Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Spartaz

In order to remain listed at Wikipedia:Requests for comment, at least two people need to show that they tried to resolve a dispute with this sysop and have failed. This must involve the same dispute, not different disputes. The persons complaining must provide evidence of their efforts, and each of them must certify it by signing this page with ~~~~. If this does not happen within 48 hours of the creation of this dispute page (which was: 19:20, 7 July 2007 (UTC)), the page will be deleted. The current date and time is: 07:01, 18 December 2024 (UTC).

Statement of the dispute

This is a summary written by users who are concerned by this administrator's conduct. Users signing other sections ("Response" or "Outside views") should not edit the "Statement of the dispute" section.

Sysop Spartaz recently unblocked user Davnel03. This user has a long history of abusive, disruptive behaviour, and subsequent bans. In every previous case the user created a sockpuppet (including use of IP for evasion, this user now has six puppets: Neldav, Daviiid, F1Fanaticsz, Landev, TheReferencingGod) to evade the block and, when discovered, claimed that they had reformed and wanted to make a fresh start. In every case the sockpuppet was banned shortly afterwards for abusive, disruptive behaviour. Indeed, Davnel03's most recent abuse was little over a month ago! This user's presence on Wikipedia is plainly "inconsistent with a civil, collegial atmosphere and interferes with the process of editors working together harmoniously to create an encyclopedia". The admin has apparantly unblocked following just a few days of fatuous editing on his original talk page. I simply can't believe that this admin properly checked the user's behaviour through all puppet identities. This user simply does not deserve a second chance. Objections were raised prior to Spartaz making the unblock official, yet they did not heed or even follow up on the comments therein. I regard Spartaz's actions as both gross incompetancy, and a crass abuse of power. Pyrope 19:20, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Desired outcome

That the indefinite, full block of Davnel03 be reinstated.

Powers misused

Unblocking:

Davnel03 (and all associated sockpuppets, at least two of which have been active in the last week!)

Applicable policies

Blocking policy

The user in question has violated many aspects of Wiki policy, including vandalism, plagiarism, gross incivility, harassment and sockpuppetry. To reinstate a user just because they can edit a page is simply unjustifiable. The user claims to have reformed, but recent actions suggest otherwise, and they have a long history of lying. Had Spartaz properly investigated they would have found this out easily.

Evidence of trying and failing to resolve the dispute

(provide diffs and links)

Objections were raised directly with the admin. Please see discussion here.
Objections were also raised on the user talk page in question, although Spartaz shows no sign of having bothered to read them. Please see here.

Users certifying the basis for this dispute

(sign with ~~~~)

Other users who endorse this statement

(sign with ~~~~)

Phill ^{talk Edits} _{Review this GA review!} 09:24, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Random people involved who abstain

Unique case

GURoadrunner --- changed vote from endorse to abstain after discussing with Spartaz.

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 don't really consider that proper attempts to resolve this dispute have been taken. There has been no attempt to seek outside opinions on my actions and I took the decision to unblock after consulting with the admin who originally blocked Davnel03.

The original block was for legal threats and abusing Yamla (who blocked him). Since then there has been some sockpuppetry and the last known one of these was blocked in early June. The user made an unblock request a couple of days ago; withdrew the legal threat and apologised for his behaviour. He asked for a second chance and reviewing his contributions he appears to have over 2000 mostly good faith edits and a filthy temper when things don't go his way that leads to a tendency to abuse other editors. Davnel03 acknowledged his temper and undertook to walk away from his PC if he felt himself getting out of hand. Yamla confirmed that he had no objection to an unblock and also commented that he though there were good grounds for a second chance. [1]. Also Davnel03 has a relatively clear block log [2] and an indef would only have been a result of the legal threat. With that withdrawn, maintaining it seems harsh.

I unblocked Davnel03 on the following grounds:

He withdrew the legal threat and apologised for his behaviour
He accepts that he will be indefblocked again without warning if he steps out of line even once
Users who make an effort to improve the encyclopaedia are entitled to some consideration & finally
Blocks are preventative not punitive and the application of an indefblock should he step out of line means that the risk of damage to the project is significantly less then the possibility of some benefit coming out of the process.

So far, Davnel03's contributions so far today appear constructive and collaborative. For example, there was a concern about the quality of his previous uploads [3] and he undertook not to upload anything in future and also apologised for his previous behaviour [4].

In short, I may be wrong about the unblock but so far the outcome has been positive [5]. Spartaz ^Humbug! 20:21, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Spartaz ^Humbug! 20:21, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Spartaz is right when he says blocks are not to be punitive. If the user agrees to behave and acknowledges that he will be reblocked if he doesn't, then I see no reason to not unblock. If he does end up behaving poorly again, it's simple enough to reblock him. ^demon^{[omg plz]} 20:25, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
How many times do I have to waste an evening's editing on this twerp? I don't know about you, but I do this for recreation, and I have only so mny hours in the day. We have already had to fight to get this user blocked on six previous accasions, is that not enough? Pyrope 21:12, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Vassyana 20:29, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Addhoc 21:06, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
—TREYWiki
There is nothing wrong with a second chance. They can always be reblocked. Sala Skan 01:43, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
ugen64 06:31, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I confirm that I am the original admin who blocked Davnel03 indefinitely. I confirm that Spartaz consulted with me before lifting the block. I do not believe Spartaz's actions were inappropriate, particularly given the retraction of the legal threat by Davnel03. I have not looked at Davnel03's actions since the block, my comments are solely about Spartaz's actions. --Yamla 19:59, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Outside view by Fut.Perf.

I have no opinion on the matter itself at this point, but in terms of process and venue, wouldn't it have been better to take this to WP:AN or WP:CSN first? As far as I can see, this is not so much a dispute about Spartaz' admin conduct, but about the merits of the case of that specific unblock. One can certainly disagree over the appropriateness of unblocking this user, without casting doubts on Spartaz' conduct, which has certainly been considerate, responsible and in good faith. But as this unblock is evidently controversial, either he or those opposing the unblock should have taken the matter to AN to seek a wider consensus.

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

Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:04, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Fut Perf is also correct. An RfC on admin behavior is supposed to be filed when an admin steps out of line several times and continues to engage in poor decision making. This is simply a disagreement over a single unblock and thus should have most likely been raised on WP:AN or WP:ANI. This is not the venue for such a discussion. ^demon^{[omg plz]} 20:27, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If that is the case, then why does the intro to this form state that is must be for the "same" incident? This does not appear to be arouse for repeated incidents (plural) Pyrope 20:35, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Quite right. Vassyana 20:28, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed. Sean William @ 20:30, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, usually best to post. Addhoc 21:07, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In retrospect, I should have put thus unblock up on AN for discussion but I honestly didn't think the unblock wast hat controversial with an indefblock hanging over the user. My bad I suppose, and something to learn from. Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:11, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
1. Threaded discussion by pyrope removed to talk page - Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:57, 7 July 2007 (UTC) [reply]
Yee–Haw——TREYWiki 22:21, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The user/admin-conduct RfC procedure should be used when there is a pattern of concerns raised, not where the dispute relates to a single good-faith disagreement. Newyorkbrad 00:09, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Per Newyorkbrad. Regardless of the merits of the unblock, AN is the right place for getting a consensus of admins to reblock, not RfC. Moreschi ^Talk 09:02, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ideally, this would have been discussed at WP:AN before unblocking, but still it hardly rises to the level of administrative misconduct. So long as Spartaz is willing to closely monitor Davnel/Neldav and be responsive to complaints against him, I don't see a problem. Let's just learn from this and move on. MastCell ^Talk 17:08, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Per above. Kwsn^(Ni!) 14:59, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Per Newyorkbrad. ElinorD (talk) 18:14, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Per Newyorkbrad. Mel sa ran (formerly Salaskаn) 04:43, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

Hey, I asked about querying and was pointed to this route. If you feel that it isn't the correct one to take then I apologise, but I still deeply oppose Spartaz's actions and I do consider them an abuse. Pyrope 20:33, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually there is a note on your talk page pointing you in the direction of ANI. Spartaz ^Humbug! 20:38, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ANI intro states that "This page is for reporting and discussing incidents that require the intervention of administrators" not that it is a noticeboard for incidents caused by administrators. This is a complaint directly about your conduct and abuse of powers when unblocking a frankly foul user. Pyrope 20:42, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I also take issue with the assertion that Spartaz's actions were "responsible". How so? He waited a whole three days (woo hoo, what commitment that must have taken) before lifting the block. In addition, in the meantime objections were raised and Spartaz ignored them, rather than taking any of the actions that are even recommended by the comment above. Why is it that users are jumped on for not raising the whole issue in a general discussion, while admins can get away with crass action (not just talk mind) without any censure whatsoever? One rule for you, one for us, eh? Pyrope 20:49, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I assumed this would be the place to go because of the response when Pyrope asked here. I don't think that Spartaz has necessarily been impolite about the issue but it is clear we have very different opinions about the issue as I am strongly against the unblocking. As well as the abuse, Davnel03 has created sockpuppets solely to vandalise - take a look at User:Landev. And it's not just petty vandalism - in some cases he has added grossly disgusting remarks to pages. Readro 20:55, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As I have stated over the past few days, I sincerley apologise with what has happened in the past, and hve apologised to the users affected. All I want to do is edit Wikipedia for the better, not to be involved in disputes every day. I want to make more edits like this one. I hope this doesn't become resolved, with me being blocked again. Can I just state, I am not related to Landev, but am related with the other sockpuppeters. Davnel03 20:57, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh really? There's a contribution on my talk page which suggests otherwise. Readro 21:03, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

One edit, one single edit is supposed to convice us that the vicious, nasty, weasle that made this edit is a thing of the past? Especially as you have repeatedly lied about wanting to make a fresh start in the past? Come off it. Maybe if you were to spend a few months making talk page edits and not just a couple of days, then we might see. But as things are your previous character and behaviour can only indicate that you current contrition is just an act to try and wheedle your way back onto Wikipedia. As for Landev, please, really, please... stop lying! Pyrope 21:05, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just so that these things are somewhere visible by the whole community (and not instantly deleted or hidden in an archive as Davnel seems to prefer to treat negative comments on his talk page) I'd like to add the following links here:[6], [7], [8],[9], [10], [11], [12]. Make of them what you will, but they were all perfectly visible to an admin who was doing their job properly. Pyrope 22:01, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I just wish to point out that Davnel, on various occassions, has felt the need to break Wikipedia's rules, policies, and standards when he sees fit. Beyond sockpuppeting, verbal abuse, and legal threats, he has also attempted to use copyrighted text in race report articles under the assumption that "it's better then not having any text," followed by accusations that others should do the work of writing in the race reports instead of him. Just today after his unblock, deleted an entire section of an article because he felt it didn't add much, ignoring a discussion and backing of that entire section that had already gone on in the discussion page. Writing a good race report now hardly proves he's capable of obeying Wikipedia's rules, even when they prevent him from getting what he wants. The359 21:39, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And already has done it a second time by ignoring discussion on the Chris Benoit page and created Benoit family tragedy, which is already up for deletion. I've already warned the guy to slow down, and clearly he has trouble understanding that his desire to "make Wikipedia better" is in fact making it worse. This is understandably the reasoning behind Pyrope's frustration, in that Davnel's edits go against consensus, and Pyrope has been taking the time to revert all of the damage he has done in the past. He's clearly back at it again. The359 09:44, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And I've just found an example of one of his sockpuppets being abusive and vandalising just over a week ago. [13] He clearly hasn't changed. We've already lost one good editor over this, so please reblock Davnel. Readro 14:41, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So the legal threats that led to the block have now been retracted. That's great. But it was the case that just turned out to be the thing that went down as the reason, there were many other reasons that he could have been blocked. A general apology doesn't cut it for me, a personal apology should have been made for each personal threat and offensive comment made towards other editors. Even the, avoiding his ban by using IP/Sockpuppets in the last month suggests he hasn't learnt anything, lying about them makes it seem even more so. However it seems he has found the bit of policy/guideline that excuses him from ignoring countless other bits of policy/guideline so we'll have to spend time repairing articles rather than improving them. Lastly the damage caused by his first period of editing hasn't fully been put right. Take 1994 French Grand Prix - whole paragraphs are a word-for-word copy of http://www.grandprix.com/gpe/rr555.html (version of WP article at time of writing: [14]) I fixed four or five of these, I'm not doing any more. AlexJ 17:59, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"...and hve apologised to the users affected" - Ermmm...Excuse me? But where on my talk page (or associated page(s)) is the apology for me? Not that I would accept it considering your, and I apologise in advance for my 'French', "Aspergers bitch" remark. --Phill ^{talk Edits} _{Review this GA review!} 11:33, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Davnel wrote: As I have stated over the past few days, I sincerley apologise with what has happened in the past, and hve apologised to the users affected.

Not factual. You did not apologize for vandalizing my user talk page under the IP address 87.127.39.114. (See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/87.127.39.114). Quite frankly, I didn't do shit to you - I am just a member of the F1 WikiProject, so I don't know why your anger was directed towards me via vandalizing my page.

Guroadrunner 13:37, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I admit I did wrong there, and I apologise for my actions. Davnel03 14:52, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]