Wiki143 talk:Requests for arbitration/Maoririder/Workshop

Possible principles to consider

Please expand this list.

• Do not bite the newcomers Tony Sidaway^Talk
• Sock puppets: Creating a second account for a given class of edits does not itself constitute sockpuppet abuse. However, it does not give an editor free rein to use that account abusively. (Ciz) Tony Sidaway^Talk
• Assume good faith Tony Sidaway^Talk
• Blocking for disruption. Prior warning (is five minutes enough?) Tony Sidaway^Talk
• Potentially controversial blocks such as for disruption, should be reviewed reasonably widely, using a forum appropriate for the purpose such as WP:AN or WP:ANI, not only so that the situation may be publicised widely but also so that the appropriateness of the block may be widely discussed and consensus obtained. Tony Sidaway^Talk
• Blocking for disruption is not punishment, rather it is intended solely to maintain the smooth functioning of the wiki. Blocking for the purpose of enforcing guidelines is inappropriate. Tony Sidaway^Talk
• Civility. Editors to take into account the full spectrum of communication abilities. An editor who is clearly having difficulties is not to be browbeaten. Tony Sidaway^Talk
• It is not acceptable to stalk another editor who is editing in good faith. (Note that everyone is expected to assume good faith in the absence of definite evidence to the contrary.) Once an editor has given reason to suspect bad faith, monitoring is appropriate, but constantly nit-picking is always a violation of required courtesy. (from Cool Cat et al) Tony Sidaway^Talk

Discussion

I definately see your point here. But, I personally don't feel that I was ever "stalking" Maoririder. I was doing a lot of New Pages patrol during that time. And his articles were comming up on NP a lot, as he was creating many new articles. Most of these articles had formatting problems, and some did have lack of context to the point that they violated CSD A1. It seemed appropriate, rather than to constantly fix his articles or tag them CSD, to try and work with him to improve his editing.

I think if you read through user talk:Maoririder, the editors who were trying to work with him did assume good faith, and were trying not to bite the newcommer. We were, however, trying to help him understand how to write better stubs. -Satori ^(talk) 15:25, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

I do recognise that the overwhelming feeling was that here was an editor and he needed help. There was however, I think, an element of needless biting in the justification used by those who planned and executed an eight-hour block on Maoririder, evening of August 2, apparently to enforce unspecified guidelines. I won't discuss this further as it's the remit of arbcom to decide what happened and how to remedy it. And I could well be wrong--I'm only suggesting lines of inquiry, and my suggestions will necessarily be colored by my own view of what's what. Please add your own concerns to the list. --Tony Sidaway^Talk 17:32, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

I think you're laboring under a misconception- as I recall, I discussed a possible block with Lucky 6.9, but, as neither of us were administrators at the time, nothing came of it. Ike actually executed the block, and I'd had no communication with him beforehand, and I don't think Lucky had any either. In short, there wasn't a conspiracy to block Maoririder.--Scimitar ^parley 17:52, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

The issue isn't a matter of conspiracy, but newbie biting. The planning and execution of the block involved you, Ike9898, and Soltak. Ike suggested it to you and to Soltak, and eventually performed it. You approved it and recommended a warning (as is required by both policy and commonsense) and in fact you just managed to squeak a warning in on Maoririder's talk page five minutes before Ike implemented it. Soltak who was also consulted approved the block. That Ike discussed it with other first is good. I'm perfectly aware that at the time you were not an admin. Nor was Lucky 6.9, who approved of the block retrospectively. It's a shame that none of you checked Maoririder's output closely enough to realise that he wasn't editing at the time, and his last edits had all been aimed at discussion and expansion of existing articles. He was not engaging in problematic behavior at the time of the block or for an appreciable time beforehand. The second block, executed by the same editor, this time with no warning at all, was if anything worse, for the few stub articles Maoririder created on that day were well written and conformed very well to Wikipedia style (Portland Exposition Building, Million Dollar Bridge). --Tony Sidaway^Talk 02:19, 13 October 2005 (UTC)