Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Gaillimh

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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 user and have failed. This must involve the same dispute with a single user, not different disputes or multiple users. 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: 03:01, 8 April 2007 (UTC)), the page will be deleted. The current date and time is: 21:58, 9 April 2007 (UTC).

---

• Gaillimh (talk • contribs • logs)

---

Users should only edit one summary or view, other than to endorse.

Contents 1 Statement of the dispute 1.1 Desired outcome 1.2 Description 1.3 Evidence of disputed behavior 1.4 Applicable policies and guidelines 1.5 Evidence of trying and failing to resolve the dispute 1.6 Users certifying the basis for this dispute 1.7 Other users who endorse this summary 2 Response 3 Outside view by Newyorkbrad 4 Outside view by Thatcher131 5 Outside view by Sarah777 6 Discussion

[edit] Statement of the dispute

User:Gaillimh permblocked User:Fenian Swine over his choice of username. Gaillimh stated that he had "worked for a week" with Fenian on his name and came to no agreement. Gaillimh did not post to RFCN before the block, and Fenian is a contributor with 2 years of history. Gaillimh maintains that his actions were correct.

[edit] Desired outcome

Gaillimh is given an official understanding of what the community expects from him, and that we do not accept this as appropriate. Gaillimh's adminship is placed for the community decide its merit. Gaillimh will not proceed to block any user in this manner again, and will acknowledge the application of COI standards.

[edit] Description

Two years ago, Fenian Swine was blocked for his username. The decision for the block was shortly overturned. Gaillimh was aware of this fact and expressed it on Fenian's talk page in discussion prior to blocking. Gaillimh ultimately dictates that Fenian must change his username, to which Fenian refuses. Gaillimh informs Fenian that "there is no debate," and indefinitely blocks him.

The blocking is posted to the ANI board 10 hours later, and shortly after another admin steps in and unblocks Fenian. An RfCN is created for Fenian 9 hours thereafter. At the closing of the RFCN (closed as no consensus), Gaillimh browbeats the closing admin on that admin's page stating "there is consensus."

Gaillimh's admin account has a very limited history, being granted the oper flag as a replacement account without going through RfA.

[edit] Evidence of disputed behavior

• RFCN
• ANI
• Gaillimh's talk page
• Second part of Gaillimh's talk page
• Fenian's talk page on this matter
• User_talk:Seraphimblade/archive_6#Your_recent_actions_at_RFCN

[edit] Applicable policies and guidelines

• Principle of Conflict of Interest (not as per WP:COI)
• WP:BLOCK#Purpose_of_blocking
• WP:BLOCK#Controversial blocks
• WP:USERNAME#Reporting_inappropriate_names
• WP:CON (in closing of RFCN)

[edit] Evidence of trying and failing to resolve the dispute

• RFCN
• ANI
• Gaillimh's talk page
• Second part of Gaillimh's talk page

[edit] Users certifying the basis for this dispute

{Users who tried and failed to resolve the dispute}

1. --Auto^{(talk / contribs)} 02:36, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
2. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 02:39, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Other users who endorse this summary

[edit] Response

This is a summary written by the user whose conduct is disputed, or by other users who think that the dispute is unjustified and that the above summary is biased or incomplete. Users signing other sections ("Statement of the dispute" and "Outside Views") should not edit the "Response" section.

{Add summary here, but you must use the endorsement section below to sign. Users who edit or endorse this summary should not edit the other summaries.}

Users who endorse this summary:

[edit] Outside view by Newyorkbrad

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 editing other sections ("Statement of the dispute" and "Response") should not edit the "Outside Views" section, except to endorse an outside view.

I do not believe this is a productive use of the requests for comment process. As noted above, Gaillimh (talk • contribs • blocks • protects • deletions • moves) blocked Fenian Swine (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log) based on what Gaillimh believed was a username policy violation, on March 31, 2007. After Fenian Swine requested a review, another administrator unblocked him the next day with the recommendation that the username issue be referred to RfC/N, which is exactly what happened. Opinions expressed at RfC/N regarding the propriety of the username were divided, and ultimately the discussion was closed with a determination to allow it. Gaillimh has respected the consensus and has not reblocked Fenian Swine, who is actively editing.

There is no suggestion that Gaillimh has ever made any other problematic block. Thus, all that is involved here is a single disputed block, 10 days ago, which was quickly overturned in favor of a community discussion that Gaillimh deferred to. My view is that administrator-conduct RfC's should be reserved for very serious or habitual problems, rather than a single disputed administrator action that has already been the subject of exhaustive discussion elsewhere. Compare Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Samuel Blanning#Outside view by Newyorkbrad. Also, the entire subject of how disputed usernames should be addressed is a subject of community discussion, making it less blameworthy that Gaillimh did not find the appropriate procedure to be clear. See generally Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User names.

Under the circumstances, I suggest that this RfC should not proceed further. Newyorkbrad 19:06, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Users who endorse this summary:

1. Newyorkbrad 19:43, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
2. Sarah777 19:39, 9 April 2007 (UTC) - Newyorkbrad has set out the details of the dispute and the context fairly.

[edit] Outside view by Thatcher131

I specifically endorse Brad's view that it is not an appropriate use of RfC to complain about single admin action that has been debated already. However, I would like to go further an endorse Gaillimh's block of Fenian Swine (talk) as a username violation. Whether the user is stating "I am an Irish Nationalist swine" or "Irish Nationalists are swine" it is a violation of policy against "Promotion of a controversial or potentially inflammatory point of view." I am sure that in the present situation we would not tolerate User:Armenian Swine or User:Iraqi Swine; just because there are no currently brewing edit wars between Northern Irish Nationalists and Orangeists doesn't mean it isn't potentially offensive, and consensus never trumps policy.

Users who endorse this summary:

Thatcher131 20:42, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Outside view by Sarah777

I'm not sure if I should be writing an "outside view" having engaged in the issue with both Gaillimh and Fenian in the lead up to and after the blocking. But I must respond to any suggestion that disagreeing with this attempt to "demote" Gaillimh in any way equates to endorsing his actions in the Fenian matter. He was, in my view, completely lacking the in the quality of judgement we should expect from an Administrator in this case. But this was only a single case. (Sarah777 22:05, 9 April 2007 (UTC))

Users who endorse this summary:

(Sarah777 22:05, 9 April 2007 (UTC))

[edit] Discussion

All signed comments and talk not related to an endorsement should be directed to this page's discussion page. Discussion should not be added below. Discussion should be posted on the talk page. Threaded replies to another user's vote, endorsement, evidence, response, or comment should be posted to the talk page.