Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 17:05, 26 January 2016

Requests for arbitration

Request name	Motions	Initiated	Votes
Future Perfect at Sunrise	Motions	15 January 2016	{{{votes}}}

[edit]

Open cases

Case name	Links	Evidence due	Prop. Dec. due
Backlash to diversity and inclusion	(t) (ev / t) (ws / t) (pd / t)	10 Oct 2024	24 Oct 2024

[edit]

Recently closed cases (Past cases)

No cases have recently been closed (view all closed cases).

Clarification and Amendment requests

Request name	Motions	Case	Posted
Amendment request: Palestine-Israel articles (AE referral)	Motion	(orig. case)	17 August 2024
Arbitration enforcement referral: Nableezy, et al	none	(orig. case)	7 November 2024
Clarification request: Referrals from Arbitration Enforcement noticeboard to the full Committee	none	none	7 November 2024

Arbitrator motions

No arbitrator motions are currently open.

Future Perfect at Sunrise

Initiated by QEDK (T 📖 C) at 09:53, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Involved parties

QEDK (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), filing party
The Rambling Man (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
StuRat (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Cassianto (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Future Perfect at Sunrise (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

Special:Diff/699489271#WP:Civility Violation by Future Perfect at Sunrise
Threads at FPAS' talkpage (User talk:Future Perfect at Sunrise Special:Diff/698546538#"because it's a banned user; can't you read the page history?" ?)
I have no idea why but Mlpearc reverted StuRat's edits. --QEDK (T 📖 C)

Statement by QEDK

I would probably not have cared except for this thinly veiled threat which I received from FPAS (Special:Diff/699646315#Your suggestion at ANI) for receiving a message from an IP, (which happened to be one of the many owned by Vote (X) for Change). It was promptly rev-deled and now, oversighted as defamatory. Funnily enough, his threat that I shouldn't restore it was useless because I'm not an admin. The first time I read it, the only thing I felt was that he was incompetent (don't remember anything libellous about it). Anyway, I didn't save a copy and don't remember any of it. I would elaborate on the issue with FPAS which came up on ANI but it'd be better if the really involved parties spoke for themselves. The diff which caused the row at ANI (Special:Diff/698543562). Overall, FPAS has failed to be polite, assume good faith and executed involved blocks which go against policy and sets a precedent for admin abuse. --QEDK (T 📖 C) 09:53, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to Johnuniq: Hey, I don't know about you but unless you want to be held responsible for the truth of every single word of it just as if you had written it originally yourself seems like a threat hid inside a well-written web of obfuscation and since it was a direct reply to me, the responsibility interpreting it lies with me and I've done so. Also, your link to the ANI archive is redundant as I've already included it in the "Confirmation" subsection of this case. --QEDK (T 📖 C) 11:28, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to Dweller: As the filing party, I've done so. --QEDK (T 📖 C) 11:44, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to Mrjulesd: He hasn't apologised once and kept justifying his actions by twisting our policies. And the issue has already been tried at ANI, see "Confirmation" section above - where it was closed, saying that this should be deferred to ArbCom instead. --QEDK (T 📖 C) 14:24, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

General comment::*sigh* Sometimes it appears as if uninvolved parties don't give a damn about the filing party's statement. It's not just about FPAS' conduct and this case might involve the trolls but they're not the subject of discussion right now. --QEDK (T 📖 C) 15:34, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

To whomsoever it may concern. If you get offended, I don't care:

The trolls win if this case is accepted. Good joke. The troll here in question might have a vendetta against FPAS but I guess that's just incidental. This case was never about the trolls but NYB and everyone latching on has evidently made it so. Sure, that's an issue but really, ArbCom contacting legal about it shouldn't give extra credibility to it (anyone could've but no one has, wow!), if it does it's just unfair. Honestly, if you're giving this rationale for declining the case, I must say, WHAT THE HELL. Let bygones be bygones cuz sure the troll was expecting all this drama and he's definitely feeding on it. You don't know, you don't say. The fact that any ArbCom member would support such a rationale for the purpose of declining a case is surprising. Honestly, if you think that seeing someone blocked without proper rationale and someone else abused for no reason as a trade-off for let's say, not feeding trolls, there's something with your personality.
Other admins (and at least one arb) periodically use words that some people (not me) find offensive ... Is not a suitable justification as to why FPAS did it too. Also, if that arb member is still on board, I'd like to see such a personal attack presented in public view. Maybe, he/she is the one setting such a precedent.
Arbitration at this point is unneeded. Ha! Let's trout-slap FPAS' incivility out of him. There's a difference between not knowing and not abiding.
sanctioning individual administrators for desiring a strong ... attitude when dealing with them is not going to solve anything. The strong attitude is just purposeful abusive language. FPAS didn't just show off his attitude, he blocked two people over it.
... focus should be on dealing with the root cause, i.e. long-term IP abuse by a banned user, especially at the unprotected RefDesks ... What the hell? This is exactly the problem, with this case right now. This case is supposed to deal with FPAS' conduct as an admin and we have people justifying it by saying there are more real issues. To reiterate, what the hell?
(FPAS) ... become too frustrated with people who don't share his knowledge about and/or concern with these two banned trolls. Not a bad summarization, but again no one really gives a damn about what happened to StuRat, do they? As far as I can see, FPAS isn't just frustrated with his opposition, he intends to wipe them out.
I believe this drama to be unproductive. Hehe. Haha. Hoho. Exactly why I call this place, DRAMACOM. Besides, who doesn't like a dysfunctional useless piece of bureaucracy to be a part of the system. But, hey, I'm fine with it, not complaining.
I would like FP@S to tone it down a bit. Congrats on being the 666,777,888th person to ask FPAS to do it. But he doesn't give a shit, does he? I mean, like, the self-righteous never apologize, right?
The troll problem should not get a case. I probably paid Müdigkeit to say this. In fact, probably the only well summarized statement for this case right now.
FP@S mistakenly swore at them. This is wrong on so many levels, sort of like crime in multi-storey car parks. If you know this joke, you probably live in Edinburgh. I just happen to read BBC.
Most of this is now gone per WP:DENY. I beg to differ, sire. We don't necessarily feed the trolls if we reprimand/banish/admonish/roast/shoot the concerned admin. Whoever played the DENY card is just trying another way to justify conduct issues of admins on this project.
... our most useful editors and admins will be perpetually bogged down by 'inquiry commissions'. I don't know, dude. Some weak-minded useful editors could also leave after a respectable admin wishes them with the extremely civil, "Fuck off, troll."

With this, I rest my case. --QEDK (T 📖 C) 08:57, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to Ihardlythinkso: Chillum/HighInBC and Sitush regularly interact with/support FPAS on this project. You can presume they're his friends or talk page stalkers, I guess. --QEDK (T 📖 C) 09:09, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to Sitush: Calm down. First off, it doesn't imply anything other than what I explicitly said. Second, I said, I guess. Third, how does it matter. Anyway, for the sake of debate, places where you have edited with regards to each other, not necessarily interaction (and not all of them are confirmed) include: [1], [2], [3], [4]. Next time, don't fling at anyone just because they spoke about you. If you don't like something, just ignore it. What I said wasn't defamatory, so chill out next time you decide to call something "rubbish". --QEDK (T 📖 C) 10:12, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You can presume they're his friends or talk page stalkers, I guess. This means that you could be friends/TPSes or not. And you're not. Case closed. And the, "grr" edit summary here, though - made me lol. xD -QEDK (T 📖 C) 10:45, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Previous message read: Members who've declined (except Keilana because she hasn't give any rationale) and people on the fence, links for your perusal if you care:

@Courcelles and Salvio giuliano: Some links for your perusal, members who've declined, with or without rationale, read my stuff (above and below), it may not change your mind or it might:

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Future Perfect at Sunrise (lots of offensive content, tbh as usual, the community failed to arrive at a consensus: see MBisanz' view in particular)
[5] (not offensive but it seems f-bombs are his favourite)
[6] (our very own rage-boy, potentially offensive)
[7] (disgust, oh boy)
[8] (you could try "rv f*cking noob" next time)
[9] (blocks him with no rationale just a vague reason, probably his lawyer's wording by its looks)
[10] (StuRat subplot)
[11] (end game) (temporary desysop superseded by motion on grounds that he maintain civility and admin policies but now...)
Addendum: Quoting FPAS below, If C has a brain and a sense of human decency... the C in question is of course, TRM. Another well-disguised PA.

Declining this case is equivalent to setting admin accountability null and void. Tread carefully, where you step, ArbCom. Very respectfully. --QEDK (T 📖 C) 06:55, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The links were mainly to show his long-term pattern of unadmin-like behaviour, as asked. Also, by motion or not, anything which stops FPAS from continuing his current way of working on the wiki is much appreciated. What I don't understand though is the excuse of him working in difficult areas that apparently causes him to break CIVILITY. 2 or more ArbCom members (besides parties) have said this and I've to say, I've gotta disagree. It is in no way a carte blanche for him to say anything he pleases. I'm pretty sure FPAS is not the only one working in such contentious areas. Very respectfully. --QEDK (T 📖 C) 06:28, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@RegentsPark: I didn't go through the trouble with the nit-picking as it was already at ANI. As expected, no one cared anytime about any issue when FPAS was brought up. Multiple people were concerned but come on, there's nothing to do, right? As for the title, "case filer", I like it but I happen to like my username better. --QEDK (T 📖 C) 09:09, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Cla68: Yes, he lost it temporarily here, but later regained it by this motion. --QEDK (T 📖 C) 20:12, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A reply above has been removed fully with no reservations, apparently because it was a personal attack or an inflammatory message. I beg to differ, clerks but bashing someone for being ignorant in no way violates the code of conduct on this wiki. I haven't reinstated it, per the request stated in the edit summary here. --QEDK (T 📖 C) 15:53, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Future Perfect at Sunrise: First off, how in the world would I know that it surely was a banned user. It's not like VXfC goes around with this kind of a pattern, if there's any I'm unaware of it. Second, how do I restore any revision at all? You revdeled it and then it was oversighted. Third, I gave it a copy edit, probably changed a couple of words here and there. And as I said above, I barely remember it which can make you understand about the amount of importance that I gave to it. Hope I could help. --QEDK (T 📖 C) 19:40, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If all this really meant something to you, you'd have apologised by now instead of trying to take down others (so to say, innocent others). I must say, I'm appalled. In a sense, I feel like I've failed the community. I've done all this and I couldn't extract the one thing StuRat wanted most: a sorry. I'm sorry FPAS, for copyediting that, it surely wasn't in any interest, though. But to hold me responsible, to your equal, sorry, gotta disagree. --QEDK (T 📖 C) 19:48, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The next person who comes around saying that that FPAS' work involves difficult areas or that this case shouldn't be accepted because VXoC is apparently just extracting excitement out of this, I'll just ask you a simple question, does that in anyway make FPAS' behaviour excusable? And dude, ArbCom, 10 days. ;_; --QEDK (T 📖 C) 18:34, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

File:Cat guarding the beer fridge.jpg

Here's a sleeping cat. Clerks, this picture is productive as it seeks to increase happiness levels on seriously grief and boredom-ridden pages on Wikipedia. Please do not remove it.

Statement by The Rambling Man

A 48-hour block with talk-page revoked was placed on me by FPAS with the block summary "harassment, proxying for banned editors" for me restoring a response on my own talkpage to an IP who had pointed me to some interesting behaviour from FPAS. The block was rejected by an uninvolved admin 17 minutes later and I was unblocked (with the unblock summary Over-reaction, and policy is not as clear about edits to one's own talk page as implied by this block). In my opinion, it was an involved block from what appears to be a trigger-happy individual who appears to have a history of problematic contributions. If FPAS had spent some time explaining to me on my talkpage who the IP was and why he would have preferred me not to restore the material, or if FPAS had requested intervention from another admin, or even if FPAS had provided a talkpage warning with relevant links instead of using threatening and bad faith edit summaries, none of this would have been problematic. That's all I'll contribute to this. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:10, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Keilana @Doug Weller @Opabinia regalis: all the declining Arbs have failed to bother to look into the problematic admin behaviour here. They're missing the point entirely. I'm surprised, as it's what we have come to expect, but it's an omnishambles to overlook the behavioural competence failures of FPAS. Don't let the overarching (and ongoing, and generic) issue of IP vandals divert attention to the behaviour of rogue admins.

@Kirill Lokshin. Assuming that every admin on Wikipedia is aware of every single banned IP and all their guises and that they then (in your own words) "enabling harassment" is a real eye-opener to your approach here. Forget good faith, eh? The Rambling Man (talk) 21:12, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Keilana, Casliber, Kelapstick, and Doug Weller: clearly blocking another admin from an obviously involved position (which was rescinded 17 minutes later) is of no interest to Arbcom these days, irrespective of the "fuck you"s that seem to be the other part of this "admin"'s behavioural patterns. Abuse of admin position and overt personal attacks go overlooked. Appalling: no wonder the community have no interest in these proceedings, nor Arbcom, other than to ridicule them. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:23, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

For fuck's sake FPAS, who needs more drama. You're leaving this situation with your head high and proud that so many Arbs deem you more important than Wikipedia's policies, why bring more crap into it? Why feel the need to drag more people down with me? Just let Arbcom make an example of me and let it lie. You're invaluable, and as such we'll need to keep you cherished and protected, away from these terrible "normal" admins and editors. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:56, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by StuRat

Repeating the diff from QEDK: Special:Diff/698543562, FPaS said "go fuck yourself" in the edit summary and "fuck off, troll" in the body. I am by no means a troll, as I have made thousands of edits, and have been in good standing here for many years. My comment was a politely worded notification that he made an incorrect statement in his edit summary, and this was how he reponded. From other Admins, I understand that Admins are never punished in any way for violating civility rules (and I was threatened by them for even bringing it up), while an editor who said that to an Admin might very well be blocked. Why is this exactly ? Have we set up a system where Admins are above the law ? I'd settle for an apology, but FPaS seems unwilling to even do that much to be civil. StuRat (talk) 21:10, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Cassianto

I am currently on holiday, so my time here will be brief. However, I would like to comment on this further when I get back. What I will say for now is that I have had the misfortune to have met the ironically named "Future Perfect at Sunrise" twice now and each time has been equally unpleasant. He/she abused their tools a few days ago by blocking me without a warning and not allowing me to explain my innocent actions. I will comment further when I return on Sunday, but for now, I'd say take the tools away. Cassianto^Talk 21:54, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Now back, I have further to offer. I personally don't care about people using expletives; in fact, in certain situations, I actively endorse it as sometimes asking someone nicely to "go away" just will not cut the mustard. I've told many people to "fuck off" or similar in the past, so I'm not going to sit here and start condemning FPaS for doing this. My gripe here is about his trigger happy finger when blocking people. As I have said above, he did this to me a week ago, without a warning, and without offering me the opportunity to explain my actions. He has used the malevolent experience between us in the past to queer his train of rational thought in this particular situation. Sure, everybody is human, as Sitush rightly points out below, but I feel as if this goes a bit deeper than that. Cassianto^Talk 10:27, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Future Perfect at Sunrise

This is the same tired old situation we've seen dozens of times. Banned serial sockpuppeter A wants to harass editor B, so he seeks out unrelated editor C who he perceives as being potentially hostile to B and tries to enlist him as an ally, posting negative allegations about B on their talkpage. If C has a brain and a sense of human decency, he will easily recognize the game for what it is, and immediately remove the banned user's posting themselves. If not, then B is left with a dilemma: either he leaves the offending posting in place, or he requests intervention from third parties (which means losing time and drawing wider attention to the harassing postings on noticeboards, giving the banned user even more publicity), or he opts to quickly revert the banned user himself, risking an angry reaction from C. It has long been my firm position that the correct way of dealing with this is to choose option three, and be uncompromising and unapologetic about it. If C then decides to raise a stink (as they all too often do), so much the worse for them.

At this point I'll only comment on the charge of "involved" admin action. No, it wasn't. As we all know, an admin doesn't become "WP:INVOLVED" with an editor if he has interacted with them purely in an administrative function. And we don't let users make themselves immune from admin action by simply opting to react to it with abuse towards the admin in question and then claiming their own abuse to be grounds for "involvement". This is exactly what happened both between me and the banned troll in question here (User:Vote (X) for Change), and between me and The Rambling Man, so I was (and still am) uninvolved with either. I intervened with an administrative warning against The Rambling Man the other day in a completely unrelated matter, because I found him edit-warring over some trivial squabble on the refdesk talkpages [12][13][14]. To this, TRM reacted with this [15] stream of invective, including even a threat of counter-blocking (Now, incidentally, that's indeed a clear expression of intended misuse of admin tools on his part that would deserve a desysopping!). This was the full extent of intraction between TRM and me by the time banned "Vote (X)" decided to piggy-back on the situation with the abusive posting in question. TRM displayed his lack of competence by rewarding it with friendly encouragement, and then chose to play the tired old "but there wasn't any proof it was a banned user" card when I removed it. I gave him two very clear warnings about it, he chose to edit-war the banned troll's posting back in on the page nevertheless, so I blocked, as I would have blocked any other user in that situation – still acting from the same position of legitimate uninvolvement both with respect to the banned user and with respect to him. (The fact that the banned user's harassment happened to be directed against myself is entirely immaterial to this.) Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:15, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Arbs, if you're going to pass around "admonishments", have one for QEDK too. His behaviour was actually a good deal worse than TRM's. He not merely restored sock material (in fact, he was stopped before he had a chance to); he went significantly further: actively editing the sock material in order to help the sock to make it more presentable, giving the clear impression he meant to endorse it, make it his own and help to give it more visibility. And in this case we're talking about a posting that was not merely mildly negative, but a grossly insulting and defamatory BLP violation, and very obviously so (hence its oversighting). Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:00, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Arbs, make up your minds. It's been ten days; no case request should take that long. And the latest motion has been sitting there for four days; it's not that complicated compared to the previous ones. Keilana and Drmies, you are the two arbs that haven't yet voted on it. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:34, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Johnuniq

A banned user has caused a tremendous amount of disruption by frequently posting trolling messages. As in past cases, the only defense is WP:DENY, yet it is not possible to deny while demonstrating beyond reasonable doubt to uninvolved editors that a particular post was from the banned user. Some editors resist attempts to revert posts and that generates considerable disruption as the small number of people willing to patrol the area know that any fuss encourages the troll to redouble their efforts.

Similar problems arose from WP:ARBR&I and the situation was resolved with this motion: "To reduce disruption, the Committee resolves that no editor may restore any reverted edit made by a banned editor [within R&I]."

Whatever the outcome from this case request, the disruption from the banned user will continue, and my suggestion would be for the Committee to apply a form of the above motion for the banned user at the heart of this dispute. If anyone is concerned that an editor is over-zealous in the removal of posts, concerns should be raised at WP:AE. WP:AE should also handle any cases of editors resisting the removal of such posts.

This case request should not be accepted as there is no suggestion of anything other than an isolated incident. I do not see any threat in the diffs in QEDK's statement, and the diff concerning incivility was handled in this ANI archive. Johnuniq (talk) 11:06, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Callanecc's proposed motion regarding FPaS is counter productive because FPaS is one of a very small number of admins who are willing to take action regarding trolling by a banned user. FPaS also deals with a significant amount of NOTHERE behavior that paralyzes ANI when other admins skip the topic hoping someone else will take the time to do the dirty work. Talk of a desysop paints a kick-me sign on FPaS and is an invitation for everyone FPaS has taken action against to provoke him hoping for another unwise response.
Arbcom has previously declared (motion): "To reduce disruption, the Committee resolves that no editor may restore any reverted edit made by a banned editor [within R&I]." The proposed motion takes the opposite view and would require FPaS to convince people that "their" talk page should not be available for trolling. However, the troll can easily find editors who would reward their efforts by fighting to keep their provocative comments.
The problem in this case is that FPaS became exasperated with inappropriate responses by a couple of editors—a motion should stick to the incivility that resulted. If Arbcom is not willing to rule that editors must not enable harassment, Arbcom should say nothing on that issue. Johnuniq (talk) 09:33, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Doug Weller: I wonder if rather than "reverting" you mean "restoring" in "My opinion on reverting harassment by a banned user is that this should never be done, and if it is done amounts to harassment by the editor reinstating the edit. Doug Weller talk 16:31, 20 January 2016". Johnuniq (talk) 09:57, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Dweller

I suggest that Cassianto, who was blocked, without warning by FPAS, be added as a party. See this discussion.

For my part, I have concerns about FPAS' extreme incivility ("Fuck off troll" is no way for an admin to address another user, and on top of an RfC largely reflecting on FPAS's incivility), an INVOLVED block and blocking without warning. Any one of those would, in my view, be cause for ArbCom to accept this case. All three? It's rather alarming. --Dweller (talk) 11:45, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@FPAS, as your statement currently exceeds 500 words, perhaps you could remove the bit where you cunningly disguise a personal attack on TRM (the bit about having "a brain and a sense of human decency"). Thanks. --Dweller (talk) 12:21, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@All the arbs. Why are the improper blocks of TRM and the totally innocent Cassianto being totally ignored?

@Salvio giuliano and Doug Weller and Guerillero who agree with him. You oppose the first motion, ostensibly because it's too soft on FPAS. Yet you don't propose anything else and are happy to support the motion against TRM, who wouldn't be here if FPAS hadn't stomped into his userspace and refused to communicate sensibly?

@Kirill Lokshin why oppose the FPAS motion on the grounds that a full case should have been heard, but support the TRM motion without comment?

@All the arbs. If an admin turned up on my user talk and did this, I would feel justified to revert. Why is the onus on TRM to have known it was an edit from a banned user, rather than the onus being on FPAS who is possession of the facts, to explain his revert in someone else's userspace? --Dweller (talk) 12:39, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This case does Arbcom no credit at all. Admins! Be uncivil, uncommunicative, make improper blocks ... and then watch those you mistreat get admonished by Arbcom while you walk away. --Dweller (talk) 11:26, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Only in death

Contrary to Johanniq's last diff, this is not an isolated incident and nothing was actually dealt with regarding the incivility by FPAS. It was closed (as is usual for civility violations involving administrators) with the usual 'oh they are dealing in a difficult area' excuses and swept under the rug. It is never acceptable for an administrator to answer a good faith enquiry from an editor who is under no sanctions and in good standing with 'Fuck off troll'. FPAS' problems with incivility are not new. Pretty much everyone who has had to deal with FPAS knows to either ignore it, or just avoid them because it is highly unlikely any action will be taken given the low regard the civility policies/pillar is given by administrators, arbcom, and the WMF. Comments from his RFC generally fall into three camps 'he is incivil', 'he is incivil but we are going to excuse it', and 'not going to address the civility'. Very very few people who commented there actually were willing to say 'he is a civil person to collaborate with'. And that was in 2008, I have yet to notice a significant improvement in his dealings with others when he enforces (in his opinion)'the rules'. FPAS likes to edit others talkpages when in his enforcer mode. Quite apart from the stupidity of the advice in general (how the hell am I supposed to know *in advance* that an IP user is a sock of a banned user, check every IP comment on my talkpage to see if they have a pattern of edits relating elsewhere? Check SPI? Call Derek Acorah?) its a pointless edit. A day later and all it does is serve FPAS in demonstrating their authority. Only in death does duty end (talk) 11:36, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Just to add, see Sitush comment below for a common attitude towards civility. Although I will point out there is a world of difference between using 'colourful' language in general, and using it directed *at* editors. Only in death does duty end (talk) 13:13, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

To add - I dont disagree with Sitush's evaluation of the current situation, I dont care however if people are alienated. Tough. Either affirm the civility policies/guidelines/pillar as they are written and wikipedia currently pays lip service to, or accept they are meaningless and just scrap the lot. At least then editors will have a realistic expection of how they will be treated. Only in death does duty end (talk) 13:39, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Mrjulesd - FPAS has been at RFC (before it was nuked) and AN/ANI in the past (and recently). There are no further community steps before arbcom for Administrator conduct. Only in death does duty end (talk) 14:09, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

sigh* And the below comments indicate the problem, the civility issues are not with how FPAS treats socks/banned users, its how he treats other editors.

Question to NYB, any reason why Admins should be allowed to tell editors in good standing to "fuck off troll"? Only in death does duty end (talk) 19:56, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Courcelles, there is stuff like this between the latest civility issues and the earlier ones. If you want a full list I can trawl FPAS contributions but frankly I'm not going to make the effort unless a case is opened. Only in death does duty end (talk) 23:41, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

So we have gone from being desysopped previously (as per Cla below), continuous evidence of incivility over *years* until the present time, and what happens is... an admonishment? You do recall you just detooled Kevin Gorman for continuing behaviour that he had been warned about previously right? Is there actually any point in having the pillars and civility policies? Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:33, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Lets have a list of the policies FPAS has violated that *in this request* evidence has been provided for:

WP:NPA

WP:ADMINACCT

WP:CIVIL

And lets not forget WP:5P4.

Drmies has said below "But I do not believe ArbCom should take up the case of defining civility until the community gives it a better shot" We already gave it a shot, read the links above - the community has clearly defined what is and is not acceptable. Look at FPAS interactions with other editors and then come back here and say the same thing with a straight face.

Kelapstick says "I don't think ArbCom is in the position to generate an all encompassing bright-line rule with regards to what does and does not constitute a personal attack." No, people dont expect you to generate new bright-line rules, you are expected as a member of Arbcom to uphold and enforce the rules and policies we already have. See links above, do you feel you are doing that? Keilana writes "the drama and hand-wringing this case will inevitably create is not worth the limited potential it has to solve the root problem." Well the root problem as many editors have attested to below is FPAS interactions with other editors. By willfully devalueing the civility/interaction policies listed above, you only make the problem worse in the future. Only in death does duty end (talk) 10:01, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Just to point out the request has been open 10 days now. Had you opened the case instead of arguing on mailing lists, you would be halfway through the evidence phase. Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:45, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Sitush

I have no idea what has been going on at the Reference Desks, nor regarding TRM's block. However, if the main issue is incivility then please beware: there are a host of admins (and at least one arb) who periodically use words that some people (not me) find offensive, and that includes one who is currently the subject of case that is presently open. This could be the thin edge of a very thick wedge, and it isn't as it we've got that many active admins here already. Admins are human, too. - Sitush (talk) 12:14, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Onlyindeath says mine is a "common attitude" towards civility. Perhaps so, and maybe that is telling. All I am saying here is don't turn this case request into an issue merely about civility because if you do then you'll alienate an awful lot of people of one persuasion or the other and we'll be back at the interminable list of banned words situation etc. You'll end up deadlocked, as so often before. If FPaS has done anything wrong other than use a few nasty words then obviously there may be a case to answer on those points. FWIW, generally I find "troll" far more offensive, if it were directed at an editor in good standing, and I found the massively repetitive gratuitous usage of "fuck[ing]" by Ihardlythinkso involved in the linked ANI thread to be, well, if not offensive then certainly very irritating and hypocritical, yet I cannot recall anyone else expressing concern. - Sitush (talk) 13:25, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@QEDK: now you are really talking rubbish. Prove that I regularly interact and that your conclusion is valid. - Sitush (talk) 09:45, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Intersect is not the same as interact, in other words. - Sitush (talk) 09:52, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@QEDK: if you meant nothing by it, why did you say it? ~~And you are aware that IHTS and myself are on different sides of the fence regarding this issue, aren't you?~~ (Wrong person - I am fuming now.) - Sitush (talk) 10:38, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Mrjulesd

Although, in my opinion, the behaviour of FP@S is clearly sub-optimal, I feel that arbitration at this point is unneeded. The blocks of TRM and Cassianto, although dubious, were I believe in good faith, and rapidly overturned; so no great harm was intended or resulted. As for incivility, not enough community discussion has taken front on this; although I may be mistaken, I am not aware of any discussions taking place at WP:AN or WP:ANI.

Admins are human, and mistakes can be made, and I would hope FP@S will learn from this, particularly about over-keenness with the block button, and the lack of need for talk page access revocation. And civility, even when dealing with socks, should be increased. Any further concerns I hope will be dealt with at a community level, as it is perhaps unfair not to fully explore community based actions before heading to ArbCom, in cases such as these. --Jules (Mrjulesd) 14:00, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Newyorkbrad

At some point soon, the appropriate response to both Vote (X) for Change and the reference desk troll is for the Legal Department to track them down and send them cease-and-desist letters.

An early but still apt formulation of the civility principle was "editors are expected to be reasonably courteous to each other." This applies at least equally to administrators, and it applies even when administrators are talking with each other. To speak with some understatement, more than one admin mentioned in this request has not excelled recently at modeling civility and decorum. As has been discussed at great length on the arbitration pages and all over the project, civility cannot be legislated, and there is sometimes a place for strong and heated language, particularly in exasperating situations. But angry and heated words surely shouldn't become any editor's ordinary tone of discourse, and that has become too common.

I'd hope this case doesn't need to be accepted, because as has been pointed out, a weekslong arbitration case will merely magnify the disruption and animosity already created within our community by people who are not supposed to be editing at all. Compare Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Banning Policy. We should make every effort not to respond to trolls in a way that leaves the trolls laughing at all of us. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:10, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As an addendum: I can agree with Fut.Perf. that immediate reversion of nasty edits by banned users is in order and that it is undesirable to call further attention to them. However, not every editor is au courant at any given moment with the antics of every banned troll and how edits by those people can be identified. (And it's a very good thing that most editors don't have to worry about that stuff, or actual encyclopedia-writing would suffer badly.) The knowledge that an edit is by a banned user does not come to an ordinary editor telepathically, and when such an editor is unsure what is going on, a patient (even if discreet) explanation should be provided, exasperating as the process may be. Now, what to do when the editor rejects the explanation, or when there is a disagreement as to whether the edit is by the banned user or not, is admittedly a tougher question. Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:25, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Question/suggestion to all: Can't we come up with some sort of potted edit summary or message or similar to be used in these situations, which would not give undue attention to the trolling, but would give a good-faith editor unfamiliar with the situation an idea what is going on? ("Banned means banned", which I've seen sometimes used, is cryptic to newcomers, plus drags in the question of what we do in the more difficult cases in which a banned user surprises us by sneaking back online and contributing quality content. The banned-user edits at issue in this case were not of that variety.) Perhaps something along the lines (very rough draft) of "I have removed an edit to this page because it appears to have been made for purposes of harassment or disruption by a person who is banned from editing Wikipedia. Please do not restore this edit as doing so may tend to encourage the harassment or disruption. If you have any questions, please contact me on my talkpage." or similar? And make that doable with a one-click somehow? Or where more experienced editors are involved, an edit summary saying the same thing in fewer words?) Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:51, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note to Clerk: I waive any notifications in this case. Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:52, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Ivanvector

Regarding Newyorkbrad's comment directly above mine, it would be appropriate for ArbCom to officially endorse (by motion or whatever) proper legal response by the Foundation. This entire case is wholly a result of those banned editors' continuing disruption, and sanctioning individual administrators for desiring a strong (and frankly warranted) attitude when dealing with them is not going to solve anything (I would bold that more if I could). Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 15:19, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

By my count, as of this edit, eight respondents out of 39 (including myself) have suggested that ArbCom should explore requesting involvement from WMF legal in this ongoing disruption from really only a handful of persistent long-term abusers, and so I'm disappointed that only three of the arbitrators have so far felt the need to comment on that aspect of this case request at all. I did not attempt to count the numerous comments here that it's the trolling that is the real problem, and those calling out for ArbCom to at least attempt to craft some kind of solution to it. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 18:56, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Folantin

I'm not involved but I've been watching this incident from a distance and I concur with Johnuniq, JzG and - especially - Newyorkbrad. The focus should be on dealing with the root cause, i.e. long-term IP abuse by a banned user, especially at the unprotected RefDesks (I note the irony that this very ArbCom page seems to have been indefinitely semi-protected since 2009). If civility is going to be part of the case then I think the scope should be widened; the behaviour of some of FPAS's accusers and opponents has been less than exemplary too. However, I'd agree with JzG that this flare-up was no more than a storm in a tea cup and a minor by-product of the underlying trolling problem. --Folantin (talk) 16:00, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Floquenbeam

FP@S has, I think, become too frustrated with people who don't share his knowledge about and/or concern with these two banned trolls. When people do something that inadvertently aids the trolling, the solution is not to bite their heads off, or revert them on their talk page with holier-than-thou language. That gets their back up, and then they end up blocked, and the the troll sits back and laughs and laughs. I unblocked Cassianto and TRM (in the vain hope that a case could be avoided), explained to them why FP@S was reverting them, and (although justifiably pissed off about being blocked) no one ever restored it. At the risk of sounding condescending, I'd recommend FP@S chill and let others deal with it for a while. I'm minded of MastCell's Rule #2 (substituting trolling for ignorance). He's rolled his sleeves up and dealt with bucketloads of trolling and POV pushing for years, which most of us are not willing to do. Let's see if maybe we can postpone the "inevitable", or maybe even avoid it. If every Arb said Decline, but FP@S needs to dial it down some, and remember not everyone who doesn't share his approach is an enemy of the encyclopedia, I think the problem might be solved.

Oh, and I strongly support NYB's thoughts. --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:20, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Great. This seems to be taking the least beneficial aspects of my prefered solution (no case, FP@S advised to chill, everyone asked politely to let bygones be bygones, troll slightly disappointed), and a full case (take 21 days to determine what, exactly, was done wrong, end up lecturing everyone involved, solidify the grudges all around, troll happy), and blending them together to form a benefit-free set of motions (no case, inconsistent lecturing based on incomplete evaluation of facts, grudges solidified, troll happy). Fine, if people want to pass wrist-slapping motions, then pass wrist-slapping motions, I guess, both acted suboptimally. But as Dweller says, to oppose one motion because you think there should be a case, but to support the other motion because you think there was some wrongdoing: that's inherently unfair. I need to go back to not watching ArbCom cases. --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:38, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Vanamonde93

I don't frequently comment here, and I'm not directly involved with this situation; the case came to my notice thanks to peripheral involvement with some involved parties. FWIW, I believe this drama to be unproductive, because it is sucking up the energies of editors who are productive, and encouraging those few that are drama-mongers. FPAS' language was sub-optimal, and the blocks more so; I doubt anybody's denying that. So the Arbs should tell them so, and everybody can move on. Perhaps some advice to step back from this set of trolls would not go amiss. User:Darouet made the point at ANI that "I don't understand why the two solutions presented are either "FPAS should not be an admin" or "FPAS is justified in cursing out editors who make mistakes."" What Floquenbeam said above also makes a lot of sense. Vanamonde93 (talk) 16:57, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Samwalton9

I'd like to echo the sentiments above that expecting every user to be so familiar with LTAs that they can identify them from a single post is unreasonable in itself and getting angry and being hostile towards them when they say 'well I didn't know who that was' is definitely over the line. I don't feel like an arbitration case will get this situation anywhere productive, but I would like FP@S to tone it down a bit and stop to think about whether other editors have the same knowledge as them before they type. And while I hope it doesn't need to be said, of course reverting banned user's comments is appropriate. Sam Walton (talk) 16:59, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Robert McClenon

I strongly concur with User:Newyorkbrad that certain editors are sufficiently disruptive that the WMF needs to take legal action against them. Whether or not a full case should be opened by the ArbCom, the ArbCom should formally ask the WMF to take legal action. The ArbCom deals with cases that the community cannot deal with, but there are at least two editors identified above whom neither the community nor the ArbCom can deal with. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:11, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Another Motion Is Needed

I see that the ArbCom is about to close this case by passing two motions admonishing two administrators. Another motion is needed, asking the WMF to pursue legal action against two trolls. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:57, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Resolute

I happened to catch the FPAS/The Rambling Man sub-plot as it happened, and from what I saw there, I would suggest that if you intend to accept this case, you should investigate the actions of both parties. In regards to FPAS, I can buy his argument that the blocks on TRM and Cassianto were not WP:INVOLVED, per se, but I do think they were incredibly poor, as evidenced by the rapid unblock by a third party. However, what preceded that block, with respect to TRM at least, was what I would consider a pretty blatant attempt at baiting. FPAS properly reverted the edit of a banned user on TPM's user talk page (noting the second time that it was from a banned editor) and the two proceeded to revert war over it. At the same time, TRM banned FPAS from his talk page while availing himself of FPAS's talk page for the express purpose of baiting FPAS and threatening to haul him before Arbcom. In the end, and unsurprisingly, TRM was all harassment and no action in this regard. It fell to someone else to file the RFArb. This, ultimately, was a situation where both parties should have behaved a hell of a lot smarter. Reso lute 17:57, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Edit to add that NYB's suggestion has a great deal of merit. It is understandable that WMF wants to distance itself from the day to day actions of the community, but it is well beyond time now for legal to take steps to protect this project. Reso lute 18:02, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Hammersoft

When the case gets accepted, the troll wins. Accept this case and you'll have to do something. You might even strip an administrator or two of their rights. The troll sits back and laughs at his great work, seeing the product of his efforts. Two administrators? All the way to ArbCom? What hysteria they must be feeling. Really ArbCom? Is this what you want to do? Certainly there are issues of civility here, but civility is a forgotten thing on this project. Apply the usual slap on the wrist and walk away. This is simple ArbCom; WP:DFTT. Since you likely can't avert your course now, you could at least close by motion; everyone be civil to each other moving forward, and have a nice day. On the other hand, you could have a full blown case, with reams of evidence, all concluding to one unavoidable conclusion; the troll got you. I'm guessing ArbCom will follow the latter path, never realizing what they've done. I hope I'm wrong. --Hammersoft (talk) 19:14, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@DGG: The point about WP:NPA is well taken. However, ArbCom has repeatedly refused to take up the cause, even recently with blatant racial epithets on the table. Civility/NPA policies are effectively void on this project. There are several administrators who routinely and cavalierly ignore those policies. Yes, I can name a number of them. But, it's pointless to do so; not because something needs to be done about their behavior but because the Civ/NPA policies are so blatantly ignored that doing anything about it becomes a case of selective enforcement. Thus, doing anything about it with respect to particular administrators is abuse of the power of ArbCom, even though ArbCom clearly has remit to handle behavior issues. ArbCom can not take up a case against an administrator over civility/NPA as an attempted pour encourager les autres either; again, it is an abuse of power. You simply can NOT enforce Civ/NPA at this point against a particular administrator without first taking up the cause as an abstract issue, and distribute the findings of fact and remedies to every administrator via their talk pages. If this case were accepted (I doubt at this point it will be) you would have to do so not as a potential forum for action against one or two administrators, but as the described abstract stand moving forward. Since this case won't be accepted, perhaps a motion by ArbCom could be done, and distributed as I mentioned. ArbCom has an opportunity here. Or, they can ignore it and allow the status quo; administrators can insult people and be completely uncivil with abandon. --Hammersoft (talk) 17:10, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I voted in favor of accepting the case, precisely because we ought to consider WP:NPA; this is perhaps not the ideal occasion, but we need to do something about it so greatly, that we should take the opportunity. I can't predict how we would deal with other administrators, but I personally will probably vote for accepting all relevant cases that seem to be substantial. I would even hope that once it is clear we will deal with them, there will be less need for such cases. After that, perhaps the community will then see the wisdom of considering more seriously instances involving editors in general. But even if the community still refuses to deal with it properly for non-admins, admins are held to a higher standard. (Please do not interpret this to indicate how I would vote about possible sanctions on this case or any other; we need to consider the circumstances. A rule like NPA will always be a matter of degree and require judgment. All I am now saying is we need to consider the matter when brought to us. I have just said on another cases PD that I feel that anything brought to us must be considered in the light of the circumstances, and this particular concern would especially need that sort of consideration.) I hope my colleagues will yet decide to take the case, but if they do not, I hope that it might be otherwise for different circumstances. DGG ( talk ) 04:40, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

My hopes of being wrong were not fulfilled. The troll won [16]. ArbCom, this is on you. Even if TRM or FPAS are the most abusive people on Wikipedia ever (NOT saying either is or making any comment whatsoever about either them; just using hyperbole here to make a point), these admonishment motions are flat wrong and have succeeded in fulfilling the troll's highest desire. This was perfect play by the troll; walk in, do something to cause a stir, walk out and watch the fire burn. As I noted before, what you are doing is selective enforcement. The civility/no personal attacks policies are absolutely empty, void of meaning for administrators here. To call out two people who happen to be brought to your attention when there is rampant, blatant abuse happening every day out in the rest of the project shows an almost ostrich-head-in-the-sand approach to your responsibilities here. Shame on you ArbCom. You're just not getting it. Whatever hopes we had of a better ArbCom beginning this year have been absolutely dashed. If you think my comments here in this post are some sort of fandom of TRM you are flat wrong [17]. --Hammersoft (talk) 16:22, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Mangoe

I'm basically in agreement with Floq. WP:DENY isn't license for collateral civility damage. Trolls win on their own terms, so I don't see how accepting this case matters in that wise; if this gets declined with a "tone it down" I'm fine, but I' hate to see established as a default the principle that WP:DENY trumps civility to editors who are not the troll in question. Mangoe (talk) 19:41, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Müdigkeit

This case would be about multiple possible problems. Continuous personal attacks by at least one adminstrator, the problem of persistent trolls, and the allegation of troll support by an adminstrator. The troll problem should not get a case.(If anything, contact legal) In that, the declining arbitrators are correct, in my opinion. WP:DENY, and all that. However, persistent personal attacks by an adminstrator should be dealt with, and as the arbcom is the only body in this wiki authorized to remove adminstrator rights for misconduct, and the case was not opened on a single case of a personal attack(bad enough) but on a supposed pattern of incivility! That alone should not be dismissed. We don't necessarily feed the trolls if we have a case about the behaviour of this admin, but even if... Ignored repeated personal attacks by an adminstrator set a very bad precedent. The tone on this project will certainly not improve if admins are allowed to do that. --Müdigkeit (talk) 21:58, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Darouet

StuRat mistakenly restored a vandal's comment, FP@S mistakenly swore at them. Both should apologize and move on. The biggest drama has come from other editors who've either encouraged FP@S not to apologize, or sought to sanction/desysop them for past grievances. We are the ones who made this environment ripe for a big fight. We can fix it by recognizing the good intentions on both sides, demanding professionalism, and moving on. -Darouet (talk) 22:19, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by IJBall

If you take this case, please look at the actions of both Admins involved. Also be aware that if you don't take the case, it'll be further evidence that Arbcom doesn't take WP:ADMINACCT seriously, and that Admins can get away with bloody murder in terms of conduct violations. I'd be very careful about this being the message that the "new" Arbcom wants to send on their first big case... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 23:45, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Salvio, the "pattern of incivility" is not just on FP@S's part. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 18:00, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Clerks, please don't add me to the notification list for this request either. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 18:02, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by JzG

Newyorkbrad's summary of the issue is excellent and I can't add anything to it other than to echo that this seems unripe for ArbCom.

That said, we do need, as a community, to find a way to document long term abuse without glorifying it. Most of this is now gone per WP:DENY. I would appreciate some ideas on how to do that. Guy (Help!) 00:02, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by RegentsPark

Though I've had my run ins with FPAS with my fair share of invective from him, I generally assume that if he is reverting a banned editor that's exactly what he is doing. FPAS is a reliable repository of institutional memory and we should respect that rather than saddle him/her with the hassle of a long drawn out arb case. It is also worth recognizing that this is a work environment, albeit an unpaid one. Politeness and requests for apologies go only so far in the real world of work and sometimes you just have to swallow your pride and move on. Otherwise our most useful editors and admins will be perpetually bogged down by 'inquiry commissions'. Where is the benefit in that? --regentspark (comment) 04:12, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think Callenac and Kelapstick have the right idea. A reminder to FPAS to tone down the profanity would be useful since we have many young editors here who have not yet had the opportunity to suffer the slings and arrows that RL invariably throws at us. Other than that reminder, it doesn't seem productive to drag out a case. Many a useful editor has left the project rather than face the nit picking of past diffs that these cases invariably dredge up (as this one apparently has started to do). And why should they, there not here to see every nit squeezed out from their extensive edit history and then thrown at their face. Move on quickly is a good adage to follow here and the sooner ~~the~~ a case filer learns that the better. --regentspark (comment) 07:24, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Ihardlythinkso

What does "conduct at a higher standard" for admins mean? How about (from policy WP:ADMINCOND):

Administrators are expected to lead by example and to behave in a respectful, civil manner in their interactions with others.
Administrators should strive to model appropriate standards of courtesy and civility to other editors and to one another.
if an administrator finds that he or she cannot adhere to site policies and remain civil (even toward users exhibiting problematic behavior) while addressing a given issue, then the administrator should bring the issue to a noticeboard or refer it to another administrator to address, rather than potentially compound the problem by poor conduct.

To type "F-bomb"s on a keyboard, then press enter, are deliberate acts/choices/conscious decisions. (They are not "mistakes due to being human".) To be promoted at RfA to admin status carries with it conduct expectations per policy specially for admins. (Am I wrong to think of it as "minimum professional behavior" for admin?) If an admin cannot keep to same (show minimum self-discipline), they have no business continuing to be admin.

Sitush called me "hypocritical". He is too bright to unintentionally misread the simple point. I would be hypocritical if I used "F-bomb"s like FPAS, and I were admin. I am not admin. I would be hypocritical if I used "F-bomb"s like FPAS and FPAS were not admin. But FPAS is admin. My protest re FPAS is re "conduct at a higher standard". Not re civility in general. (I made that clear to Sitush at his Talk, yet he still chose to maintain the misread here at Arb. [How desperate is that? Who is he protecting and why?])

HighInBC responded on my Talk: "There is no rule that says admins or anyone else cannot use naughty words." If using non-humorous "F-bomb"s are not implicitly prohibited by the civility expectations described at WP:ADMINCOND, no matter what the situation, then I'll eat my shirt in an hour without ketchup. HighInBC questioned at ANI whether or not the incivilities from FPAS were "part of a larger pattern". I asked HighInBC if he had read the wlink'd FPAS RfC from 2008, and how much more of a long-term pattern was he looking for? No response. Even after he went to my Talk to "continue the discussion" and I informed him more than once he hadn't replied to my Q. HighInBC also accused me of "hypocrisy" and "sending mixed messages". Apparently he has the same reading difficulty as Sitush above? Again, it is a simple point. [Again, how desperate. Again, who and why.])

What's "hypocritical"/"hypocrisy" here is WP:ADMINCOND (policy) vs. WP practice.

IHTS (talk) 07:43, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Also per Cassianto, FPAS's power abuse: misuse of blocking authority for aggressively executing personal grudges. IHTS (talk) 11:35, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Agree w/ Hasteur. ("ArbCom and admins as a whole appear to be pirouetting on the top of a needle to try and justify a strongly worded warning/stipping of privileges.") Jimbo proposed a solution to the problem of abusive admins: make adminship "easier to get and easier to lose". (Arbcom thinks the opposite?!) IHTS (talk) 17:47, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Per Carcharoth, and the same iteration of bullying intimidation was done to me here: User talk:Ihardlythinkso#Final warning. IHTS (talk) 04:26, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It is really clear the respect FPAS has for the admonishment being prepared -- see how he unnecessarily puts the word in quotes (i.e., "admonishments", not: admonishments). I would like someone to review his behavior at User talk:Ihardlythinkso#Final warning, but so far no one will. (Future Perfect at Sunrise, do you think I s/b admonished also!?) p.s. to Arbcom: Salvio is right, an admonishment on top of a previous admonishment makes no sense. IHTS (talk) 19:02, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Masem: re find a way to engage the community into a discussion that stresses the need for civil conversation and the "lead by example" approach for admins. Um, that discussion & consensus has already been had, resulting in policy WP:ADMINACCT (especially WP:ADMINCOND). IHTS (talk) 18:57, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Future Perfect at Sunrise: re your oversimple A, B, & C scenario and implied personal attack (If C has a brain and a sense of human decency, he will easily recognize the game for what it is, and immediately remove the banned user's posting themselves), if editor C has no experiences or knowledge re user A, other than the idea that user A seems to have some grievance(s) re administrator B, but editor C does have several negative experiences re administrator B (including being on receiving end of a two-week bogus & abusive revenge-block), um, who would editor C reasonably feel has more credibility when administrator B reverts said grievences post from editor C's Talk -- editor A or administrator B? (Duh let me think.) IHTS (talk) 20:43, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Deryck

As an admin myself, I think FPAS overstepped the mark when he blocked an editor involved in the controversy ~~without warning~~ for restoring the banned editor's comment.It seems that the sequence of events isn't as simple as I thought. My apologies for mis-representations. His telling others to "fuck off" from his user talk isn't up to the expected behavioral standard of an admin either. FPAS deserves a trout slap for that and should apologise to the affected editors.

However, we should bear in mind that FPAS is the target of some rather intense trolling and hounding here. He should rightly be defensive and harsh in his response. The trolls win if we pass any formal sanction against him and I don't want to see that happen. Der yck C. 11:58, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by MLauba

I believe by the time an admin loses so much sense of perspective over IP trolling that he starts hurling abuse and blocks on wikipedians in good standing, the IP trolls have already reaped their victory. This could be solved by a simple motion strongly advising FP@S to step back from enforcing these cases when he loses it, adding a two-way IB between him and TRM for good measure. As arbs keep stressing in many cases, "he made me do it" is no excuse. MLauba ^(Talk) 14:10, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Clerks, please don't add me to the notification list for this request. MLauba ^(Talk) 14:11, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Dennis Brown

Salvio giuliano et al.: FPaS can be too harsh at times and probably needs to back off a bit and do some other activities that are less frustrating, but if you accept a case based purely on "civility", you will likely rue the day you did. We can't even agree on what civility means for editors, so we have nothing to compare it to for a "higher standard", unless it actually ventures into WP:NPA. I'm not saying this excuses the thinly veiled comment by FPaS, which I think was slightly over the line, nor am I excusing or commenting on other aspects. Looking at this from a purely pragmatic perspective, it is unlikely anything good would come from an admin civility case. Nothing good ever comes from editor civility cases, for that matter. Without a clear violation of WP:ADMINACCT or repeated violations of WP:NPA, you are setting yourself up for a situation where you will draw a lot of blood and the end result will be nothing or at worst, admonishment. And you would be putting out, and putting off, a good number of people in the process. You don't need a case to make some kind of statement, should you find something worth saying as a group. You can always pass a motion for that statement. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 18:22, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Callanecc, I think that is the most sensible and measured response. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 09:57, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Kirill Lokshin: Per Dweller and Floquenbeam, all I can say is wtf. At a minimum, it looks very odd to see you support/oppose without adequate explanation. If you are going to hand out wrist slaps (arguably a best solution), then at least be fair enough to hand them out evenly. Certainly you've seen the same evidence the rest of us have. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 18:20, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by NE Ent

I personally have the rather quaint notion that each individual should be responsible for their own actions, regardless. Putting aside the trolling stuff (best ignored), I sincerely hope Arbcom 2016 takes a stand on WP:ADMINACCT and addresses FPaS's behavior. Just because dealing with civility issues is difficult doesn't mean it should be done. In this context, addresses might mean admonishment or at least a good talking to in decline comments, if ya'll choose to go that route.

A prior example of FPaS showing poor judgement and escalating a situation can be found here here ,talk page request and AN discussion, in which FPaS extended an interaction ban block when the editor responded to another admin's question, the extension being reverted per consensus at AN. NE Ent 19:19, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Newyorkbrad: I've used "WP:BANREVERT" without any fuss for a while now. NE Ent 18:47, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Case (not motion) time: if you're an arbitration committee, you decide cases, It's What You Do. NE Ent 23:11, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Davey2010

I agree FPAS shouldn't tell editors in good standing to fuck off and he clearly shouldn't of blocked TRM & Cass but to be totally honest I don't think FPAS's the problem here .... It's the trolls that are the actual issue...., Whether this gets accepted or declined either way the troll wins, FPAS deserves a trout & that's it IMHO. –Davey2010^Talk 19:54, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Cryptic

I feel like a dolt for bringing this up, because I don't think the case should be accepted and because I have more respect for FPAS than I know what to do with... but the committee just summarily desysopped Malik Shabazz a couple months ago for similar invective, and the proffered excuse was that it was because it wasn't part of a pattern of such behavior. Hard cases and bad law and so on, but this seems like a poor message to be sending out. —Cryptic 01:21, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That was done by 5 members of the committee and in my opinion a mistake. It wasn't done because of the invective however. Doug Weller talk 17:27, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Alanscottwalker

It seems it actually is a bad idea not to accept this case. Not to hand out punishment, although some admonishment or worse may well result, but because everyone says there is a long-term, long running, intractable problem with "troll" response, which obviously is a sine qua non conduct problem, crying out for remedy right in Arbcom's, and no one else's, bailiwick. The community needs binding guidance and you're the ones who ran to do this job - as for this case feeding the trolls, the trolls have already been well fed and will keep being well fed, when the wiki throws-up its hands and says we can't figure out any way to deal with it within our policies (because the alternative looks exactly like, 'let's leave it to no-holds-barred cage matches between established editors and admins - ie., troll city thunderdome'), and we won't get even a well considered attempt to break the back of it from the very committee we elected to give us just that.

Now perhaps, you could craft a comprehensive motion on all this but chances are it won't be as comprehensive as a case. At any rate, don't let this case request slide-off into the archives without at least a motion of some kind. Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:30, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Hasteur

I only wish to chime in about the "Super Mario" problem that we're having to reconsider, yet again. If it had been any editor who didn't have Admin privileges making the statements that have been attested to, they would have been blocked for an extended period of time citing NPA/NOTHERE. Now that there is an admin of reasonable beloved-ness on the dock, ArbCom and admins as a whole appear to be pirouetting on the top of a needle to try and justify a strongly worded warning/stipping of privileges. This hand wringing only furthers the belief by some administrators that they can be abusive to editors short of commuting one of the cardinal admin sins and get away with a slap on the wrist. Based on the statements above it there is reasonable previous occurances where FPAS was warned about their conduct I think it's only right to revoke the admin privileges and require them to pass a new RFA should they wish to regain them. Hasteur (talk) 13:32, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Clerks, I firmly assert that I do not want to be added to the case proceedings list should this be accepted. I assert that if I receive a case notice, I will trout the clerk who added my name to the notice list for failure to read the statements. Hasteur (talk) 13:32, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wonderful... We've now had a reinforcement of Godwin's Law. I strongly suggest that certain editors refactor their commentary (especially with respect to other editors) lest an Administrator hand out some NPA blocks to encourage people to behave themselves. Hasteur (talk) 00:32, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom clerks have involuntarily removed the Personal Attacks and Godwin's Law invocation, though I strongly suggest that the editors who initially made the statements be formally admonished for the lack of adherence to the 5 pillars and ArbCom standards for behavior. Hasteur (talk) 14:40, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Panyd

I seriously don't understand why every time an administrator is brought up here for gross incivility we just decide to throw the five pillars out the window. Is there some secret rule book nobody handed me when I passed RfA? Administrators getting a pass for telling another user to fuck off does a hell of a lot more damage to the project than trolls can ever do. Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 21:11, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by The ed17

What Panyd said. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 21:30, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Carcharoth

Seeing this request reminded me of an earlier similar set of circumstances involving Future Perfect at Sunrise and another editor (User:Kww). The resulting discussion (from July 2014) can be seen at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Δ/Werieth. See my comment there at 15:53, 5 July 2014, and the following thread of 12 indented comments ending with FPAS saying he found my attitude 'morally repulsive'. That whole thing blew up because FPAS blocked User:Andy Dingley for harassment. I am not sure if that was ever looked at properly at the time, but if this is the same pattern repeating again, then maybe that is something ArbCom should look at. The same schism in the community between blind reversion of banned users and consideration of what is being reverted can be seen here. ArbCom will likely have to take a case about some aspect of this at some point. Carcharoth (talk) 23:12, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If I may, one of the points being missed in all this is that the troll(s) feeding on all this are doing so because they are being given too much attention. Paradoxically, having admins that are a bit heavy-handed/overworked/stressed dealing with this feeds the trolls even more. Spreading the workload, and knowing when it is best to just ignore (non-harassing) trolling (not 'revert, block, ignore', but just 'ignore') is sometimes the best way (nothing feeds a troll more than the feeling that they have admins running around after them trying to revert and block them incessantly and getting frustrated as it doesn't work). The other point is that if arbs are having extended discussions on the mailing list, then you really need to have a case rather than trying to thrash out motions. Carcharoth (talk) 23:52, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by SSTflyer

It does not matter how difficult the tasks done by administrators are. Telling other editors to fuck off is unacceptable conduct from an admin, period. sst ✈ 00:10, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Dank

The level of community interest and indignation in this case seems to be high. That alone suggests that it would be a good idea for Arbcom to take some kind of effective action, either by motion or by taking the case, to keep people from taking the law into their own hands. - Dank (push to talk) 02:01, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No notifications, please. - Dank (push to talk)

Statement by Leaky Caldron

Disappointing but not entirely unexpected backsliding by the new AC. Might as well pick names out of the hat rather than going through a 2 month election because frankly, the majority of this AC doesn't recognise what is and isn't acceptable when Admin accountability is under scrutiny. Leaky Caldron 07:22, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Omnishambles. Leaky Caldron 19:08, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Sir Joseph

I think this case should be accepted and harsh punishments should be on the table. One issue I have with Wikipedia and I see it all the time and I based my votes for Arbcom, is that admins are treated differently than regular editors. They should not be. Simple as that. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 19:45, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Cla68

Hasn't Future Perfect at Sunrise been stripped of admin status before for misconduct? Cla68 (talk) 20:05, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Link to prove this happened: [18]

Statement by Kww

And, once again, The Rambling Man is (Personal attack removed) and it's the admin that tries to take care of the problem that gets the flak. Kww(talk) 22:00, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What Kirill said: a block being summarily reversed by another admin doesn't make the original block a "bad block". Kirill didn't say it, but a block being reversed by Floquenbeam without discussion is simply a sign that Floquenbean disagreed with the block.—Kww(talk) 21:16, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Pldx1

Someone wrote somewhere:
when dealing with the cases that escalated to Arbcom, a clear distinction should be done between the case of someone turning amok once (due to harassment or to any other burning-out context) and the case of a long term warrior refusing to cool down despite the n-th chances given (with a large n). In the first case, a long presence should be held as attenuating (the longer was the presence, the more were the occasions for burning-out). In the second one, a longer presence should be held as aggravating (the longer was the presence, the more were the occasions for learning policies and cooperation).
I stick to this statement. Pldx1 (talk) 10:07, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by SemanticMantis

I'm not sure if I'm directly involved in this dispute or not, but I post here for the record that I think FPAS has been making WP:POINTY removals at my talk page. Diff here [19], see my page for context. I had already politely asked FPAS to leave comments on my page alone. This all began when I'd politely asked him about his long-term semi-protection of the ref desks, which I see as disruptive. He's now cleared out some of my (civil, good faith) comments on his talk page, which seems defensive and evasive to me. SemanticMantis (talk) 16:03, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by GoodDay

IMHO, Arbcom should reject this case request. They (or whoever's suppose to) should concentrate on dealing with Vote (X) for Change & his continuing evasion of his ban. It's highly likely that VXoC is getting a huge kick out of the commotion he's caused. GoodDay (talk) 16:13, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Jehochman

I don't think an admonishment is going to solve this problem.[20] Everybody's here and the case is on the table. Best that you deal with it now or else problems will just continue to fester. Jehochman ^Talk 22:28, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Jusdafax

The admonishment of TRM was entirely proper and long overdue. I speak only as someone who has suffered for years from incivility and bullying from this admin at WP:ITN. I know nothing whatsoever about the other parties to this case request or the incident itself. Given that TRM has retired in a huff per WP:DIVA, I suggest this case request be closed and we move on. My thanks to the Arbs for taking decisive action. Jus da fax 00:12, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Request from RexxS

No matter what else happens here, I suggest in the strongest possible terms that you do not accept polemic like "If C has a brain and a sense of human decency ..." in the evidence brought before ArbCom. That is clearly aimed at TRM, and is an unambiguous personal attack. Are this ArbCom and their clerks going to set some standard for acceptable behaviour in this forum or not? You should be ashamed that you have left such an attack on this page for almost a week now. How on earth do you expect to retain the confidence of the community when sanctioning editors when you don't even seem willing to enforce a clear pillar of Wikipedia? --RexxS (talk) 02:56, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Masem

I don't think ArbCom should take this case:

That FPaS is being hounded by trolls is nothing that ArbCom can actually deal with (or have done what they can through indef ban), as suggested this is at a point where the WMF needs to take action to legally block the user.
That TRM restored a comment from that troll without apparent knowledge of the history with FPaS, and FPaS' subsequent block for the revision, are all trout-level actions, taken in isolation, and again not at a level ArbCom should be engaging at.

What is necessary is a community-wide, serious discussion on the nature of civility, admins, and the so-called "untouchables", with oversight on the discussion provided by ArbCom or neutral editors they deem appropriate to guide the conversation. There is no excuse for the level of verbal discourse that many of the parties, as well as throughout the rest of the work, use and then take offense when they are called out on the level of incivility. For example, I can understand the frustration at dealing with trolls as FPaS clearly has done. But at the same time, as we communicate here through typewritten words, and not by oral statements made off-the-cuff, every editor has the opportunity to think over what they say before they hit the "submit" button, thus making almost no excuse for an incivil post (though we are all human and do make the occasional slip/mistake, and we do have off-days as well.) It's the long-term pattern here that is worrisome. When that happens repeatedly with the same editors, regardless of their standing in the community, that's long-term disruption, even if one wants to try to outweigh that with volumes of contributions or other circumstances. And when those editors are admins, who are meant to be model editors because they've been given the mop, that's even worse.

In this specific instance, it seems that all that was needed was calm communication from FPaS to tell TRM and others "hey, this is a known troll per (link), please don't engage with them". We wouldn't be here if that happened.

And I know there's been discussion about this before at AN and other venues, but really we need a real discussion and to make it clear that everyone, even the most valuable contributors, are expected to maintain a collaborative environment. Being a long-term valuable contributor should not confer special rights to be uncivil over a prolonged period that we would normally enforce if the same came from newer editors. Thus, while I don't think ArbCom should take the case, I think they need to find a way to engage the community into a discussion that stresses the need for civil conversation and the "lead by example" approach for admins. --MASEM (t) 16:35, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Ihardlythinkso: While that might exist, it is clear it is being unheeded and/or perhaps ignored by numerous editors and admins alike, which is why we are here at this Case. Particularly when considering the idea of "untouchables". --MASEM (t) 19:39, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Kingsindian

ArbCom shouldn't take this case unless they are bored. Reverting a troll is good. The decision could have been communicated better and tempers less inflamed, but ArbCom should refrain from passing useless admonishments. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 08:00, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Stifle

This is the 51st statement. :-)

[With hypocritical tongue firmly in cheek, anyone else commenting would be well advised to consider very carefully whether their comment is going to add light rather than heat.] Stifle (talk) 14:38, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

State of mind of Beyond My Ken

{Regarding the motions below:) Transparency in governance is highly overrated. I love sausages, but generally don't want to worry all that much about what goes into them. If it wasn't guaranteed to get people geschreying about "cabals" and such, I'd be tempted to suggest that ArbCom take some of their decisions to a back room closed to the Wiki-public. (Whether or not filled with cigar smoke is up to the Arbs.) BMK (talk) 06:15, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk notes

This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).

Future Perfect at Sunrise: Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter <6/7/0/1>

Vote key: (Accept/decline/recuse/other)

Accept I think there is something here for us to look at --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 13:31, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Accept. The other claims of misconduct aside, the allegation that administrators are enabling harassment by a banned user—unintentionally or otherwise—is deeply concerning and warrants further investigation. Kirill Lokshin (talk) 15:13, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- @Dweller and Dennis Brown: I opposed the first motion because I disagree with (some of) it in substance, not because I think we ought to have had a full case instead. Perhaps you have me confused with DGG (who did oppose the motion for the reason you mention)? Kirill Lokshin (talk) 00:03, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Accept. Gamaliel (talk) 17:38, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Decline. I thought this case could be used to clarify some issues of policy and appropriate behavior, but I fear the damage done, including to the involved parties, will far outweigh this case's value in that respect. I am now convinced this will become, as Opabinia regalis suggests, "an all-you-can-eat troll buffet" and nothing will be served by rehashing an incident that none of the involved parties is likely to repeat. Gamaliel (talk) 22:35, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Decline. Keilana (talk) 18:35, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Having been asked to explain further, the drama and hand-wringing this case will inevitably create is not worth the limited potential it has to solve the root problem. I agree with Opabinia that the most effective solution here would be to have a motion along what Cas has proposed. Keilana (talk) 00:22, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Decline but we do need to deal with these trolls. I agree that we should see if the WMF can do anything. I might accept a case request that focussed only on the troll problem, but that's not what this request is about. Ok, it would be a good idea if FPS toned it down a notch, but he's also been doing a lot of the heavy lifting and should be thanked for that. Hammersoft is right, if we accept this, the troll wins. Doug Weller talk 20:10, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Decline. This is like an all-you-can-eat troll buffet. If we get ourselves so tied up in knots about responding to trolls that we need arbcom to untangle the mess, isn't that just putting a big collective "Kick Me" sign on our backs? I do think it would be good if FPaS took a step back from dealing with these particularly frustrating trolls, and if others treated unsolicited talk-page rants about third parties with due caution, especially by not reinstating reverted potentially-disruptive material without discussion. Meanwhile, as for the troll problem, we can explore legal options for particularly egregious cases, but it would also be good for the community to work out a more effective way of sharing knowledge about long-term abuse without unduly publicizing the issue. Opabinia regalis (talk) 20:48, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@QEDK: Thanks for following up. Reading your links, though, the most recent before the current incident is from August 2015, and most are much older. And while there is undoubtedly poor judgment in the current incident, which people are right to be upset about - it is happening in the context of persistent trolling, harassment, and abuse, some of which was bad enough to need suppression. That reinforces my view that the way forward is for FPaS to step back and the rest of us to step up in handling the troll issue; if there are then ongoing behavior concerns, I'd be inclined to accept a differently framed case later. Though I don't have time to write one right now, I think Cas' idea of a motion to that effect has merit. Opabinia regalis (talk) 21:32, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ivanvector and others, hold your horses, as my mother would say; we're still discussing things :) And yesterday was Martin Luther King Day, so this was a long real-life-ful weekend for some of us in the US. Opabinia regalis (talk) 21:03, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This incident is hardly worth a month of everyone's time to get to the result that everyone needs to cool it down some. But as there are some people hinting at it, I'm going to ask for direct evidence (and not handwaves towards it): Is there an ongoing issue? Is there some sort of definable pattern here of misconduct to address rather than one sorry incident in which (other than Floquenbeam) everyone made a mess of? Courcelles (talk) 22:33, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Accept as a preference to the trio of motions (or any motion I can think of), though I am also fine with a general round of trouts and moving on. If we want to make any investigation into the underlying issues a case is better than motions (though not for sanctioning either FPaS or TRM, surely this whole theater is admonishment enough?) Courcelles (talk) 02:22, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I see my most learned colleagues argue that this incident does not rise to the level of warranting a case and, therefore, this request should be denied. I disagree in part: this case alleges a pattern of incivility on FPaS' part which extends beyond this incident.
Now, ArbCom has frequently repeated that administrators are held to higher standards and policy reflects this. Then again, looking at precedent, I can't find a case where an administrator was ever desysopped solely on account of his uncivil conduct, while, by contrast, all previous cases dealing with the civility policy have turned out to be useless and messy time sinks... So, I'm still on the fence. To help me make up my mind, is there any evidence that FPaS has ever abused or misused his tools before this incident, or would a case focus only on his incivility? $Salvio$ ^{Let's talk about it!} 11:39, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- In light of the previous admonishment and the evidence that this is not a one-off occurrence, but rather a longstanding problem with FPaS' approach to other users, accept. $Salvio$ ^{Let's talk about it!} 10:47, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Decline (but only just) - the use of inflammatory language by an admin threatening a block against a productive and established editor who appears to have lost their temper, or is known to have a short temper, is a real problem. However, given how the whole situation has been ignited by an IP it shows how easily someone can troll and 'scalp' multiple editors at a time when there is real concern about the dropoff of experienced editors here and FPAS' working in the trenches in difficult areas where one can get quite frustrated (to put it mildly), then it is not in the interests of the wikipedia to tie us all in accepting a case. So, my plan would be (1) work with anyone familiar with the IP to send a request up the line to WMF legal to see what can be done, and (2) advise FPAS that use of inflammatory tone or language when acting in an admin role is really not on and that further instances will result in a case if a party requests it. In fact, I think this second is worth a motion. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:08, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@The Rambling Man:, @Future Perfect at Sunrise:, I realise you both edit in difficult areas and get frustrated. Alot. And because of this I feel that the project is better off with you as admins doing difficult work and that sometimes you lose your tempers. And from what I have read I am happy as a human and not a robot to see this blow up as part of a loss of temper by folks dedicated to improving the project, and move on. But you both need to think before putting fingers to keyboard in future. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 19:43, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Accept on the basis that we need to clarify WP:NPA: whether the use of such language is a cause for action, either even if it's a one-time event, or only if it is used repeatedly, and whether it matters if it is only used towards trolls, or whether it is used to good faith editors. There are indeed other admins who do similarly at times, and I would not want to come down drastically one person for a example to the others, but it is time we made a stand. It is in the interest of the WP for us to do this, and the surrounding circumstances are not to the point. This may not be the ideal case for it, but that is not relevant. We can't craft cases to our needs, or deal with hypothetical cases, but must take them as they come. DGG ( talk ) 05:01, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Kelapstic: I am not proposing we develop a "bright line rule"; I think this is a matter where the individual cases will always need individual judgement, and we're the ones whose role it is to do that. DGG ( talk ) 19:15, 18 January 2016 (UTC) .[reply]

Decline From what I see here we have two issues, one is the blocks, which I am viewing as a one-off event. The second is (a longer term) proficient use of profanity, leaning towards incivility (which is a broadly interpreted concept). So what we have is a long-term, hard working (in difficult areas), cranky administrator, who is prone to drop F-bombs and being short tempered (even towards long-term editors in good standing). I believe, as Cas recommends, that we can instruct FPaS via motion to gear down on the profanity and tone, with the understanding that a full case will come out in future if things don't change. While I also am sympathetic to DGG's desire to clarify NPA with regards to this, I don't think ArbCom is in the position to generate an all encompassing bright-line rule with regards to what does and does not constitute a personal attack. --kelapstick^(bainuu) 20:09, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- @The Rambling Man:, I appreciate your position (and I am not debating the merit of the blocks, as I don't believe they had any merit). I believe they are secondary to the main issue that is being brought up here however (you being the recipient of one of them will probably differ in opinion on what is primary and what is secondary), and I think we should try to fix the problem before hanging people from the yardarms. --kelapstick^(bainuu) 20:27, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Deal with by motion (decline a case) There are two issues here, the first is the blocks and the second is the longer term use of profanity and incivil responses. Given that FPAS does hard work in a very difficult area I see no need to drag everyone through a case. While I do want to pay due attention to DENY, in this request there is obvious evidence that FPAS has misused the block button while involved (you don't have an edit warring exemption when you're reverting someone else who has taken responsibility for the edit, ie "it's my talkpage, and I've already replied"). A motion admonishing FPAS for blocking while involved in an edit war on that user's talk page (proxying is not against policy and edit warring with someone on their talk page is a no go) and for the use of profanity and incivility. Given we also have incivility from TRM which was uncalled for ([21] [22] [23]) so I believe an admonishment of them too for incivility is appropriate. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 00:54, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- I'll propose a motion tomorrow after others have had a chance to catch up and work out whether they agree or not. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 04:51, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - We're currently discussing the motion, should be up tomorrow. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 11:00, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Decline a full case. Callanecc's motion deserves consideration. It is clear that FPaS was more uncivil than was called for--and I forgot who mentioned it, but I also think that "troll" is much worse than "fuck off"--and I suppose it is up to us to make a statement about that. At the same time, the personal attacks in here indicate that the incivility came from at least one other person as well. I am not convinced that the block was abusive and a clear violation of INVOLVED, though it certainly was unwise; then again, who else would make this difficult block in this case, even if they thought it was the right thing to do? Because lest there be doubt about this, the IP's post was unacceptable and restoring or tacitly endorsing it is unacceptable. Then again, FPaS, if you cannot explain this better, you should probably stay away from enforcing policy when other editors have become involved--I've only recently become acquainted with X, and would need an explanation as well.
This request touches on a number of problems we have here. The supposed immunity of admins, the supposed inability of all of us to deal with what some consider to be admin abuse, the butting of heads between admins... But I do not believe ArbCom should take up the case of defining civility until the community gives it a better shot, and that's really what was at the heart of the complaint, IMO; I do not think this should be the test case, for reasons outlined above by some of my colleagues. Drmies (talk) 20:08, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment We seem to be holding pretty much of a full case right here. It might be fairer to use the formal procedure for one. DGG ( talk ) 01:08, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Accept. Although I respect the suggestions that a case would only encourage trolls, I think this whole mess here has probably already accomplished that anyway. With allegations of misconduct against two administrators, and concerns about the enforcement and interpretation of the civility policies, I don't think we can adequately handle this case by motion. GorillaWarfare (talk) 05:10, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Motion: Future Perfect at Sunrise admonished

For this motion there are 14 active arbitrators. With 0 arbitrators abstaining, 8 support or oppose votes are a majority.

Future Perfect at Sunrise (talk · contribs) is admonished for incivility, making personal attacks and using inflammatory language ([24], [25], [26]). Future Perfect at Sunrise is reminded that when they revert other editors for reasons other than obvious vandalism, they should make clear in their edit summary the reason they are reverting. This is especially important when relying on an exemption to the edit warring policy. Generally, when a revert has been reversed, editors should engage in discussion about the matter rather than continue to revert each other. In this instance the Arbitration Committee recognises that Future Perfect at Sunrise was reverting harassment; best practice, however, would have been to explain that fact in the edit summary and on The Rambling Man's talk page. When an administrator is performing such actions, administrative tools should be used sparingly and instead deferred to another administrator when possible. Future Perfect at Sunrise is advised that instances of misconduct involving incivility or administrative tools will likely result in sanctions, which may include a desysop.

Support

~~Proposed. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 06:56, 20 January 2016 (UTC)~~[reply]

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 09:20, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Gamaliel (talk) 15:44, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Words are always better, and more better words more better. Drmies (talk) 16:10, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keilana (talk) 17:49, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Withdrawing support in favor of integrated version below. With the note that we'll also look into the troll issue. I disagree with Salvio that the 2009 admonishment warrants additional action in 2016. It would be conceptually neat and tidy to say here that restoring harassment necessitates complicity in it, but I think we have to recognize that this is a large community where not everyone is familiar with the habits of every known troll, and not all harassment is obviously so at first glance. We expect the community to be supportive of those dealing with harassment problems, but we also hope that the standards of communication on the matter will improve, because what has happened in this situation is a lot of unnecessary frustration on the part of otherwise productive and valuable contributors. Opabinia regalis (talk) 19:55, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

When an editor has been admonished for incivility (and temporarily desysopped for other violations), we should not admonish again, especially when there is evidence, as in this case, that the editor in question has not taken the previous admonishment on board. In addition, I disagree with the advice we are giving, namely that generally, when a revert has been reversed, editors should engage in discussion about the matter rather than continue to revert each other, for it goes against established policy and is unwise, when directed towards editors removing harmful edits. In these cases, yes, a heads up to the other user is appropriate, but so is continuing to remove the offending material. I also disagree with the implications of when an administrator is performing such actions, administrative tools should be used sparingly and instead deferred to another administrator when possible. We should be encouraging admins to act when they notice harassment or other seriously harmful edits (although they should always remain civil). $Salvio$ ^{Let's talk about it!} 10:28, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Salvio about the problems with the advice in the motion. Of the 3 links given, one is a 7 year old link involving nationalist POV pushing and the 3rd link, to his statement in this case, seems to use much milder language than I often see both in cases and elsewhere. The January 16th link does show a loss of temper. My opinion on ~~reverting~~ restoring harassment by a banned user is that this should never be done, and if it is done amounts to harassment by the editor reinstating the edit. Doug Weller talk 16:31, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
per Salvio --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 17:37, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It would have been fairer to hear the case properly. I am not saying whether or not I agree with the conclusion, but I will not support action taken in this manner. DGG ( talk ) 19:12, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Per Doug. Kirill Lokshin (talk) 23:40, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Per much of the above, and the opinion that if we're going to look into this at all, a case is the manner to do it. Courcelles (talk) 14:26, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
We need to handle this in a full case. GorillaWarfare (talk) 05:11, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain

Comments by arbitrators

I have to agree with Dougweller's comments on the second and third diff. It's the first one that I find very problematic. Drmies (talk) 19:00, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The third diff is the one that contains If C has a brain and a sense of human decency... (where "C" = TRM). Milder language, yes, but personal attacks can be made very effectively with mild language. Opabinia regalis (talk) 19:55, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
And the second diff was primarily there to show that there is a pattern, though in hindsight it would probably be better to change it to a link to the Macedonia case. Opinions? @Kirill Lokshin and Doug Weller: in particular. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 01:20, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

While I was going to support this, Salivo's comments are giving me pause on the matter. In my mind, FPaS needs to:

Tone down the language. Seriously. The first diff in the motion is a prime example, and is grossly inappropriate.
When someone makes a reversion that re-adds a harmful edit, revert the edit, and explain to the user why it was harmful. On their talk page, not in an edit summary.
Only block when #2 does not have any effect.

I believe that was the intent of the motion, but I don't think it's coming through this way. Salvio is correct, we cannot hamstring an administrator's ability to remove harassment and the like, by saying that they should use tools sparingly. However when dealing with a long established editor, some form of explanation to them about why the edits are inappropriate is warranted, rather than blocking first and asking questions later. --kelapstick^(bainuu) 20:18, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Substitute "cautiously"? "Judiciously"? Gerda's talk before you block? Opabinia regalis (talk) 21:32, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm thinking of some ideas for a version I can support. Dweller, you ask " If an admin turned up on my user talk and did..." but that isn't actually what happened. TRM and Mandruss were reverting each other at the reference desk and FPaS gave them both block warnings, saying "The behaviour of both of you at Wikipedia talk:Reference desk is unacceptable. If any of this continues, I'll block both of you". TRM then made the first two comments in the diffs in the motion about him, the IP troll showed up, TRM replied, and then FPaS reverted. I don't know if you see that context as relevant, but FPaS didn't just show up out of the blue. Doug Weller talk 13:54, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Motion: The Rambling Man admonished

For this motion there are 13 active arbitrators, not counting 1 recused. With 0 arbitrators abstaining, 7 support or oppose votes are a majority.

The Rambling Man (talk · contribs) is admonished for incivility and using inflammatory language ([27], [28], [29]). The Rambling Man is reminded that the banning policy states that "editors who reinstate edits made by a banned editor take complete responsibility for the content". In this instance the edits being reinstated were, on close inspection, examples of harassment; The Rambling Man should exercise caution when reinstating edits in the future and should never restore material that contains harassment of other editors. The Rambling Man is advised that instances of incivility or inflammatory language may result in sanctions.

Support

~~Proposed. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 06:56, 20 January 2016 (UTC)~~[reply]

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 09:20, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Gamaliel (talk) 15:44, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is a mild admonishment given the nature of the posts, whose reinstatement was unprofessional and uncollegial. Drmies (talk) 16:11, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keilana (talk) 17:51, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

kelapstick^(bainuu) 19:49, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kirill Lokshin (talk) 23:41, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

It would have been fairer to hear the case properly. I am not saying whether or not I agree with the conclusion, but I will not support action taken in this manner. DGG ( talk ) 19:12, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I support a case that will look into best practices, but not admonishing motions. Courcelles (talk) 14:33, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

We need to handle this in a full case. GorillaWarfare (talk) 05:11, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain

--Guerillero | Parlez Moi 17:58, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comments by arbitrators

I think this should say TRM should never restore harassment. Doug Weller talk 16:32, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Doug, good point. We're asking FPaS to talk before removing; the onus really should be on the one who restores in the first place. That the post was uncivil/unfriendly/etc was plain at first sight, and while I would not want to ascribe motive for its restoration, at the very least it was done carelessly. I would not mind a tweak, if Callanecc, Casliber, Gamaliel are in agreement. Drmies (talk) 16:37, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. Gamaliel (talk) 17:37, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 19:30, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Agree, and I've removed the underline. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 01:19, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'd taken that as implied, but proposed an addition here. Since the 7th vote is a majority, I guess I'll hold off for now till Callanecc in particular has a chance to look. So, conditional future support :) Opabinia regalis (talk) 20:03, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There's a discussion on my talk page (which I keep saying belongs here, not on my talk page) where TRM says " I have never intentionally restored edits to harass a specific editor. I restored two edits (one of them my own) on my own talkpage, neither of which had any overt appearance of "harassment"." I'm not sure about the last bit, ie the IP's post. I'll offer GF about his never intentionally restoring harassment. Doug Weller talk 21:15, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This came up on in the mailing list discussion, the result of discussion being that it was unlikely TRM knew it was harassment (given it was buried links in). But I don't have a major objection to including that bit. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 22:48, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Carcharoth: the discussions on the mailing list, were mainly because, for the majority of us, this our first motion and we/I didn't have something to base it on (like amending a prior decision). So the discussions were, for the most part, word-smithing. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 00:03, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In my view it amounted to much more than wordsmithing. The important part was an exchange of views about whether a desysop was justified. As the votes above indicate, opinions differed. DGG ( talk ) 05:50, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
~~Motion: Future Perfect at Sunrise case request, integrated version~~
~~For this motion there are 13 active arbitrators, not counting 1 recused. With 0 arbitrators abstaining, 7 support or oppose votes are a majority.~~
Majority reference
Abstentions Support votes needed for majority

0–1 7

2–3 6

4–5 5

The case request centers on a series of actions arising from persistent harassing behavior by sockpuppets of a banned user, Vote (X) for Change (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). In response to this case request:
The Committee will communicate with the Foundation regarding legal options for long-term abuse cases.

The Committee recommends that the community develop best practices for communication among editors handling harassing material, noting the fact that many editors in good standing may be unfamiliar with specific known abusers and their activities.

The Committee notes that Future Perfect at Sunrise (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has used uncivil and inflammatory language and made personal attacks during the course of this dispute ([30], [31], [32]). In addition, Future Perfect at Sunrise blocked two editors ([33], [34]) who, knowingly or not, restored harassing posts which he had previously removed. These blocks were made without sufficiently clear communication about his reasoning for removing the posts (e.g., [35], [36]). The two blocks were quickly reversed by another administrator ([37], [38]). Future Perfect at Sunrise was previously admonished for uncivil behavior in a 2009 case. He is advised that future similar conduct may result in sanctions, which may include a desysop.

The Committee notes that The Rambling Man (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has used uncivil and inflammatory language and made personal attacks during the course of this dispute ([39], [40], [41]). He is advised that future similar conduct may result in sanctions. Noting that The Rambling Man has retired during the course of this request, his return to his usual productive content work would be welcomed.

A full case is declined.
Enacted-Miniapolis 17:03, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support

As proposer. Opabinia regalis (talk) 23:19, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Per discussion below. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 03:02, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Gamaliel (talk) 03:13, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

in a nutshell Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 05:33, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Doug Weller talk 16:13, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

kelapstick^(bainuu) 13:08, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I still support this. Drmies (talk) 15:25, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose

We shouldn't conflate Future Perfect at Sunrise's incivility with the broader question of whether the various administrative actions in this case were correct; [42] seems sufficiently clear to me, and I am unconvinced that the blocks were necessarily "unwise" merely because they were reversed (particularly given that they were reversed in violation of the policy requirement for "discussion with the administrator whose action is challenged"). Kirill Lokshin (talk) 00:21, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately I have to go here. I can live with everything in the motion expect the implied notion that the blocks where unwise because they were reversed. I'm not too keen on effectively saying that with more communication (eg an explanation on TRM's talk page) the blocks would have been an acceptable action but I can live with it. The fact that FPAS continues (see my and Ihardlythinkso's talk page histories) to revert without explanation is also concerning. Even though it was obvious that the edits were by Vote (X) for Change, I would have hoped that what is being discussed here would have encouraged him to explain in at least one edit summary or talk page note, eg replace the IP's comment with a one sentence explanation of what they did and why. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 01:15, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with everything except the conclusion about the blocks. That's something for a full case to decide, or we thoroughly separate that point out from everything else and discuss it. Gamaliel (talk) 01:48, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

$Salvio$ ^{Let's talk about it!} 11:24, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Too complicated to deal with by motion. Courcelles (talk) 14:28, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

We do not need a motion or a case saying we are going to deal with trolls & harassment as best we can with the hoped-for help of the Foundation--that much is obvious. We do need a full case to decide what if anything to do with respect to the two individuals. Essentially, that is what one of the people who voted to accept the motion said said above, though for some reason it led them to the opposite conclusion that we should pass a motion saying what they did not want to say. Floundering around here can only add to the difficulty of deciding. DGG ( talk ) 07:25, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

We need to handle this in a full case. GorillaWarfare (talk) 05:12, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain

--Guerillero | Parlez Moi 09:48, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comments by arbitrators

@Gamaliel and Callanecc: The communication question is the point of point #2 - bounce the matter of how to do this back to the community to decide under less fraught conditions. That the blocks were quickly reversed is a statement of fact; that they were insufficiently communicated seems clear enough from the resulting threads on the blockees' talk pages; that they were unwise is demonstrated by the existence of this request ;) But IMO it is much much much (no, really: much) more useful to deal with this issue expeditiously than to be precious about text, so feel free to edit or strike that sentence as you prefer; I will support any reasonable result. Opabinia regalis (talk) 01:55, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with your point regarding inadequate communication. I can support if we simply strike unwise. Gamaliel (talk) 02:00, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've turned the bit about the unblocks into its own sentence to separate it. Still thinking about what "unwise" can be changed to. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 02:02, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Gamaliel and Opabinia regalis: What about changing "Future Perfect at Sunrise has made unwise blocks" to "Future Perfect at Sunrise blocked two editors ([links]) who, knowingly or not ..."? Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 02:04, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Works for me. Gamaliel (talk) 02:08, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Perfect, edited above, thanks guys! Opabinia regalis (talk) 02:11, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

FYI Courcelles, I intended this as an alternative to the above two motions, not as part of a trio. Which may already be obvious, or not affect your preferences in any event, but just for clarity's sake :) Opabinia regalis (talk) 06:54, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Just noting here that, for simplicity's sake, I've removed the editing markup that arose from the above discussion, with no change to the final version of the text. Opabinia regalis (talk) 19:25, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 493: / Line 493: @@
 # A full case is declined.
+'''Enacted'''-[[User:Miniapolis|'''''<span style="color:navy">Mini</span>''''']][[User_talk:Miniapolis|'''''<span style="color:#8B4513">apolis</span>''''']] 17:03, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
 :; Support
 :# As proposer. [[User:Opabinia regalis|Opabinia regalis]] ([[User talk:Opabinia regalis|talk]]) 23:19, 21 January 2016 (UTC)