| Revision as of 13:04, 31 October 2011 editNewyorkbrad (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Administrators45,486 edits unblocked; explanation to follow← Previous edit | Revision as of 13:11, 31 October 2011 edit undoNewyorkbrad (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Administrators45,486 edits unblocking commentsNext edit → | ||
| Line 19: | Line 19: | ||
| :{{Nao}} We have a rare situation here. ] states that you should either email the blocking administrator, contact ArbCom or when the reviewing administrator decides to initiate a discussion on the matter. The first option is out, because the blocking administrator is no longer an admin, so you are left with the latter two options. Personally, I think your unblock request is relatively reasonable and thus a community discussion may be your quickest route, as arbcom-l will likely take a few days to get a response, which by then your block will already be over. Let me know what you want to do. <font face="Forte">] <sup>]</sup></font> 06:51, 31 October 2011 (UTC) | :{{Nao}} We have a rare situation here. ] states that you should either email the blocking administrator, contact ArbCom or when the reviewing administrator decides to initiate a discussion on the matter. The first option is out, because the blocking administrator is no longer an admin, so you are left with the latter two options. Personally, I think your unblock request is relatively reasonable and thus a community discussion may be your quickest route, as arbcom-l will likely take a few days to get a response, which by then your block will already be over. Let me know what you want to do. <font face="Forte">] <sup>]</sup></font> 06:51, 31 October 2011 (UTC) | ||
| ::'''Note from blocking ex-admin''' -- I would have no objection to reducing the block to time served at this point, given the confusion and the full year since the last i-ban block.--] 12:13, 31 October 2011 (UTC) | ::'''Note from blocking ex-admin''' -- I would have no objection to reducing the block to time served at this point, given the confusion and the full year since the last i-ban block.--] 12:13, 31 October 2011 (UTC) | ||
| I have unblocked based upon (1) Volunteer Marek's comments and commitments in the unblock request, (2) the thoughts I expressed in my comments yesterday on the request for clarification, and (3) the consent of the blocking administrator. In this regard, I have treated SarekOfVulcan as the blocking administrator for purposes of giving consent to an early unblock, despite his recent voluntary desysopping, which had little or nothing to do with this block. | |||
| Ordinarily as a sitting arbitrator I would not act on an unblock request involving arbitration enforcement, and I do not mean to set a precedent here by doing so. Nor am I commenting (as an arbitrator or otherwise) on whether Volunteer Marek should have been blocked to begin with. However, the combination of factors above—including the concern that had been expressed that SarekOfVulcan could not consent to an unblocked since he is no longer an administrator, thereby requiring an extensive AE discussion that might have outlasted the remainder of the block—led me to consider it appropriate to go ahead and act in this instance. ] (]) 13:11, 31 October 2011 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 13:11, 31 October 2011
 | This user is busy in real life and may not respond swiftly to queries. |
 Archives |
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 14 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III. |
Notice to administrators: In a March 2010 decision, the Committee held that "Administrators are prohibited from reversing or overturning (explicitly or in substance) any action taken by another administrator pursuant to the terms of an active arbitration remedy, and explicitly noted as being taken to enforce said remedy, except: (a) with the written authorization of the Committee, or (b) following a clear, substantial, and active consensus of uninvolved editors at a community discussion noticeboard (such as WP:AN or WP:ANI). If consensus in such discussions is hard to judge or unclear, the parties should submit a request for clarification on the proper page. Any administrator that overturns an enforcement action outside of these circumstances shall be subject to appropriate sanctions, up to and including desysopping, at the discretion of the Committee."
- As I said at the AE page, I'm fine with this if this is indeed a signal by the AE admins that they will take interaction bans seriously from now on. So at this point I'm not going to contest it. (And actually I'm thankful to Sarek for stepping in and putting the end to the AE drama-nonsense (though I reserve the right to refer to him as "SarkOfVulcan" at some future point in time, but only once)). Volunteer Marek 16:24, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
Volunteer Marek (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
As I already stated in my comments at the relevant AE request I was under the (mistaken) impression that content edits did not fall under the purview of interaction bans. It was my understanding that this was the decision reached in previous AE requests of similar nature. In hindsight, I was wrong - content edits are in fact subject to interaction bans and I should not have made that revert which led to this block. The whole situation regarding this issue has been very confusing for the past few months and if I had understood properly what the intent of it was, I would not have made that edit. I would have also been perfectly willing to self-revert the edit which led to this block, but that was not possible at the time of the AE request simply because it had already been reverted (by the other person who also got blocked in this AE request). Honestly, I think that my confusion regarding this matter was not something unusual since even the ArbCom admits that clarification regarding these kinds of edits is necessary , , as do clerks and commentators at AE . I realize that I should have exercised better judgement in this regard, but the fact that both sitting arbitrators, as well as clerks and respected administrators admit that there's some confusion in this regard does indicate that my mistake was made in good faith. And goddamit, I was gonna write a DYK on this band for Halloween but now it's too late.
Accept reason:
Please see below. Newyorkbrad (talk) 13:04, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
- I think it is clear that Misplaced Pages benefited from you not being able to write that DYK. If you were unblocked, you could endanger this project by doing more edits like that. Don't you know that content creating editors like you are the reason this project if failing? (To a reviewing admin: I am VM's collegue and yes, I am being sarcastic, if you want to read my more serious thoughts, see here). VM: I'd point out you were able to navigate the intricacies of the i-ban for over a year. Getting a week long block after a year of no blocks seems rather heavy handed, and your post above suggests you understand what led to the block and are not likely to repeated it. Of course, I am not an uninvolved admin, so all I can do is wish you a Happy Halloween, --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me 05:25, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
- I agree that Volunteer Marek has expressed understanding of this block's propriety and graciously accepted its implementation. Given his lack of blocks in a year, according to Piotrus, and given his well-known integrity and responsibility, AGF would suggest that we take him at his word, that he misunderstood the scope of the interaction ban. The continuation of this block of a contrite productive editor does not seem helpful. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 05:43, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
- (Non-administrator comment) We have a rare situation here. WP:AEBLOCK states that you should either email the blocking administrator, contact ArbCom or when the reviewing administrator decides to initiate a discussion on the matter. The first option is out, because the blocking administrator is no longer an admin, so you are left with the latter two options. Personally, I think your unblock request is relatively reasonable and thus a community discussion may be your quickest route, as arbcom-l will likely take a few days to get a response, which by then your block will already be over. Let me know what you want to do. Steven Zhang 06:51, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
- Note from blocking ex-admin -- I would have no objection to reducing the block to time served at this point, given the confusion and the full year since the last i-ban block.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 12:13, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
I have unblocked based upon (1) Volunteer Marek's comments and commitments in the unblock request, (2) the thoughts I expressed in my comments yesterday on the request for clarification, and (3) the consent of the blocking administrator. In this regard, I have treated SarekOfVulcan as the blocking administrator for purposes of giving consent to an early unblock, despite his recent voluntary desysopping, which had little or nothing to do with this block.
Ordinarily as a sitting arbitrator I would not act on an unblock request involving arbitration enforcement, and I do not mean to set a precedent here by doing so. Nor am I commenting (as an arbitrator or otherwise) on whether Volunteer Marek should have been blocked to begin with. However, the combination of factors above—including the concern that had been expressed that SarekOfVulcan could not consent to an unblocked since he is no longer an administrator, thereby requiring an extensive AE discussion that might have outlasted the remainder of the block—led me to consider it appropriate to go ahead and act in this instance. Newyorkbrad (talk) 13:11, 31 October 2011 (UTC)