure, he should have been a bit less trigger-happy, but as mentioned above, one does not block to reprimand. And he does get a lot done. An awful lot.
  10. Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Wytukaze 03:17, 12 February 2008 (UTC) Blocking the user was bad, but Connel is, I think we can safely say, aware that the majority of the community thinks this, whether he agrees with it or not. Blocking Connel is not warranted here, and it would set a precedent I do not like. As for other action? None, I think. I do not support a formal punishment of any kind. Informally, yes, tell a user you think they've done wrong. Do not subject this to a bureaucracy. --Wytukaze 03:17, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
  11. Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Barmar 07:35, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
  12. Symbol oppose vote.svg Strongly Oppose This vote is utterly improper. There is (correctly) no precedent or policy for voting on a "reprimand", Inventing procedure for this "case" is ex post facto and a bill of attainder. Voting is not a way of creating a decision (a wiki is not a democracy, nor intended to be); voting exists to record a consensus that has already been achieved, so that a policy document can be created or changed, or a 'crat or steward can see the record and act. This "vote" is nothing but a direct personal attack, an offence far greater than anything Connel has done or alleged to have done. It is a travesty, and this page ought to be deleted forthwith. Robert Ullmann 12:45, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
    You know, I think you're right. I had hoped (against all my experience with controversial wiki votes) that this might generate some constructive, thoughtful discussion. It has done so to a limited extent, but at the moment the level of discourse is headed rapidly in the direction of gravity. At the least, I think the initiator would be well-advised to permanently table the matter. -- Visviva 13:30, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
    There is no prohibition against either ex post facto determinations, or against bills of attainder here. We have no Constitution. We obviously must have some means of dealing with admins who go bonkers - suppose an admin were to go on a genuine vandalism spree? It's happened on Wikipedia. This is Nomic with one immutable rule: we are here to build a free dictionary, and anything that promotes the building of the dictionary is permitted. That includes bringing into sharp relief the actions of an admin who, though well-meaning, is exhibiting a paranoia that is likely to scare off potentially productive contributors. bd2412 T 14:32, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
    One the one hand, I should thank BD for defending the decision to go to vote. On the other hand, I should have asked your advice first, as usual. DAVilla 23:58, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
  13. Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Jonathan Webley 13:19, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
  14. Symbol oppose vote.svg If you think an admin is not suitable for his task, you can vote for his desysoping. If you want a reprimanding policy for admins, discuss it first. Ad hoc votings like this voting are divisive and really a waste of time. Oh, and in this case I also oppose reprimanding.--Jyril 20:36, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
  15. Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose - He may be a little trigger happy but I'd rather have that then let disruptive newbies with subversive agendas think they can come in here wrecking havoc and get away with it. Blocking to put the breaks on suspicious editors is a cautious if not sensible thing, blocking Connel however will not help us. Williamsayers79 20:45, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
  16. Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose - For the sheer amount of work he does. I feel everyone is allowed some discretion. sewnmouthsecret 00:35, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Abstain

  1. Symbol abstain vote.svg Abstain Neskaya talk 04:29, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
  2. Symbol abstain vote.svg Abstain EncycloPetey 04:37, 11 February 2008 (UTC) Looking at the blocked user's edits, I can perhaps understand Connel's frustration and block. The user has been here two months, but follows few formatting conventions, does not wikify Translations, alters transcriptions as if they were pronunciations, etc. I do not think the user is being malicious in any way, but is making many mistakes. In all of this, it seems not a single admin or other user has posted to the blockee about the problems and correct conventions. --EncycloPetey 04:37, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
    To be thorough, this was the user's talk page when the block was performed, and these were the admin edits that had been made before this vote began.
    In nearly four months before the misspelling error, the user had 31 edits in the main namespace, the most egregious of which was reverted and another a redirect overridden by Cynewulf. Cynewulf also moved and made improvements to another page whose original quality I cannot judge. He might be one of the best qualified to explain a pattern, if any. One page was deleted by Kappa and, with input, shortly recreated by Kitty53, then moved by Zeitlupe. An additional three pages she touched have seen correction to the specific contributed content, namely newborn, オニダルマオコゼ, and づ‎, and three pages have seen correction to nothing more than layout, including this edit by yourself.
    In all, the intervention we have includes only comments in edit lines for what seem to be a variety of reasons, a hasty deletion while the user was still experimenting with the page, and a one-day block for "Inserting false information". DAVilla 05:01, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
  3. Symbol abstain vote.svg Abstain Yes, some measure should be taken, and no, I'm not convinced that this particular measure will be frutiful in any way. Perhaps there could be a way for Connel to pass discussions off to another admin when (before) tempers get short. -- ArielGlenn 06:16, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
  4. Symbol abstain vote.svg Abstain Widsith 16:04, 11 February 2008 (UTC) Connel behaved badly - again - but it seems like he's already had a proportional reprimand in the BP discussion which followed. I am pleased the community has held this vote, but for now I don't see much point in symbolic 1-day blocks. Widsith 16:04, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
  5. Symbol abstain vote.svg Abstain Thryduulf 16:27, 11 February 2008 (UTC) although I have been critical of Connel's attitude in the past, I have not been active on Wiktionary of late due to competing demands on my time. For this reason I was entirely unaware of the incident and all that has apparently followed until I was invited to comment by email. As I would not wish to be judged by those not fully informed it would entirely inappropriate for me to pass judgement on another in the same circumstances. I would however encourage everyone reading this to take the course of action that is most likely to result in a harmonious editing environment in the short and long term. Thryduulf 16:27, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
    I would very much appreciate it if you could take the time to review the particulars of this case. DAVilla 16:41, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
    I'll try, but cannot promise unfortunately. Thryduulf 17:17, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
  6. Symbol abstain vote.svg Abstain As much sinning as sinned against. I'm not throwing the first (or any) stone in this debate. But I do think, Connel, you should watch your tolerance level with a more objective eye. (Damn, that beam in my eye is getting in the way again.) -- Algrif 16:35, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
  7. Symbol abstain vote.svg Abstain — Beobach972 16:43, 11 February 2008 (UTC). I must abstain, because, although I have no suggestions of my own, I do not think that this vote is a good way to handle this issue. Connel MacKenzie is an active contributor, even if a touchy one; I agree that the second half of that (the touchiness) needs to be addressed, particularly because concern has been voiced that other contributors are being driven away (although the only one of the three DAVilla mentions with whom I was acquainted, Richardb, had his own touchiness issues). Would a better reaction to the creation of a redirect at marshmellow—>marshmallow have been to convert it into a misspelling (or even, given the attestation, alternative spelling) page? Yes. (Of course, one encounters administrators with similarly short fuses on Wikipedia, who jump straight to the third warning template or to a block for what should merit the first-level warning template.) Will a one-day block have much effect? In my opinion, no. Unless we as a community are going to do as Ruakh seems to have hinted and pursue some more significant censure (which would be the subject of a separate vote, and a measure I'd not necessarily support), simply going on record in this manner for a token censure will most likely only foster resentment (indeed, it seems to have done so already). — Beobach972 16:43, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
    On the side, I very much agree that we need some {{unblock}}-style notification and recourse procedure, whether we implement it through MediaWiki pages or some other means. — Beobach972 16:43, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
  8. Symbol abstain vote.svg Abstain Eclecticology 19:55, 11 February 2008 (UTC) Since I have not been a regular participant lately, I can do nothing but abstain. Connel is nevertheless a known entity, and has been for a long time. Reprimands are certainly in order for high-level misbehaviour, but I fail to see how much a one-day block will accomplish when dealing with long-established users other than to ramp up confrontation. Concepts like "Assume Good Faith" are necessarily vague, and trying to define them with strict rules cannot hope to deal with the variety of situations that might be applicable to high-level users. What this probably needs is to stand up at the level of the incident. Undue punishments should be reverted immediately, and a habit of progressively stronger measures needs to become the rule. Jumping to harsher measures when there is a chance that direct discussion could succeed should not be tolerated, but it is up to the people of good will to insist on such of adherence. It is up to them to act in individual circumstances, and not wait until an established senior sysop has developed a reputation for excessive practices. Failing to put new material into established formats alone is not grounds for punitive action, even if it is persistent; others can always step in to fix this. Unless it gets to the level of edit wars it's no big deal. Perhaps the person choosing to do things differently has good new ideas. If their ideas are deficient they won't last; if they are others will adopt them. No cookie-cutter pattern is ever right in all circumstances. Eclecticology 19:55, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
  9. Symbol abstain vote.svg Abstain Rod (A. Smith) 23:43, 11 February 2008 (UTC) This vote is not about the forgivable block, but about the pattern exemplified by Connel's response to the unblock request. He still somehow thinks that the unblock request was a threat, so his threatening response still seems reasonable to him. Our challenge is to help Connel recognize that the unblock request was a well-meaning request to unblock a well-meaning contributor. I'd support a ceremonial sanction if it could teach him to recognize good intent, but he's not ready to learn (“if you (plural - the Wiktionary community) wish to block me for a day, for being right, well, I don't know what to say”). Rod (A. Smith) 05:39, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
  10. Symbol abstain vote.svg Abstain Rhanyeia 07:30, 12 February 2008 (UTC) Thank you DAVilla for being so brave that you've brought out your thoughts about this on the Beer parlour and started this vote, and doing this with a constructive attitude. I think the result of the vote is not so important as all these discussions. I don't wish Connel MacKenzie blocked, but I'm not voting oppose because of the symbolism in this. I think he did wrong, and I hope I'd never again have to see an editor who holds positions of trust to respond in the manner he did on his talk page. At the same time, Connel MacKenzie is doing a lot of good work here and that must not be forgotten, and happily it isn't. I disagree with Connel MacKenzie's actions in this case, but I hold no negative feelings towards him, and I've forgiven his actions even if he isn't apologizing for them. What I'm concerned of however is that the uncivil comments he has made and his failings to know when to assume good faith make it appear that he isn't an ideal person for doing checkusering. I hope he would voluntarily quit doing it and concentrate on tasks which he finds more rewarding. Best regards Rhanyeia 07:30, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
  11. Symbol abstain vote.svg Abstain Bequw¢τ 13:58, 14 February 2008 (UTC) I agree that some action should be taken, but would prefer to create the procedures for dealing with the general issue of Admin-abuse-of-power first. --Bequw¢τ 13:58, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
  12. Symbol abstain vote.svg Abstain — [ ric ] opiaterein — 13:17, 15 February 2008 (UTC) Connel is one of the least civil people I've seen here, but banning him for one day isn't going to do anything. Personally, I'd rather see his adminship revoked, but that would never get enough support, no matter how lacking in civility he is.
Thoughts

Given that I’d been absent for over two months before I received the e-message inviting me to comment on this, it would be inappropriate for me to vote. Just came to say a few things that will probably be taken as unhelpful platitudes (sorry!):

  • From the delving that I’ve done — which I shan’t pretend is much — it seems that this was, given precedent, some fairly harmless venting (I’m talking about just the specific issue which this vote ostensibly concerns) which probably doesn’t warrant such an elaborate response. This is not to say that Connel did not act in violation of policy, it is only to say that it was not, in comparison with past blow-outs, a particularly severe violation (IMO).
  • This vote seems a tad pointless. It is ceremonial, but I don’t think that it carries the necessary moral weight to have any measurable effect (particularly as the community is so starkly split on the issue).
  • Clearly, of course, this vote is not just about the one issue. Connel has undeniably acted in ways that would not have been tolerated had such behaviour been exhibited by most other users — it is equally undeniable that the reason for such tolerance is the extraordinary amount of time and effort that Connel commits to Wiktionary. In the end this comes down to a trade-off: as it is, I believe, not realistic to expect that Connel will miraculously ameliorate his behaviour, the choice that this community must make is whether it values peace and quiet over the work Connel does, as I doubt it can have both.
  • Connel — as, it seems from the reactions I have received, I do — comes from a rather extreme lexicographical perspective, and one which is often difficult to accommodate. (At this point I ask that I may be forgiven some amateur psychoanalysis.) What this means is that Wiktionary is in many ways not what he wants it to be, and so, given the amount of time and effort he dedicates to the project, this engenders feelings of frustration and injustice which, I wager, are the root of his occasional outbursts and his tendency towards persecution complexes (the “cabal of trolls”). Really, this is pretty understandable — they are just irrational reactions to things not going the way he’d like them to. (I sincerely do not intend this to be patronising, and I apologise if it perceived as such.) What I have found very rewarding in my discussions with Connel (which became far more fruitful in the couple of months prior to my departure) is to patiently and explicitly lay out intentions and desired outcomes, and to ask him to do the same — that way, consensus can more easily be reached and solutions can be devised which satisfy both Connel’s and others’ aims. Of course, this requires Connel’s coöperation, and it would be good if he took a chill pill once in a while. In all this I would ask everyone to remember that the value of an opinion, perspective, argument, or whatever is not dependent upon the person who holds or expresses it.

If any of this helps, that’ll be great. If not, then I can only hope that it doesn’t make things any worse. If any of you have been offended by what I’ve written, then please feel free to send me an abusive e-message (as I shan’t have the time to follow this discussion) — I have sufficient distance from this project at the moment that I won’t mind.   ;-)   On that subject: if any of you would like to send me a friendly one just to catch up, that’d be appreciated too!  (u):Raifʻhār (t):Doremítzwr﴿ 19:50, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

I regret having barged in and wasted so much time in asking for this reprimand. This situation should have been diffused early and could have been avoided by a mature exchange. I don't know Connel, I did not mean to offend him by questioning his judgment. My comments were based on several observations and experience acting as an administrator at the English Wikipedia. Both en.wiki and en.wikt strive toward establishing a practical process in expectation of quality results. I mention this because my affiliation with en.wiki has been brought up as some sort of black mark by Connel, as if my participation was on behalf of some malicious agenda to disrupt the Wiktionary project.

I do not support Connel's punitive block against a well-meaning (if inexperienced) contributor. Nor do I support any punitive block against him for improper administrative conduct. Wikis are not serfdoms, we are all colleagues here. I don't mean to excuse the presumptious tone of my initial complaint, I now realize that different WMF projects have different expectations of decorum on behalf of new contributors. Nonetheless, I think that there's a clear distinction between dealing with behavioral complaints and poor edits. Like it or not, blocks are rude and forcefull. There is a troublesome relationship between accusations of stupidity and the presumption of entitlement on behalf of the blocking admin. While there are times when it is appropriate to take a firm stance against editors who have no interest in making positive contributions, an administrator has every opportunity to revert a nonconstructive contribution without blocking the offender for mistakes made in good faith. Ideally, the administrator should offer a tactful correction to the offender, even if it takes the form of a templated message. Practically, this may not be feasible for a vast project patrolled by a small band of active admins. I've been told as much by several experienced members of the community and the arguments made in justification of expedient preventative actions are convincing.

It seems a bit unfair to frame this discussion as a vote. I have never taken issue with Connel's substantial record of positive contributions. I am willing to accept our exchange as an unfortunate but ultimately insignificant lapse of judgment, I only ask that Connel make an effort to avoid deriding new contributors. No WMF administrator should resort to intimidation or instantaneous profanity when faced with candid criticism (a naive, yet useful truism). ˉˉanetode╦╩ 10:23, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

I removed later the number before the previous message which isn't a vote. Best regards Rhanyeia 09:01, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
I don't understand this at all, you say that you don't support block a punitive vote, but you have added your comment to the Support section. The framing of this discussion as a vote has some very interesting side effects, not least allowing the build up of tension around here to be let off in a controlled manner, and inviting feedback from a far wider range of contributors than usual discussions. It has also helped discussions elsewhere about these policies and so they are being reassessed. Conrad.Irwin 15:51, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
I agree and I'd like to thank Rhanyeia for removing the vote formatting from the above statement. I've moved it down here to avoid further confusion. I support a reprimand, but not in the form of a punitive block. ˉˉanetode╦╩ 18:33, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Comments

Procedural

I should point out that Connel may of course vote against this measure himself, and that it need not run to completion if he were to accept the reprimand. DAVilla 01:54, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

One of the more amusing traits of wikipedians in specific and many wikimedians in general is their attempt to create consensus, and dichotomous situations, over issues which cannot - by definition - have consensus and which are not dichotomous. For example, the vast majority of the persons voting in this attack up on an admin (oh, and yes, that is *precisely* what this is), have not read completely and have certainly not with consideration all the comments and arguments put forth by those who have an opposing (or abstaining) viewpoint. Yet they've read (possibly with smug satisfaction) every agreeing vote. Voting is evil. Imo, it's particularly evil because it focuses the community on its internal differences, rather than on the much larger areas of agreement. - Amgine/talk 20:26, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

At least in holding this vote, we have heard the opposing viewpoints which were not voiced or which were looked over with smug confidence. DAVilla 21:36, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
Did I mention reading without consideration? You clearly didn't hear me. - Amgine/talk 23:50, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
Yes, you did mention that. You said that we "have not read completely and have certainly not with consideration". I did hear you, and I disagree. Many of the people who have voted against have done so for reasons that I agree with. Unfortunately those reasons were not voiced before the vote began, with Visviva being a possible exception.
But on the broader point, I have found that it certainly does help to build a consensus before trying to take actions. The votes themselves do not build a consensus; they are merely a formality. In my opinion, voting is not evil, but neither is it next to godliness, to be certain. DAVilla 03:22, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
Unfortunately, what I wrote was that people voting didn't read with consideration the comments of those who had the "other" view. So, those opposed to this measure weren't reading those of the supporters, and vice versa. You merely assumed I was opposed to the reprimand. - Amgine/talk 03:43, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
Ah, I see. I was misled by "agreeing vote". But I have confidence that all of those who voted against did so with deliberation. I am a little insulted by GerardM's accusation, but I have to believe that he honestly views it that way. DAVilla 05:17, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
I don't know, of course, but I would guess it's because you cannot see this vote as anything other than dichotomous. And if we aren't for your "religious" point of view, we're against you personally. While I see this farce as highly disruptive and without any possible benefit or resolution, yet another example of en.wikt's inability to avoid being hijacked by a tiny minority and a distraction from the mission.
Pray, if you would, could you please measure the number of your edits to this page relative to the number of all other persons doing so? - Amgine/talk 11:59, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
I'd say it's simpler than that. GerardM's comment was insulting, not only to the initiator of the vote but to all of us participating in good faith in this discussion (which he has not condescended to do).
I'm not sure where religion comes into the matter... at all. Huh? I'm also not sure why DAVilla's level of interest and participation in this vote, which does touch on very important issues, should be considered surprising or undesirable. -- Visviva 12:12, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
The number is obviously quite high, especially since I make many corrections, and because I feel compelled to mediate some issues, including points of order that surrender rather than claim ground, but also because of interest, yes. I guess if I don't leave a response you will know that I have read your posts, but would want to let others chime in.
Either you tend to double speak or I tend to misinterpret you or both, so I should ask if I'm in the tiny minority that's hijacking Wiktionary before I respond to it, although honestly I'd rather just leave it be. I'm not sure how you get the impression that my views are dichotomous. I know I can be stubborn sometimes, but the former characterization strikes me as wrong.
I don't suspect that anyone is against me personally, even Connel at this moment, though I expect he would naturally lose my trust. While it's impossible not to take some issues personally, we're not talking vendetta here. DAVilla 15:33, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
The term religious was in quotes, indicating it was comparative/jocular and not actually religious (and I'm amused you didn't take umbrage at the GWBush reference at least as much as the religious reference.) This discussion does not actually touch on important issues - admins (including DAVilla - yes, I examined almost every block ever made by that admin) do make 'hair-trigger' blocks, admins are the target of harrassment, and admins are the source of such behaviour. And nothing in this discussion is designed to alter any of these facts. Therefore it is both trivial and personal, and possibly harrassing. Furthermore, it is outside the normal channel of WT:BP where it was previously raised and consensus was not reached. And it is divisive in orientation, rather than consensus in orientation. At least, these are the facts as I see and interpret them. - Amgine/talk 12:40, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
For the sake of others, I must point out again that the hair-trigger block is not what's in question, but the response to an unblock request.
You must have a better reading than me, because I was not aware that consensus was not reached until I brought it here. DAVilla 15:33, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
consensus: 1. agreement among the members of a given group or community, each of which exercises some discretion in decision-making and follow-up action.
3. A standard of decision-making where agreement is defined as the lack of active opposition to the proposed course of action.
My apologies if I failed to see agreement, or lack of opposition. And, if you wish to quibble about the details allow me to do the same, and ask specifically where there was a request to unblock Kitty53? You keep pointing at that response, and failing to mention the context was not an unblock request. - Amgine/talk 16:16, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
Amgine could you slow down your tone somewhat please? I believe DAVilla has done his or her best, and if you want to ask something there are more polite ways of doing it. Best regards Rhanyeia 17:37, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
Davilla, I agree with Rhanyeia, my last comment was less than completely politic. I was quite surprised when your comments suggested you were unaware of the characteristics of consensus, and frustrated that you keep referring to the instigative actions as refusing an unblock request when, in fact, no such request was tendered. And I allowed my temper to overcome my better judgement, responding too quickly to give my comments the consideration I should have given them. I apologize to you. - Amgine/talk 21:26, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
No problem. You make a good point. Unblocking was not mentioned directly. That's probably a good reason to have an {{unblock}} procedure, though not necessarily the one from 'pedia. DAVilla 21:34, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
Nonsense. I, for one, have read every single comment on this page; and I find little in the "support" comments to be smug about, anyway. And it looks like most of the people voting "support" and most of the people voting "oppose" are in agreement about most of the issues here. (Incidentally, you may wish to read the Meta essay that you linked to. It's actually pro-consensus: its top-billed complaint about polls is that they discourage consensus.) —RuakhTALK 03:02, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

I have broken the comments into sections, given the volume. Please forgive me. DAVilla 21:44, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

E-mail

I learned today that someone has been sending emails asking people to weigh in on this vote. I don't recall ever receiving an email about any other vote, and so, even though the email was apparently worded neutrally so that it did not on the surface solicit a vote either in support or in opposition, this still troubles me. -- ArielGlenn 18:51, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with this. I did receive such an e-mail. If it were done more often it might get more people involved. I would certainly encourage this sort of thing happening more frequently. Eclecticology 19:24, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
I do have a problem with this — a very big problem. The e-mail I received included the following: "Connel seems to have gotten, let's say, too big for his boots, and is obstructing this project's progress, with bad-faith RFDs, and naive arguments about a plethora of issues here" and "Do you have any ideas of how to put him in his place". This was not a neutral e-mail suggesting I participate in discussion, but one that advocated a particular course of action off-line. If this was a mass e-mailing, then it is reminiscent of a recent stink that happened on Wikipedia. If people have something to say about policies or actions, it should be said publicly on Wiktionary or discussed in the IRC, not in a clandestine mailing. --EncycloPetey 19:35, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
Some of us would view IRC as clandestine. Since he has referred to it himself, I can say that it was DAVilla's e-mail that I received, and it was relatively more neutral than the one quoted below. Eclecticology 20:16, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
Unless you think it is inappropriate, would you be kind enough to inform me by email who sent you that message, and I will ask them privately to stop? DAVilla 19:38, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
I shall assume for the moment that the person who sent the message is following this discussion, and that the person will see from reactions like yours that the message was inappropriate. --EncycloPetey 19:42, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
As a comment, the email that I received worded as EncycloPetey described was not in connection to this vote. Conrad.Irwin 19:50, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
Ditto. Further, its sender told me in a later message that several people have told him to change his tone and try to make his focus less personal, so I think he got the message. —RuakhTALK 20:27, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
I think it is entirely appropriate that neutral e-mail notices about votes be sent out to, say, all admins or all registered users. Frankly, I think such notices should be mandatory to encourage broad participation in votes. Perhaps an opt-in system for users to receive such notices would work. Realistically, campaigning might be expected, too. Given the social norms here, active campaigning is likely to backfire, even in the absence of rules. DCDuring TALK 19:31, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
I tried to email a number of users, eventually deciding on admins who had been active in the last month but not this month, but also including a few others like inactive bureaucrats and one long-term contributor who has not been made admin. Because the vote was reduced to one week, at Connel's request, I didn't want anyone to feel that they had been excluded because they were away. If that was intended as a political move then it has backfired, given the number of new objections. But I contend that it was appropriate given the neutrality, and constructive given that we now have a clear and legitimate reason to fail this vote. DAVilla 19:33, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
I find myself in total agreement with Eclecticology on this: we should have much more involvement in votes. I agree with DAVilla DCDuring that we should have opt-in mailing for vote starts. If the mailing was not obviously selective or exclusive in nature, worded neutrally, then I view whomever sent them, as obviously trying to help. (Sounds like it maybe was not worded neutrally, though.) --Connel MacKenzie 19:46, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
It appears there was more than one mailing from more than one person, at least in my case. --EncycloPetey 19:53, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
Just FYI, the text of DAVilla’s e-message to me was as follows:
Hi Raifʻhār Doremítzwr,
There is a brief vote to sanction Connel MacKenzie which you would probably want to see.
http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Wiktionary:Votes/2008-02/Reprimand_of_User:Connel_MacKenzie
Regards,
David Villa
All of which seems perfectly neutral to me.  (u):Raifʻhār (t):Doremítzwr﴿ 20:08, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
Either opt-in or opt-out sound good to me. I can make arguments either way.
The most neutral wording would be to simply copy the text of the vote. The technical issues of this are Grease Pit material. When do we know that the vote is no longer premature?
I would like to throw out another idea, which is to have votes co-authored. That is, the person who starts the vote should be different from the person who created it. This would not apply to nominations, which start with acceptance. DAVilla 22:29, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Vote notification is really a different issue from what started this page, but equally important. That this should have started about Connel was bound to have results, since both his contributions and his abrasiveness are legendary. There are people who oppose any kind canvassing, but I disagree. Perfect neutrality in these notices may be unattainable, but any that stray too far from neutrality are likely to be ignored. Those who sail too strongly against the wind tend to make themselves too obvious. I would prefer an opt-out to an opt-in process. Those of us who are not currently editing are more likely to have simply drifted away for a variety of reasons, or if we have left in anger over some specific issue may be attracted by changes of tone in the current debate. When leaving or drifting, I'm sure that the possibility of opting-in was not the foremost thing in our minds. People who send out notices without getting quickly to the point are also likely to be ignored; a brief statement of the issue and a link to the discussion page is always more constructive than a long diatribe to promote the mailer's views. Eclecticology 20:43, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

I'd agree with a system as per Electicology. An email about votes and decisions is a good idea, preferably containing a summary of the debate, such as the one we have at the top of the page, and links to relevant discussions and the vote page itself. Nothing more. Admins should get an email as a matter of course; that should be opt-out. Other users should be able to opt-in - I do not wish to exclude those who are interested, but it would be hard to decide who to email otherwise. This could (and should, for ease of implementation and to prevent abuse, perhaps, like failing to email a certain group of people) probably be automated. --Wytukaze 03:23, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
Is there any reason not to use the wiktionary-l mailing list, for those brief summaries? --Connel MacKenzie 12:17, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
It's good, but, as I understand it, one needs to separately subscribe. As a result its relaitve obscurity makes it a rather exclusive list. Would it be possible to set up mailing for votes - or a class of votes - to all of those who have provided an e-mail address and for them to be informed of that when making the decision whether or not to provide their e-mail address? Given the low level of effective participation by users with expertise in specific contexts other than linguistics and computing I would think that we would need to reach out to make sure that our votes potentially included them. DCDuring TALK 12:55, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
It would in theory be possible to build a 'bot that sent emails through the wiki system, however the potential for bad things (tm) is reasonably high. I don't like the idea of using the Wiktionary-l list as it doesn't seem to contain that kind of mundane information. It would be possible I suppose to set up a "Wiktionary-vote" mailing list somewhere and use that, ideally through the foundation. Conrad.Irwin 15:17, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
I dread over-formalization of any processes, but clearly there are some votes that are more like ways of soliciting user input, some that are "sense-of-the-active-community" polls, and some that are possibly more consequential in terms of individuals. The last needs to have the most qualified and restricted voting. The first needs to be very broad indeed and almost needs to exclude "insiders". And very many things are not voted on and should not be. If we don't have some semi-formal sense of which communal decisions are appropriately based on each user class's input, then it's hard to decide among the various kinds of lists to use. If reprimands had any teeth, then we would have to have a very restricted voting population, certainly no larger than the population of admins and quite possibly more limited. Sense-of-the-active community votes might include all users who had provided an e-mail address and had not opted out of voting-related e-mails. Opinion-poll type voting has other problems.
Perhaps this vote should have been posed as a sense-of-the-community poll about the handling of newer users and patrolling "policy".
Accordingly, I would favor having a very broad sense-of-the-community mailing list that included averyone who provides an e-mail address and doesn't opt out. I would further favor reaching out to the largest population of users. To make that work, it would need to be understood that the most consequential decisions would be made by one or more smaller groups. DCDuring TALK 17:34, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
Although the grounds are laudable, I think such a use of the existing email-this-user system would create a great deal of backlash. People signed up for other individual users to be able to contact them, not to receive what many will inevitably regard as spam. -- Visviva 17:41, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
A one-time e-mail encouraging participation but allowing for opt-in or opt-out (reversible in "my preference") ought to be acceptable. Maybe a banner notification of the option that was eliminated by the user going to my preferences once or clicking on something. DCDuring TALK 17:54, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

In response to EP's comments about the email advocating a "particular course of action off-line", he's referring to one I sent last week, which I sent to most active admins and a few active non-admins, some agreed that he was too big for his boots, some suggested I was getting too personal against him and that I try to see things from his point of view, some suggested a kind of Connel witch-hunt, others informed me of links to related historical discussion about Connel's behaviour (both good and bad), others tried to persuade me to not be so rash [I'm not naming names of course, out of respect for privacy]. The words quoted by EP are exactly as I said it, btw. What can I say? I was quite pissed off with Connel - I forget the specifics, but I disagreed with him a number of times, thinking that he's trying to run the website or something, but didn't blow up on the wiki because I'd better things to worry about. I guess I just wanted to try to find a way to let Connel know that there's a fair few people not happy with his behaviour, and I wanted to get opinions from other users about what best to do about it so he might give some slack. I didn't email anyone about the vote though, but stand by my original opinions and my right to send disgruntled personal emails. --Keene 23:32, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Ah, I did receive that, but it was two full weeks ago, which after hosting a foreign friend and his bride for the second half of their honeymoon seems like at least a month ago. Either EncycloPetey miscommunicated the timeframe, which helped to confuse me, or as you suggest you mailed it again more recently.
I have to be honest in saying that your email did influence me, convincing me that I have a duty to bring this forward if such a confrontation should arise again, which coincidentally it did. I also have to be honest in that you do have a tendency to jump the gun. But where the community supports it you do a lot of great work, and I want to encourage you to continue. DAVilla 03:08, 12 February 2008 (UTC)


Common denominator

Given that most of the objections are to the block as a punitive measure, do we at least agree on the following?

  1. The block was a forgivable mistake.
  2. The initial response to an unblock request was a violation of AGF.

Connel, have you accepted this, or is there anyone here who rejects it? DAVilla 21:36, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Having examined some of the edits in this case, and as a long-time wikimedian, I would agree with the first but not with the second. That is, if the "initial response" is the response on Connel's talk page to what appears to me to be a less-than AGF series of accusations and insults. For that second element I would say the end of the second round was an inappropriate response to an olive branch, but the first volley seems justified. - Amgine/talk 04:20, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
I asked a similar question to Algrif. Perhaps it is easy to assume that the violation of AGF is posed against Anetode. As I have tried to explain repeatedly in the discussion linked above, the violation in my mind is reflected in the use of the word "vandal" to describe Kitty53, and that as a basis for denying an unblock.
I also think it is unreasonable to use the short one-day timeframe of the block as an excuse to not pay heed to the request, which was the foundation of the punishment proposed in this vote. DAVilla 05:29, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
What it seems to me is that you *have* explained your POV, often and in considerable length. And the community has not agreed with you 100%. And in the face of this lack of consensus, you have sought other ways to present your point of view.
Getting back to the points at which we agree may be the best part of this page. We agree the block was a forgivable mistake. We don't agree on whether the initial response was a reaction to inappropriate behavior on the part of a third party, or if instead it was a refusal to unblock with prejudice. - Amgine/talk 12:26, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Decision

  • Fails 9-16-12. DAVilla 16:34, 18 February 2008 (UTC)