Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/InShaneee/Proposed decision

message: Given the 3-1 vote against at present, I guess the interim injuctions are likely to fail.  However, looking at the current state of the Workshop page, I would implore the arbitrators to consider giving out some of the "reminders" that User:FloNight mentions. -- ALoan (Talk) 17:33, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

message: The proposed principal: Administrators says "Administrators are not to use their tools in any dispute in which they are directly involved, such as by blocking others with whom they are in a dispute."
I would just like to point out that the blocking policy says "Blocking to gain an advantage in a content dispute is strictly prohibited. Admins must not block editors with whom they are currently engaged in a content dispute." The key difference is that the policy is limited to content disputes, where as the proposed principal extends this to disputes in general. HighInBC 00:03, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is worrying, because the proposals are seeking to change policy. ArbCom is not supposed to change policy. Are the new members aware of that? SlimVirgin (talk) 05:46, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

text: I think it's well understood that "in dispute" here is to be interpreted restrictively.  An administrator is usually in dispute with an editor whom he blocks, over the question of whether the editor should be blocked.  It is not the sense of current Wikipedia policy to prevent any administrator from blocking another editor simply because the editor doesn't want to be blocked.  The case here was different--there was an active dispute over content, an editor war in fact, and InShaneee egregiously broke policy in blocking the person with whom he was in dispute. This principle isn't going to change current policy; it isn't intended to. --Tony Sidaway 00:56, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Obviously "whether or not the editor should be blocked" is a permissible disagreement.  Use common sense.  This is concerning blocks over article/policy content, not the behavior of the blocked editor.  Milto LOL pia 03:25, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Small point 

message: Arbitrators who believe that a lesser sanction (i.e., admonition rather than suspension of adminship) would be sufficient in this case might wish to consider adding my proposed finding no. 7 to the final decision. This finding notes the contents of InShaneee's statement at the outset of this case, acknowledging error with respect to this block, as something of a mitigating factor, somewhat balancing the aggravating factor of the prior RfC involving other disputed blocks which has also been noted. It might also be worth noting that there have been no allegations of bad blocks since the subject incident in early January. Newyorkbrad 00:09, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Admonition vs. suspension 

message: This isn't an an attempt to influence the outcome, but I note that, once again, Raul654 comes through as a sober voice of reason. Well done. El_C 18:07, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Raul654

message: I think attention needs to be paid to the behavior and increasing incivility of WorldTraveler and the responsibility he shares for the way things happened.  It should go along-with the thanks for his many positive contributions. ---J.S  (T/C/WRE) 18:42, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There were personal attacks, and they do seem to be being glossed over. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 18:44, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed: something like "thank you very much for your great contributions, please come back and make some more, but less of the bad language, you naughty boy"? -- ALoan (Talk) 19:00, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, true. Personally, I don't really care - WorldTraveller is a great editor and we need him back in the fold. It's not that important that he be criticised by the arbcom, as long as he isn't positively given a free pass by action of some kind being taken against CBD or HiBC (we mustn't get to the point where admins are too intimidated, when dealing with some editors, to do their job). It's true that he is far from blameless in this sorry saga, and it's a bit surprising that there's no "admonishment" being directed his way so far. I didn't expect him to get off scot free, given his poor behaviour, but so be it I suppose. Let's just give InShanee some admonishment, get WorldTraveller back editing, and not make findings that are going to tie the hands of admins in future situations. Metamagician3000 23:03, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

text:  On the other hand, he had already been blocked, and there is considerable evidence that he was poorly advised.  I think our policy is clear enough that grievances should be pursued through the dispute resolution apparatus, and in the end this is what he did. Arbcom isn't our mother, so we don't need Worldtraveller to be admonished just so that we all know what we should be doing anyway. --Tony Sidaway 23:23, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Admonishment of WorldTraveler's actions as well