User:Astronautics~enwiki/Sam Hocevar/RFC

See User:Silsor/Sam Hocevar
See http://www.datanation.com/fallacies/attack.htm

Statement of the dispute

This is a summary written by users who dispute this sysop's conduct. Users who edit or endorse this summary should not edit the other summaries.

The user GNAA Popeye was blocked for "repeated vandalism". However, none of this user's contributions seemed to be vandalism, and Mark Richards unblocked him on Oct 21st for this reason. Then Silsor permanently reblocked him on Oct 21st. Arminius claimed on Silsor's talk page that Mark Richards unblocked GNAA Popeye again (though I know of no way of verifying this). Arminius then reblocked him on Oct 27th.

Silsor, when asked for an explanation about the block, did not point to proof of vandalism, but instead claimed that deliberately trolling the Wikipedia community was sufficient grounds for blocking, and provided a mere IRC (or similar) log of GNAA Popeye claiming to intend to troll Wikipedia, without any evidence of any actual trolling. Silsor then ignored further questions on the Village Pump. I also asked Arminius (who apparently performed the blocking on behalf of Silsor) for more information, but he simply erased my question from his user page.

Description

Permanent blocking of a user with no tangible justification. Ignoring of requests for explanations.

Powers misused

Blocking (log):

GNAA Popeye
GNAA Popeye2
IP blocks used by GNAA Popeye that no longer appear on the block log.

Applicable policies

Blocking policy

Sysops may also permanently block user accounts that do essentially nothing but vandalism. However, user accounts that perform a mixture of valid edits and vandalism should not be blocked in this manner. I cannot find any contribution by GNAA Popeye that would qualify as vandalism. Anyway, even if there was, there is a vast majority of valid edits. The existence of some of the articles being contributed to might be discutable, but is not relevant to the point being discussed here.
Sysops may, at their judgement, block IP addresses that disrupt the normal functioning of Wikipedia. Such disruption is to be objectively defined by specific policies, and may include changing other user's signed comments or making deliberately misleading edits. Users should be warned that they are violating policy before they are blocked. Silsor claims that trolling the Wikipedia community is sufficient grounds for blocking. However, he failed to point to an objective definition of this kind of "disruption".

Evidence of trying and failing to resolve the dispute

claim by Jmabel that GNAA Popeye's conduct has been fine.
claim by Kosebamse that GNAA Popeye has probably not done much wrong.
unblocking of GNAA Popeye by Mark Richards.
reblocking by Silsor, followed by an explanation that users can be blocked for trolling wikipedia. The aforementioned IRC log is visible in this diff.
pending questions by Sam Hocevar to Silsor: "I strongly oppose the idea that deliberately trolling the Wikipedia community outside Wikipedia should be sufficient grounds for blocking. If it is outside Wikipedia, what is blocking the user from Wikipedia supposed to solve?" and "according to the policy, "disruption is to be objectively defined by specific policies". Where is your objective definitiion?", dated Oct 29th.
pending questions by Paul August to Silsor: "Can you be blocked for "trolling" and if so what is the definition for "trolling"?" and "What were the specific reasons for the block of this user? As I said above I think it would be helpful to know the specific edits which were the reasons for the block and reblock.", dated Oct 29th.
Reminder from Sam Hocevar on Silsor's discussion page about the unanswered questions, dated Nov 3rd.
Request for more information on Arminius's discussion page, and removal of the message by Arminius, with no further explanation.

Users certifying the basis for this dispute

(sign with ~~~~)

Sam Hocevar 02:48, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Other users who endorse this statement

(sign with ~~~~)

Vetta2 03:27, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Response

This is a summary written by the sysop whose actions are disputed, or by other users who think that the dispute is unjustified and that the sysop's actions did not violate policy. Users who edit or endorse this summary should not edit the other summaries.

I have not spent much effort on the subject of GNAA Popeye simply because he craves attention, which the bringer of this RFC has kindly given him. A quick glance at his contributions shows that his actions at Wikipedia are mostly confined to defending his trolling club, with a few minor diversions such as vandalizing Hadal's user page with the summary "fuck jews and chinks and spics and dot com billionaires". I ban users only for trolling Wikipedia and I couldn't care less what they do outside it; my quote of GNAA Popeye saying "my weekend getaway is trolling wikipedia" was an attempt to point others to his behaviour, which seems to have flown right over some people's heads. silsor 08:11, Nov 14, 2004 (UTC)

Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~~~~):

silsor 08:11, Nov 14, 2004 (UTC)
[[User:Neutrality|Neutrality (hopefully!)]] 00:30, Nov 15, 2004 (UTC)

Response by Sam Hocevar

Thank you for replying at last, Silsor. (Note: I am not sure whether a reply should appear here or somewhere else on the page, so feel free to move it around if necessary.) I have further questions:

I am not sure I understand your point very well; are you claiming that "defending his trolling club" qualifies as vandalism?
Also, since one example hardly illustrates "repeated vandalism", can you provide for instance two more links to edits that qualify as vandalism?
Was there any vandalism from GNAA Popeye on articles? (not talk pages) I can see 16 contributions from GNAA Popeye to article pages. All of them seem perfectly legit to me.
Was there any vandalism from GNAA Popeye after September 30th? I could not find any. If so, why was he blocked again for "repeated vandalism" after three weeks of legit edits, on October 21st? He must have done something really terrible that everyone missed to deserve that.
Which part of the blocking policy allows blocking for trolling? Which part of the blocking policy allows permanent blocking for trolling? Was there consensus on GNAA Popeye's behaviour being disruptive? Was there even discussion about GNAA Popeye's behaviour being disruptive? Why does the opinion of one administrator prevail over the one of three different users?

Also, please do not blame me for "kindly giving attention to this user". It was you and Arminius who ignored my questions. In a rather not kind way, if I may say. --Sam Hocevar 13:52, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I don't feel I need to defend myself any further, as this RFC will be deleted in about 24 hours. silsor 00:10, Nov 15, 2004 (UTC)

Yes, how convenient for you to ignore the situation and make lame excuses when confronted with the facts. I'm sure 24 hours is more than enough time for you to defend yourself. Geeze. Whoever made you a wikipedia admin should have their testicles squeezed until they pop. -- Popeye

Oh please, Silsor. I already felt uncomfortable using a hostile procedure to draw attention to my questions. Now I would really hate to see you use the stringency of the procedure as an excuse to escape them again. The only purpose it serves is to make people wonder why you are not showing the same obedience to the rules when blocking people. If the questions have answers, what does it change that no one else signs the RFC? Sam Hocevar 13:52, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

No, this entire RFC is ridiculous. You didn't even bother to look at Popeye's first contributions and I'll bet you haven't checked the contributions of the last anonymous IP to edit this page either. silsor 17:55, Nov 15, 2004 (UTC)

What is wrong with Popeye's first contributions, except the childish vandalism edit you already mentioned? And how can his first contributions cause his reblocking after several people claimed his behaviour had been all right? Sam Hocevar 22:25, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Outside view

This is a summary written by users not directly involved with the dispute but who would like to add an outside view of the dispute. Users who edit or endorse this summary should not edit the other summaries.

{Add summary here, but you must use the endorsement section below to sign.}

Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~~~~):

Node 00:22, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC) Dude GNAA Popeye and his goons have done more here than you might immediately realise, but if you go deep and check all their contribs, man you'll see they're nothing but pure vandals.
First of all, the actions of my friends or people you perceive to be my friends have no bearing on whether or not I should be blocked. I have made one edit on Wikipedia that could be considered vandalism; almost all the other edits are completely legitimate. I challenge you to show otherwise. And no, statements that you disagree with or consider to be "trolling" don't count. There is no rule against trolling wikipedia. Wikipedia needs a few good trolls to challenge some of the crypto-fascist repressive bullshit that some of these administrators liberally imbibe. The only difference between a troll comment and any other are the writer's own motives, which in my case you cannot claim to know. Did it ever occur to anyone that I'm concerened that certain people want to censor an informative article about an organization they have a personal problem with? Apparently not. -- Popeye

Discussion

All signed comments and talk not related to a vote or endorsement, should be directed to this page's discussion page.