Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/InShaneee

message: (I have not done his before, so please would someone correct me if I am putting this in the wrong place or under the wrong heading; this incident has upset me so much I wanted to add my tuppence too.)
This is a distressing situation: a classic example of how heavyhanded intervention and a failure to communicate effectively can escalate a small problem into a disaster, resulting in one of our most valued contributors (in third place on Wikipedia:List of Wikipedians by featured article nominations, a respected admin who resigned voluntarily, and who had only just returned after an extended break to stimulate an important debate at Wikipedia:Wikipedia is failing) deciding to cease to contribute in disgust.  
As far as I can see, this regrettable incident was caused by:
*InShaneee blocking Worldtraveller, editing as an anon, for alleged "vandalism" [ block, 23:34, 2 January 2007 ], because Worldtraveller had removed a WikiProject Paranormal template from Talk:Red rain in Kerala several times (a phenomenon which is not in the least "paranormal", incidentally) [ edit history ] ;
*a refusal by the blocking admin, InShaneee, to enter into any sort of dialogue (let alone a meaningful one) with Worldtraveller to discuss that block;
*a refusal by Worldtraveller to give in to InShaneee's stonewalling and let the matter drop;
*an uncalled for block of Worldtraveller by CBDunkerson for "harassment" of InShaneee, unwarrantably extended by HighInBC when, understandably, Worldtraveller was less than polite in response to CBDunkerson's block.
Quite why Inshanee made the first block beats me.  There was some to-and-fro in the talk summaries, but I can't see InShaneee making a proper attempt to discuss the WikiProject template with the anon (Worldtraveller) before the block.  (There was some discussion with third parties after the block, with some for and some against keeping the template.)  To add insult to injury, InShanee reverted the last deletion of the talk page template, with the edit summary "you don't like it, take it up in discussion. Further reversion will not be tolerated", and blocked Worldtraveller one minute later for 24 hours, preventing that very discussion.  Worldtraveller was aggrieved to be blocked, as an anon, by an admin with whom there was an ongoing disagreement, without meaningful discussion or warning, for "vandalism", where there was nothing of the sort.
Over the following weeks, Worldtraveller repeately asked InShaneee to give some kind of explanation.  No explanation was forthcoming for over 6 weeks.  (An example of the failure to establish the dialogue that Worldtraveller was seeking: Worldtraveller's original complaint on Inshanee's talk page was ultimately removed with the comment "rv troll")  Even when Inshanne eventally deigned to give a half-hearted "apology" on Worldtraveller's talk page, InShanee did not apologise for making the block, but only for "jump[ing] the gun" and failing to seek "outside input", and went on that the block was motivated, in part, by the fact that InShaneee was dealing with an anon, and would have been more considerate with an established editor. (Whatever happened to not WP:BITEing new editors?).
Worldtraveller was not satisfied with the "apology".  Unable to find the time to carry on a conversation with Worldtraveller, InShaneee was able to find the time to complain about Worldtraveller's "personal attacks" and then "nonstop" harassment (that is, Worldtraveller's occasional posts to InShaneee's talk page, typically one every 4 or 5 days in the following few weeks, getting increasingly pithy as InShaneee continued to fail to respond).  CBDunkerson eventually blocked Worldtraveller for "Continued harassment of another user despite strong warnings."  I see no harassment, only an annoyed user being ignored by an admin who blocked him.
So the moral appears to be that stonewalling works: if an admin refuses to discuss their actions for long enough, then the person asking for an explanation will be blocked again.   The options appear to be either to let the matter drop (entirely unsatisfactory - all admins should be willing to enter into a reasoned discussion about their administrative actions, particularly with those affected by them) or to escalate the dispute resolution (wasting everyone's time, like this is, entirely unnecessarily if meaningful dialogue could be established in the first place).
As anyone else would be, Worldtraveller was not happy to receive a second slap in the face by being blocked for "harassment".  A less-than-polite posting on his talk page led to his block being doubled by User:HighInBC, another precipitate action.
As Duk said on WP:ANI, "Worldtraveller did nothing to merit a block - he was demanding accountability of an admin who blew him off for weeks."  I cannot see the rationale for the original block, nor the second or third blocks.  Given InShaneee's behaviour throughout, I have grave doubts about his suitability as an admin.  I also think the ArbCom need to consider the scourge of blocks for "harassment" and "civility" - one of the loci of the so-called "Giano" case which clearly continues to be an issue.  I believe the only possible rationale for blocking in this sort of situation is to prevent disruption of Wikipedia.  If asking an admin to justify their actions is blockable "disruption" then we are all in trouble. -- ALoan (Talk) 00:19, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't want my comments above be overlooked: do I need to add this to the evidence page now, or should I just leave it here? -- ALoan (Talk) 11:50, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Statement by [[User:ALoan]] 

message: First, it is good to see Inshanee, above, confessing to the rashness of his prior block of WorldTraveller in disguise, although it could have come sooner.  WorldTraveller “harassed” Inshanee by asking for an explanation, and for that got blocked again and more.  There are several points brought up in this case.
#As administrators, we serve rather than lead or rule, and part of service means explaining ourselves when questioned, at least once.  If a person keeps asking the same question after several answers, then the person may be trolling, but an answer is always due to a user, and especially a blocked one, and edit summaries do not count as explanations.
#WorldTraveller, appearing under his own name, would almost certainly not have received the original block, much less the follow up blocks, but he was an “anon” at the time.  Sure, our anonymous editors contribute junk, but they also register names like “Dude4lif” and contribute more garbage.  I’ve seen IP editors generally improving the articles that I’ve begun.  Redlinked names put me more on alert than IP addresses.  The point is that we cannot dump on anonymous editors or assume vandalism.
#The second block and its extension have been pretty roundly decried on AN/I, but the issue behind those blocks needs clarification.  They were failure to repent and failure to accept the decrees of a block.  That’s nonsense.  Whatever the heck WP:NPA means, and I doubt anyone knows, it surely does not mean tugging one’s forelock or being gracious when blocked.
#Adminship is a big deal if people approach it with the idea that it grants license to block.  Blocking can sour any editor.  It has the ability to stop one problem for 24 hours and create 24 problems for the next month.  Blocking a “troublesome” user is like dropping a bomb on insurgents: it almost never creates peace, and it almost always has collateral damage.  
So far as I can tell, WorldTraveller was blocked for editing anonymously at first, but then he was blocked again for daring to be affronted by the block and for not letting the matter rest.  When he vowed to do all he could to see Inshanee demoted, he had a right to make such a declaration.  It was not an attack, even if it was not harmonious.  He said that it was his judgment that Inshanee should not be an administrator and that he would work to correct the situation.  While that was undeniably hostile, it was not an insult.  If it was, then I can only say that during my run for ArbCom, I missed the chance to block quite a few people – some of whom went after my personality and lied in the process.  I have to say, seeing the way that Inshaneee has treated WorldTraveller, and the way that he has been able to cry that he is the harmed party, I have to agree with WorldTraveller that he has shown a very bad temperament and absolutely the wrong attitude toward editing Wikipedia. Geogre 02:32, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Statement by [[user:Geogre|Geogre]] 

message: J. smith has it nailed above. InShanee made a hasty block that he shouldn't have made, but this was mitigated by the fact that it looked to be a problematic edit by an anonymous user. Perhaps he should have explained the block in a more timely manner, but the apology was sincere, and the matter should have ended there. Instead WT continued to pester InShanee in a petulant, harassing, and threatening manner, apparently refusing to give up unless an explanation acceptable to him is given.
However, what is most concerning here is how some others have apparently hijacked this incident to push their own ideological agendas; namely, a peculiar and minority interpretation of blocking policy. I think a cursory perusal of the recent ANI threads ( and ) will illustrate exactly what I'm talking about. The amount of bad faith and even abuse directed against Inshanee is shocking, and the tag-team pounding of  for his block of  for posting a stream of personal attacks to various pages seems to be part and parcel of this pushing. (And in fact you will see in the second thread long monologues by some on how certain policies shouldn't, in fact, be policy.) You disagree with policy? Fine. Disagree strongly with how said policy is interpreted by the vast majority of admins on a daily basis? Fine. Take it to the policy talk pages and get the policy changed; don't fight this battle via proxy with real editors as pawns.
- Merzbow 04:53, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Statement by [[user:Merzbow|Merzbow]] 

message: I still can't say I understand why this was accepted. One, there isn't really anything to arbitrate, and two, I'm seeing some faint signs of bickering breaking out along old fault lines. I hereby predict nothing much is going to be accomplished. Picaroon 00:18, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If you need one reason why the ArbCom case exists, it's because there are many cases of him "abusing his power". Just because none of the cases are current or active doesn't mean that InShanee has become a better Wikipedian since then. He didn't improve from the situation with calling someone a douche bag, he didn't improve since blocking me, etc. Why should we expect that he improved since blocking someone for incivility, someone who has a clean record? - A Link to the Past (talk) 19:07, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comment 

message: I generally try to stay as far away from the ArbCom as possible. However, as seen in Bishonen's evidence, I did make some statements about this admin, and I would like to just say that I stand by my interpretation at that time. Andre (talk) 20:20, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comment 

message: I'm a bit confused as to why Tony Sidaway has listed himself as a party to the dispute.  As far as I am aware this is his first involvement of any kind with it.  Shouldn't the parties to the dispute normally be only those who have actually been disputing?  81.179.115.188 01:26, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's bizarre. His only role in the dispute is in disrupting the current case by frivolously inserting himself as a party. Derex 07:18, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And saying that a vindictive block is evidence for him because of Tony's personal opinion of my conduct... yeah. - A Link to the Past (talk) 07:39, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't follow. According to the logs, Sidaway has never blocked you. Derex 09:28, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I meant evidence for InShaneee, that InShaneee's vindictive block of me is evidence of good conduct. - A Link to the Past (talk) 09:31, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Tony Sidaway

message: I've got three comments to make!
1)I'm here because user Derex added a link to this page on my talk page.
2)As i say on that page my dispute with Inshaneee is Reasolved and OVER.
3)This whole process is made worse by a quasi-legal "dispute resolution" system that does nothing other than give the parties there own page to argue on out of everyones way. Until it gets to here of course but now the arguments have been going on for months and there is no chance at "dispute resolution". This is much more the case when an admin is the accused and misusing his powers the accusation. There is a Massive power disparity between ordinary editors and Admins, not just the power they have but their friends (other admins) powers too, this breeds an anti-admin feeling in a lot of editors. This is a case of "Who Guards the Guards!" and wikipedia does not protect editors from abuses of power by admins At all in my opinion, treating the admin like a normal editor in these types of cases only hightens the feelings that this is not taken seriously while Community bans to ordinary users is handed out by admins with increasing regularity. Hypnosadist 09:41, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well really, I'd say it's not over; he may have apologized, but the fact that he spent so much time ignoring your attempts to get it out of him and only cared when he realized it'd make him look good is more than enough to make the apology seem questionable. - A Link to the Past (talk) 09:46, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Link My dispute with Inshanee is Over, you can do what you want including talking about my ex-dispute with Inshaneee. Hypnosadist 10:51, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

text: What i do with my talk page is my buisness as long as its in wikipolicy.Hypnosadist 10:46, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's great that your dispute with InShaneee is over. However, leaving a big production about it with all sorts of links at the top of your page is an odd thing for someone who's buried the hatchet. You said there months ago you'll delete in in 7 days. Looks to me like you're content to keep the hatchet permanently buried in his head rather than the ground. Derex 11:11, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This has nothing to do with you Derex. Hypnosadist 12:34, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

text: FWIW, while I find it odd, I personally have no problem with the section being there, nor do I take it as a sign of any latent malice. I apologized, Hypnosadist said he accepted it, and we've both moved on. I'm content with that. --InShaneee 03:20, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I had just forgot(until i was dragged here) in the whole wikipedia rush, this is why AGF is so important, i'll remove it right now InShaneee. Hypnosadist 05:27, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Done! Bye!Hypnosadist 05:31, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks Hypnosadist, you've been really great about all of this. And hey, I can't blame you. I tend to forget about things on my talk page if I don't deal with them immediatly, too. --InShaneee 05:32, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [[User:Hypnosadist]] why am i here?