UESPWiki:Administrator Noticeboard/Archives/Removal of Blocked Notice for RoBoT

Removal of Blocked Notice for RoBoT

In regards to rpeh's removal of this block notice, I've reverted it because I believe that it should have Admin approval first.

Please don't take this the wrong way, it's just that I just don't want to set the precedent that any user, no matter who, feels that they can remove a warning from a page under their control without prior permission from the Administrators. Given that rpeh has been allowed to archive his own personal warnings, I see no reason that he shouldn't be allowed to archive RoBoT's as well, though I would vote against outright deletion, on the basis that, so far as I know, he wasn't allowed to delete his own warning, either.  &ndash; Robin Hood    09:12, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

: Once again you're interfering in things that don't concern you. I was given permission to remove my own warnings, from Timenn, who discussed it with Ratwar. I was allowed to remove the warning as long as I archived it into its own page and gave that page a link, which I have done. RoBoT never broke any policy and was only blocked out of vindictiveness, so should never have got a block in the first place. Since the block was aimed at me, it is stupid to keep an invalid notice on RoBoT's page. Now stop sticking your nose into other people's business. rpeh  09:18, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

::  Furthermore, it seems that rpeh felt the need to re-revert, against warning message removal policy. I will not start an edit war, however I feel that the warning should be re-instated until such time as Admins have specifically allowed him to remove it from RoBoT's page, as he has already been given permission to do with his own.  &ndash; Robin Hood    09:20, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

::: The block was aimed at me. I have been given permission as already discussed. RoBoT has nothing to do with it. This discussion is a pointless waste of time. rpeh  09:23, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

:::: As I said on my talk page, point me to the discussion that allows you to outright delete a block notice on RoBoT's talk page, as opposed to archiving notices on your own, and I'll apologize for the misunderstanding. It's just that it sets an extremely bad precedent for a user to outright delete a block notice just because he feels that it violated policy. Honestly, if you'd simply archived the warning and your reason had been that you were archiving it like all the others, we wouldn't be having this discussion. Instead, you deleted it, citing that you believed it was against policy.  &ndash; Robin Hood    09:33, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

::::: The user being blocked was me, not RoBoT, which was only included because the admin concerned was feeling particularly vindictive. I've archived the warnings given to me, but it's stupid to keep a notice on RoBoT's page as a sign of contrition when it's a series of ones and zeroes that can't show any such emotion. Honestly, if you'd simply stayed away from a situation that was over months ago, we wouldn't be having this discussion. Instead, you jumped into a situation that never involved you in reply to a month old comment. Can I get back to doing important work now, please? rpeh  09:40, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

 This is absolutely ridiculous.  rpeh, I understand your reasoning, but did you honestly think that this was the best way to go about it?  If you felt the pressing need to remove the block notice, sure remove it - with your reasoning.  RH's actions and comments, however, were not out of line.  I don't understand how you can think anything he did was less than appropriate.  He's entirely correct in saying that it sets a bad precedent.  Just a little civil back-and-forth conversation on the matter is all that's needed.  If your response to RH's actions had been to re-state your reasoning and request support from admins, you most likely would have gotten it and been able to remove the notice without any of this BS.  It's not that difficult, and a little forethought would've resulted in the conclusion that that would be the most amicable solution.  What was out of line were your dismissive comments ("go away", "Once again you're interfering in things that don't concern you.", "Now stop sticking your nose into other people's business.", "This discussion is a pointless waste of time.", "you jumped into a situation that never involved you", "Can I get back to doing important work now, please?", "MYOB").  I'm rather disappointed in the way this was handled.

I, in fact, agree that the block shouldn't have been extended to the bot in the first place without a reason (such as the blocked user still using the bot's account), and that there's no reason to keep or even archive the block notice since the bot didn't deserve any administrative action in the first place.  This type of behavior, however, is not acceptable from any user, no matter the provocation.  --GK  13:43, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

: If you felt the pressing need to remove the block notice, sure remove it - with your reasoning - I did, but RH reinstated it. Yet again I had to spend my time arguing about things rather than working on the site, and I'm sick and tired of it. RH was not involved in any of the discussions about warning archival and has no authority over RoBoT's talk page, yet he feels it necessary to reply to a two-month-old question and change an official notice. Why? Yes, my replies were curt, but I am fed up with having to deal with this kind of nonsense. rpeh  13:58, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

::Yep, you did.  And RH reverted it.  Which he had every right to do.  The fact that he was not involved in any of the discussions regarding warning archival doesn't mean he doesn't have the right to become involved in this discussion.  Your reasoning baffles me.  Additionally, this is not "nonsense", it's community discussion, the backbone of a wiki.  It's how things work.  You are perfectly aware of the expectation to maintain (and perfectly capable of maintaining, from my memory) a civil tone even when you disagree.  I don't understand why you thought you shouldn't do so in this situation.  If someone disagrees with your actions, the acceptable thing for them to do is to revert your actions.  Then, acceptable actions on your part would be to have a civil discussion.  You know this, and (as I said) are perfectly capable of it.  Why wouldn't you do so?  --GK  14:18, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

:::Honestly rpeh, if you (or anyone else) is at the point where they feel that they have to contribute to a voluntary project, then they might want to think about taking a break before they burn out. The site should be about what people want to contribute, and hopefully they should be having fun while they are at it. The wiki might not get worked on as fast, but in the long term it is not worth much aggro. Jadrax 16:35, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

:::: The trouble is, Jadrax, that when I don't contribute, nobody else picks up the slack. Every time I take a break, the patrol queue grows out of control, with inaccurate information being added and dozens of questions remaining unanswered. I do have fun on this wiki, but not when people start wasting my time for no good reason. rpeh  16:44, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

::::::   That's not entirely true. When I was working on templates and noticed that the patrol queue had gotten behind a couple of weeks ago, I stopped my template work and worked on patrolling instead. I noticed several other Patrollers working on the backlog as well during that time. In the space of the next couple of days, we were almost caught up, then you came back from your break and finished it. And honestly, it's not the end of the world if the patrol queue falls behind - people will eventually notice the inconsistencies and fix them.

:::::: All that is irrelevant to the main point of this discussion, though. My actions were appropriate, based on our notice removal policy, and I would have taken the same actions with anybody from an Admin down to the newest user had they done the same thing. I understand why you might have thought it reasonable to remove it, but it really looked inappropriate for an involved user to just remove a warning with no clear record of why you should be allowed to do so, particularly this long after archiving your own warnings, and without even any mention of the permission to archive that Timenn gave you. It was a simple matter of dotting your i's and crossing your t's to get an Admin to simply say "yeah, go ahead and remove it", and I didn't see it as anything but. In fact, I got involved in that two-month-old discussion when I was browsing RoBoT and NepheleBot's pages during my recent work on HotnBOThered, and noticed that to anybody reading it, it looked like the bot was still blocked. I thought I was doing a service when I made it clear that the block no longer applied.  &ndash; Robin Hood    17:01, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

::::::: Sorry but it is true. Every time I'm away for any length of time, the patrol queue grows. That's why I re-applied to be a patroller. I don't dispute that other people do patrolling too, but I'm afraid it has been indisputable that they don't do as much as I do. rpeh  17:07, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

:::::::: I said not "entirely" true. Nobody's denying that you do the bulk of the patrolling, but that becomes self-perpetuating. The other Patrollers get used to you doing it, and therefore don't check as often, or sit down to do a bunch only to find that you've already done it. I think you're probably creating your own problem to some degree. Try taking a break for a few days or a week at some point, but tell people that you're doing so. I know I would've been a lot busier with the patrolling when you took your recent break had I known beforehand that you were going to do so.  &ndash; Robin Hood    18:18, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

:::::In my opinion, deletion of the block notice is inappropriate.  Contrary to Mikeyboy52's assertion, RoBoT was blocked; the block notice is the official message recording that the block happened.  In general, I think there are situations where outright removal of warning/block notices would be acceptable, but I think that only applies when the initial warning/block was a mistake:  for example, if IP addresses get mixed up, or if a new editor gives an official warning for a good-faith edit.  In RoBoT's case, the block was not a mistake: Ratwar intentionally blocked all accounts used by rpeh.  Especially given that the situation was initiated by inappropriate use of multiple wiki accounts, I think Ratwar's actions were reasonable.

:::::Furthermore, RoBoT is rpeh.  Rpeh has the password to RoBoT's account and can personally login as RoBoT any time he chooses; he controls every action taken by RoBoT.  The reason RoBoT exists is effectively to give rpeh privileges he does not usually have, namely to have the bot's edits hidden by default on the Recent Changes page.  Any restrictions that apply to rpeh should apply -- perhaps even more strongly -- to alternate accounts with elevated privileges.  From a practical point of view, in light of past events, I'm less likely to give RoBoT the benefit of the doubt should something questionable occur -- which is, from my point of view, exactly what the record of old block/warning notices is supposed to represent.

:::::In any case, it should definitely not be up to the user who was blocked/warned to make a unilateral decision about what can or cannot be done with any block/warning notices.  That clearly goes against existing policy, and any such precedent would make it impossible to enforce future warning and block notices.  In fact, even the precedent to allow such notices to be archived is ambiguous, given that there is no official wiki discussion about the previous decision.  In the absence of anything official on the wiki, we have no basis for assuming that any other messages can be archived.

:::::Therefore, I think we first need to get confirmation from Timenn of whatever decisions were made in IRC regarding the block notices.  (Ideally, it would be good to also get Ratwar's confirmation of his IRC statements, but I realize that's unlikely to happen).  As everyone knows, policy states that IRC cannot be used for formal decisions, and a decision about what is allowed regarding official user notices should be a formal wiki decision -- especially if that decision is then going to be used to set the precedent for other user notices.

:::::Only once we know details of the precedent can we meaningfully discuss whether to extend the precedent.  Or else archiving (or even deleting) RoBoT's block message can be discussed as an entirely separate issue, without invoking any precedent -- in which case I think any discussion needs to start with some explanation of why such an action is necessary or appropriate.  So far, I don't think any justification has been given for why existing policy should be ignored in this case.  --Nephele  16:45, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

::::::RoBoT is not Rpeh or I wouldn't bother having two accounts. Policy states that users are blocked for actions they take: it does not state that blocks are made for actions that might be performed. RoBoT violated no policy (neither did I, but that's another matter altogether), and was blocked contrary to policy because the admin concerned had a chip on his shoulder (see his letter posted on Wikipedia for proof of that statement). I never tried to evade my block either as Rpeh or RoBoT. So why should RoBoT have to put up with what is an illegal block notice on its talk page? I fail to see the utility of continuing this discussion. rpeh  16:51, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

:::::::Whatever people believe about the reality of the situation, the evidence available made it appear that you were abusing multiple accounts. In those circumstances, I think it was entirely appropriate for Ratwar to block all accounts that he knew were tied to you. The fact that there were personal issues between you is unfortunate, but his actions were nevertheless based on the available evidence and not out of line with what I think any other administrator would have done.

:::::::Now, we could rehash the whole debate about the evidence, motives, blah blah blah, but I really don't see the point. That's long over and done with, and best left that way. The question at hand is whether or not removal of the notice was appropriate, and given that you were never given permission to completely remove official notices by any administrator, it clearly wasn't. That moves us into...   &ndash; Robin Hood    18:49, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

::::::::I will have to check my IRC logs later on to check what Ratwar and I literally said, but the important thing is that he agreed with the current solution of how it is on rpeh´s talk page now (IIRC, RoBoT wasn't mentioned or referred to). His main intent was that be warning and block notice both be easily accessible from the talk page. The current link as compromise was announced on the Admin Noticeboard, so others users were free to comment on it. Policy decisions need to be made on the wiki, but users are free to discuss their differences off-wiki if they wish it, as long as they realise it will only mean reaching an (unofficial) agreement among themselves. --Timenn-  11:34, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

:::::::::Thanks, Timenn, in particular for mentioning the overlooked Warnings Policy discussion.  And to follow up on one point of contention in that discussion: just because section protection was added to the policy later than the other text doesn't mean it somehow "takes precedence". In my opinion, the current policy pages, in their entirety, are all equally valid.  The bottom line being that the Blocking Policy explicitly states "Deletion of official messages is only acceptable after receiving permission from the administrators. Such permission is only granted at the discretion of the administrators, in cases where the editor has acknowledged and made efforts to correct the original problem(s)."  (And the talk page has the background behind that policy).
:::::::::Furthermore, in response to rpeh, RoBoT and rpeh are two separate accounts because RoBoT has special privileges (as I already mentioned).  Nevertheless, a single person is responsible for both accounts.  As stated in Wikipedia's Bot policy: "Bot accounts are considered alternative accounts of their operator for the purposes of the user account policy."  Furthermore, "bot operators should be editors in good standing" -- and I'd say if the bot operator is blocked, that automatically means the bot operator is not in good standing.  In other words, bot accounts should automatically be blocked whenever the editor's account is blocked (and probably for even longer than the editor's account, because an editor doesn't return to "good standing" the minute a block expires).  So upon further examination, the only problem I see with RoBoT's block is that it was insufficient: RoBoT should have been blocked four times, and for more than just one week.
:::::::::All of which leads me to conclude that the block message belongs on RoBoT's talk page.  Given rpeh's own words, I'm reinstating it until there's some conclusion about archiving official messages. --Nephele  14:45, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

:::::::::: Retrospectively applying sanctions is quite clearly against natural justice so to use an argument that RoBoT should have been blocked more and then base decisions on that argument is not valid. rpeh  14:51, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

  She didn't. She said that the original block and message were made in accordance with the policy of the time, then gave reasoning why she thought that policy could have been interpreted even more harshly than it was.

Also, just as a note for those not following the page, the warning message has now been archived, albeit with some  ...but that's rpeh's decision.  &ndash; Robin Hood    16:23, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

:: Man! I can't believe I just spent several hours researching and writing down details for the new Relmyna Verenim article when I could have participated in this constructive discussion. Please notify me next time something this exiting is going on. Kidding aside, this discussion clogs up the Recent Changes, makes us all look like idiots and should end right now. --Krusty 16:35, 25 August 2010 (UTC)