Jump to content

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case

Edit links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Arbitration‎ | Requests

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Cube lurker (talk | contribs) at 14:59, 6 September 2012 (→‎Statement by Cube lurker: it's time). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Requests for arbitration

Arbitration Committee proceedings
Request name Motions Initiated Votes
EncycloPetey   29 August 2012 {{{votes}}}
[edit]
Open cases
Case name Links Evidence due Prop. Dec. due
Historical elections (t) (ev / t) (ws / t) (pd / t) 20 Aug 2024 03 Sep 2024
[edit]
Recently closed cases (Past cases)

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

Request name Motions  Case Posted
Amendment request: Definition of the "area of conflict" Clause 4 (b) none none 26 July 2024

No arbitrator motions are currently open.

EncycloPetey

Initiated by Fut.Perf. ☼ at 10:26, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Involved parties

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request
  • EncycloPetey: [1]
  • FloquenBeam: [2]
  • General notification at ANI: [3]
Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

The facts of the matter have been established clearly enough, and EncycloPetey has repeatedly shown that he is unwilling to recognize a problem in his actions ([5] March 2012; [6][7] August 2012). Further formal dispute resolution steps therefore appear moot. (Not to arbs: if you insist on a prior User RFC, you will be responsible for a bruise on Floquenbeam's forehead [8], so don't do that.)

Statement by Fut.Perf.

The recent ANI thread has brought to light that admin EncycloPetey has a rather worrisome pattern of using blocks and protections against other editors in disputes in which he is himself involved.

Instances of misuse of admin tools
  • 3 April 2010, on Marchantiophyta, protected page after an extensive edit-war between himself and Nadiatalent (talk · contribs) [9]. EncycloPetey himself made 11 reverts in the space of 5 days, breaking 3RR at least once. Disagreement was about a reference to an alternative botanical term in the article lead. Discussion thread, clearly demonstrating the nature of a legitimate content dispute, here.
  • 16 Jan 2012, on Thiamine pyrophosphate, protected article [10] after edit-war against Drphilharmonic (talk · contribs). Disagreement was over some trivial copyediting and grammar issues.
  • 17 Jan 2012, on Brassicaceae, after an edit-war with the same editor, Drphilharmonic [11]: blocked for 3RR and alleged sockpuppetry [12]. Disagreement was over misdirected but good-faith attempt by Drphilharmonic to fix a grammar problem. Sockpuppetry charge was about some edits during the revert-war where Drphilharmonic had been accidentally logged out.
  • 12 March 2012, on Book of Habakuk, blocked WP Editor 2011 (talk · contribs) [13] after an edit-war between himself and that editor over WP:ERA date formatting [14] (ERA history: article had "BC" in its earliest version; over time an inconsistent state had arisen with both forms side by side; EncycloPetey had regularized towards "BCE" during a large rewrite in December 2011 [15]; WP Editor 2011 claimed that WP:ERA demanded going back to "BC".) Review thread at ANI, leading to overturn of block, unanimous criticism of EncycloPetey but refusal of the latter to admit any wrong.
  • 16 August 2012, on Antonie van Leeuwenhoek: semiprotected page after an edit-war between himself and an IP editor, 89.79.88.109 [16]. Disagreement was about the correct way of transcribing a Dutch name in IPA. The opposing IP editor was knowledgeable and obviously acting in good faith, though spoiling his case through some intemperate language. (Full disclosure: in the meantime I have opined that the IP editor was right about the content [17].)
  • 28 August 2012, same page: reimposes semiprotection after another revert against the same IP editor in the same matter [18]. Angry protest by the IP editor leads to current ANI thread.
Personal note: I'll be away with little or irregular internet access for the next ten days or so. I've asked a fellow participant to copy over the above list to the evidence page if and when one gets opened, and I don't really anticipate much need for further active participation on my part beyond that. In the unlikely event that further input from me might be required, I'll have to ask for some allowance of time. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:42, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by uninvolved user Fram

His protection of Amborella in February 2012 also was a dubious decision, and the disputed edits were clearly not "persistent vandalism" but a (perhaps misguided) attempt to solve interwiki conflicts (in part caused by EncycloPeteys history merge of Amborella and Amborellaceae here). His create-protection of Category:Rosa (after a single creation) can also be debated.

Considering that these dubious or clearly involved protections are not a small drop in a great amount of admin work, but make up an important part of his use of the admin tools during the past 12 months, and considering that neither the previous ANI discussion nor the current one seem to make any impression, I believe that simply desysopping EncycloPetey is the logical conclusion. Fram (talk) 11:02, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by uninvolved user Dennis Brown

This is an admin that received the bit in 2007 [19], at a time when our WP:INVOLVED policy was well enough developed that this type of action should be known to be improper. This type of abuse is responsible for some of the animosity between non-admins and admins and is detrimental to keeping quality editors here because it reinforces the negative stereotype of the "abusive admin" by virtue of proving it correct. Had this been a couple of incidents over the years, or had Petey shown an understanding of how completely improper this type of action is, we would not be here. Sadly, the lack of acceptance in the current and previous ANI discussion demonstrates that EncycloPetey having the admin bit is a detriment to the greater Project, an unfair editorial position for non-admins, and a liability for other admins who must deal with the ill will generated by such ham-fisted and improper use of the tools. Desysopping would appear to be the only logical conclusion to minimize damage to the Project and restore faith from the community that we have chosen to serve, by a strong and clear showing that we will not overlook brazen breaches of policy by our fellow administrators. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 11:19, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Per Floq, blocking or banning is not warranted nor should it be considered as the only issue at hand is the use of the admin tools, not their editing independent of the tools. The solution isn't removal of the editor, only the bit. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 16:06, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Curtis Clark - Drmies didn't block anyone, Mark Arsten did[20]. I reverted to pre-war status and protected starting at 2:16, Mark had blocked at 2:15. We literally didn't see each other in passing, and we just have two different ways of dealing with warring. I'm more inclined to protect rather than block. It is my nature. Note:Curtis has changed his comment to reflect this. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 01:51, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Nobody Ent

Desysop as incompetent to be admin; just doesn't get the distinction between editing and admin work. Nobody Ent 11:41, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@ed17 There's a really good reason to skip RFC/U -- not bureaucracy is a pillar. There's nothing an RFC/U would do the ANIs haven't already addressed. (Do concur with the hold, though, no rush as long as EP doesn't continue to misuse the mop.) Nobody Ent 21:11, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@Wehwalt, @HJ. Apples and oranges. There's a fundamental difference between EP and Rauls' behavior; while both misused admin tools, Raul made the appropriate choice to heed community consensus and revert his action, whereas EP has simply dug in with wiki-lawyering quibbling over the text of wp::involved. Nobody Ent 02:52, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@Rich Farmbrough With great power comes great responsibility. Being a good editor is orthogonal to being a good admin; the fact that our f'ed up Rfa procedure is Peter Principle exemplified notwithstanding. I really can't generate any sympathy for EP's position that editing WP isn't going to be sufficiently fun if he's not allowed to run over editors he disagrees with by using admin tools. That's not how the game is played. Nobody Ent 02:52, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by uninvolved user Ritchie333

I have investigated the history of the blocks reported both in the recent ANI conversation here, and with those prior as reported by other users, and a worrying aspect of them is a general lack of empathy and awareness from EncycloPetey that his actions, even though they may be backed up with policies, have the ability to alienate people. That said, I think bringing this case to ArbCom is premature - I feel that sometimes people overreact a bit to faults, and just taking our time to sort something out calmy and rationally first is a better option. I notice the IP in the most recent ANI case has actually started a case to resolve the content dispute here, so I don't think there's a direct and immediate risk of EP's actions causing an editor to jump ship. --Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:43, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Cube lurker

Using administrative tools to prevail in content disputes strikes at the core of the agreement between administrators and community. This inability or unwillingness to accept just how wrong these actions are disturbs me greatly. The only thing more disturbing is that it's gone on so long. The tools must be removed from any administrator who feels that blatently abusing their position is acceptable.--Cube lurker (talk) 12:12, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@EncycloPetey if that's how you feel, how do you think all those that you've abused with your involved tool usage felt.--Cube lurker (talk) 14:43, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
A delay to allow EncycloPetey to be convinced to step down with honor may be a good thing. A delay should not be used to push this under the rug and allow someone who's repeatedly abused the tools to continue on abusing the commuity.--Cube lurker (talk) 21:05, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It's time to deal with this. Remove the tools. If he does comes back he can either accept it, contest it by requesting the case be opened, or request readminship through RFA.--Cube lurker (talk) 14:58, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by uninvolved Boing! said Zebedee

I can see two possible courses of action here...

  1. EncycloPetey finally accepts that he was wrong, and agrees not to abuse the admin tools further.
  2. Removal of admin tools, and a requirement to apply at RfA if he wants them back.

I think 1 would be wrong, because it would be an abuse of the general editing community who would almost certainly never have granted admin rights in the first place if they knew EncycloPetey either didn't understand WP:INVOLVED or was not prepared to abide by it, and would refuse to listen even after several incidents and several explanations. (It would also strengthen the feeling that admins will forgive "their own" while being hard on non-admin abuse of policy, and would bring us further into disrepute, but that is of lesser concern - the actual abuse of non-admin content editors is the real issue). Community confidence has been lost, and only a new RfA could restore it now. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:35, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Update: I just want to add that none of my comments above reflects in any way on EncycloPetey's contributions as an editor. He has contributed a lot of terrific content since he's been here, and has greatly improved the encyclopedia - and I think the respect he has earned as a contributor should be noted in any resolution. But to echo the words of Kurtis, below, there are plenty of good editors who just don't make good admins - and a good editor is worth far more to Wikipedia than a good admin. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:42, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by uninvolved Hammersoft

Do I have this right? Two WP:AN/I threads separated by nearly half a year and a user talk page discussion and we're blowing this up to ArbCom? If that's the metric for pushing stuff before ArbCom, we're going to need an ArbCom several times the size it is just to sift through the enormous amount of cases. At the risk of Floquenbeam suffering a bruise, this case should be rejected. There is a reason other steps in the dispute resolution process exist. EncycloPetey has been an administrator for nearly five years. He's never had an RfC with him as the subject, and never been blocked. Start an RfC and give the community an opportunity to bring weight to bear. There is no urgent crisis that demands his removal from adminship. Arbitration is a last resort, not a testing ground for whether we need a community driven de-adminship process. --Hammersoft (talk) 12:52, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (involved) Floquenbeam

As FP@S notes, I was in the process of stumbling through creating an RFAR in my sandbox myself, which is the only reason to consider me "involved". I believe EP's response to the two ANI threads about this issue indicate a clear refusal to acknowledge the concerns of other editors. Thus, I believe an RFC/U would be pointless. It is not necessary to have an RFC/U to determine the community's opinion, that has already been made crystal clear.

The way we are currently set up, there is no other method to get an admin to follow WP:ADMIN besides an ArbCom case. We already tried (a) discussion, and (b) dropping it in the hope it would go away, in the ANI thread from March; this is all that is left. Whether by motion, or a full case, shouldn't matter too much; I don't imagine a full case dragging on for long, as the facts are easy to document and pretty clear.

At this point, I favor desysopping, with the option of a new RFA if desired, rather than issuing a strongly worded warning not to do it again. I guess the time for expanding on why I think this would be when/if the case is accepted, so I'll wait until then unless it would be useful now. --Floquenbeam (talk) 13:23, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I note that on EP's talk page, Hammersoft has suggested that a ban or block is also a possible result. To be clear, I don't support anything other than desysopping, and I have never seen anyone suggest more than desysopping, and such attempts to muddy the waters can be safely ignored. --Floquenbeam (talk) 13:56, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
To be clear, the problem isn't violating policy once; we all make mistakes from time to time. The problem isn't violating policy and not thinking it's a violation; we're allowed to think some policies are dumb. The problem isn't even violating policy multiple times. The problem is violating policy multiple times over a six month period, and being told (by a margin of approximately 18 to 2 over two ANI threads) that it is a mistake, and refusing to admit the error and learn from it (or at least saying they won't do it any more even if they don't agree it's a mistake), and saying that they will in fact continue to do so again, and instead playing the WP:SOUP game by saying that no one has sufficiently explained how it is a violation, or that the explanation is on the wrong page, and complaining about a "cabal" out to get him. I don't want to lose him as an editor, and this is not fun for me either, but I am not part of some cabal run amok. I cannot believe that he won't simply say "oops my bad, won't happen again", or "I think you're all crazy, but if that's what you want, it won't happen again". If he had done this at any point in the last 6 months, we wouldn't be here. If he did it now, I personally wouldn't be satisfied, but I'm sure this would still all go away. It is not my problem, nor my fault, that he won't do this. As Curtis uncomfortably points out below, he is not the only admin who should reflect on their interactions with non-admins. I've been a dick before too. But an admin simply can't be allowed to repeatedly, completely ignore feedback that they are clearly violating policy, act all persecuted, and expect to remain an admin just because all admins are imperfect and he's being singled out by the anti-admin cabal. ArbCom needs to be careful not to reward tantrums and accusations of cabals. There's showing deference to a long time contributor, and then there's enabling behavior that shouldn't be enabled. --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:30, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by EncycloPetey

Wow! Offline for a few hours only, and an ANI discussion that I first saw last time that I was logged in has already been closed and taken to ArbCom, before anyone else had a chance to weigh in. I feel railroaded and surrounded by hungry sharks, even if that is an impossibly mixed metaphor. If the community is this eager to drive people away, over what several stements here have called "trivial" editing issues, then that will probably happen. I don't have lots and lots of time in each day to edit. I certainly don't have time to make speeches defending myself. If ArbCom is willing to let some of the people best familiar with me at WP:PLANTS respond, then some of them may have time. If, on the other hand, a simple page protection is now becoming an ArbCom case, and speedy cowboy justice prevails on Wikipedia, then so be it. I come here to help the encyclopedia, because it helps the world at large and because it's fun. This isn't fun anymore. Accusations by admins posted on my Talk page (instead of in the forums set aside for that); accusations in edit comments (by other admins, who should know better); and a community with a cabal more focussed on hunting down and killing admins than on writing articles. I've seen this happening more and more lately, and it saddens me. If the cabal really wants me out, they'll have a lot more time and energy to make that happen that I could ever invest to defend myself. I'm sure that, sooner or later, we'll just abolish adminship for everyone. "Four legs good; two legs better." --Snowball, ...er EncycloPetey (talk) 14:31, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Tijfo098

Sadly, EncycloPetey still doesn't understand that thinking he is right about some obscure MOS/style matters doesn't give him the right to use administrative tools against those who disagree with him in various such disputes. A snowball case if there ever was one. Tijfo098 (talk) 14:56, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

After reading his goodbye message at WP:PLANTS [21]. I respect the need to show some deference and give breathing room to a long-term contributor, but I've seldom seen such self-centered attitude from an editor, let alone an admin. So, editing without the use of admin tools isn't fun, eh? Can't win disputes so easily without pressing the shiny button that the other party doesn't have? Next thing we know, someone is going to show at WP:RFA and demand that they be given the tools because editing without them isn't fun enough, or even threaten to stop editing unless they are given the tools. Seesh. Don't even get me started on his rapid deployment of the cabal meme. He was already in the habit of declaring that editors disagreeing with him were necessarily vandals [22] [23]. Now that he ran into a group of those, they're obviously a cabal. Tijfo098 (talk) 23:50, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Update: It's been a week now since EncycloPetey's goodbye message and he hasn't edited since then. It seems clear that he has no intention to mount a defense in this case (beyond what he already wrote), so I think this affair should be handled by motion along the lines suggested by Carcharoth. In disagreement with Carcharoth though, I don't interpret the two posts by Arbitrators AGK and SilkTork as patronizing; they've been last "minute" attempts to solve the issue by simply obtaining assurances that behaviors widely deplored won't reoccur. Tijfo098 (talk) 09:46, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by uninvolved user Sjones23

EncycloPetey is a productive editor and an administrator. However, as an uninvolved user, I am concerned over EncycloPetey's recent use of his administrative privileges. In the recent discussion at ANI, EncycloPetey unfortunately does not get the distinction between his editing and administrative work. Also, I am concerned about his use of administrative tools in a content dispute. At this point, we have lost all community confidence and I feel that desysopping would be the logical conclusion to restore faith in the community and minimize the damage to Wikipedia. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 17:10, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by uninvolved admin BD2412

EncycloPetey is and has been a consistently productive editor and adminstrator here for many years. That is, quite frankly, a hard thing to come by. If I reverted a dubious IP edit to a frequently vandalised page, and the IP editor restored that content with an edit summary beginning "Learn to read.", I'd be sorely tempted to warn that editor for incivility. Obviously, there are many different paths by which situations like those in which EncycloPetey acted can be handled, and it may be a better practice in general for admins to consult with other admins before instituting blocks or page protections, but that practice also leads to cabal accusations. Doing too much against questionable edits may discourage such editors from participating, but doing too little surely encourages insitigators to introduce just enough error to provoke an admin response, and to use that response to attack the administrator in a forum like this one.

In this case, we have a wide range of options adequate to address these concerns with measures short of desysopping. I would allow EncycloPetey to continue using his admin tools for uncontroversial page moves and page deletions (which constitute the bulk of his admin activities), and for blocking of blatant vandals, while imposing some limitation on his use of page protection and imposition of blocks in situations other than blatant vandalism. bd2412 T 17:11, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Kurtis

This is definitely a sad situation if ever there was one. EncycloPetey has been a huge asset to the Wikimedia community as a whole, especially over at Wiktionary, where he's uploaded numerous audio files delineating the correct pronunciation of several words and phrases. He speaks with a very clear, precise voice in the recordings he submits, and I myself have found them to be quite useful. Nevertheless, not everyone with a great deal to offer is necessarily suited to being an administrator on the English Wikipedia. Now, I won't go so far as to say that EncycloPetey is arrogant, as I truly do not believe that to be the case, but I do get the sense that he may not realize the perception he gives off to others without +sysop when he refuses to initiate discussion before taking action. It leaves the impression that administrators are permitted to enforce policies, and are given more leeway when it comes to their conduct. This is something that must be reversed. I know by today's standards, a lot of people will disagree with me when I say this, but adminship is no big deal. It is something that I personally would entrust to almost anyone who has demonstrated a lasting commitment to the project and its principles, and I think it needs to be made very clear that even those granted the "mop" can have grievous misunderstandings with regards to policy. I also think that in cases where having a certain user in possession of +sysop has proven to be a negative for the project, it should be revoked. This was true in 2007; it remains true today. Unless EncycloPetey rectifies his approach to content disputes and realizes that MOS is an unenforcable guideline (ie. not meriting the use of semiprotection), removal of the tools may be imminent in this case. Kurtis (talk) 17:22, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Kumioko

I personally haven't had much interaction with EncycloPetey but I think that we need to use the process before escalating it straight to Arbcom where the result is pretty much predetermined as a desysop, a ban of some duration or a combination of the 2, after multiple users spend the next month in serious debate. None of which IMO is in the best interest of the pedia. If the desire is to desysop him then thats fine but I am of the opinion that before this goes to Arbcom we should do an RFC, mediation or some other venue to desysop him if that is what needs to be done. If that doesn't work for some reason then we can bump it to Arbcom. Kumioko (talk) 19:31, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@Casliber. There are several problems with your statement.
  1. Arbcom generally won't take a case unless they feel the editor did something wrong so there is automatically a general indication of guilt upon acceptance of the case and Arbcom members have stated such in the past on other cases.
  2. The outcome is pretty consistent, in fact I cannot think of one case where Arbcom said something like "after reviewing the evidence we think this editor is innocent."
  3. We should be exhausting other avenues before going to Arbcom not skipping them and going straight to Arbcom because we don't want to take the time to do the other things first.
  4. Arbcom is very inconsistent in choosing these types of cases.
  5. I also agree with the statements by Wehwalt, Ed17 and HJMitchell. Kumioko (talk) 03:22, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Brief comment from uninvolved The ed17

No sufficient reason has been put forward for bringing this to Arbcom without an RfC/U. This is a long-term and productive editor, and we all know of the lynchmob mentality inherent at ANI. I would decline this in favor of an RfC/U in the hope that EncycloPetey's issues can be worked out at that level first. That is the reason we have it, after all. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 20:44, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@Nobody Ent, that's nowhere near a good reason when a long-term and productive editor in good standing before these incidents is about to be brought in front of Arbcom. If EP decides to not engage in a RfC/U, fine – but there's a reason Arbcom typically requires an RfC/U before taking on a case like this. Let's work out the issues informally and/or at a lower level before we drive even more editor(s) off the project. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 03:00, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
@Casliber, it's not the usual 'last avenue exhausted' because, what, RfC/U has never dealt with disputed admin tool usage before? ;-) I personally feel that taking that route, away from the ANI mentality and fast pace, would result in a compromise where both sides would be happy (granted, that is said without knowing EncycloPetey directly). Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 06:47, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
@Tijfo098, that's completely uncalled for. I think you know that's just hyberbole. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 19:29, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Brief comment by Wehwalt

I could be sarcastic here, and in fact considered being so. No need. The comments of individual arbs in this case in invoking the urgent need for this committee to review abusive administrative actions are very inconsistent with your very recent refusal to review such actions when they were committed by Raul654 and brought to the attention of this committee. Such wild inconsistencies erode the community's respect for this committee.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:42, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Casliber: That seems a non sequitur to my comment. I did not mention desysopping. I simply noted committee members' unwillingness even to acknowledge that Raul654's conduct might constitute admin abuse, and yet the conduct alleged of him was both significantly greater than that alleged here, and aggravated by the fact he is a bureaucrat (still). You were recused, of course, but the fact that one side in what committee members persisted in regarding as a petty squabble has advanced permissions and used some of them them to advance his position in disputes (repeatedly), and the other does not (but, I gather, has caused committee members some annoyance over the past several years), was breathtaking indeed. As that is not directly related to this case, I will let it go at that, but you seemed to misunderstand so I thought it best to clear it up.--Wehwalt (talk) 07:46, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • @AGK: Rschen7754 mentioned six matters in the case request including involved tool use by Raul. While some of the other elements mentioned were plainly unworthy of a case, and hence dropped away, a number of comments throughout touched on Raul's tool use. Regret not submitting form WK123894-4(a)(d)(3) properly filled out in ink in triplicate :) --Wehwalt (talk) 08:20, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from Ched

I won't opine one way or the other on what should or should not be done. But one thing that does stick in my mind is a comment that Risker made back in the Will Beback case. Times change, and what was acceptable in the past often quickly changes. I'd like to think that we are becoming a kinder and more gentle project. I'd like to think that talking things out can resolve things. It's hard to keep up with the changes in the world - Wikipedia is no different. Education and discussion I think is far better than slaps, block, and bans. Just my passing thoughts. — Ched :  ?  22:39, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by uninvolved user Curtis Clark

I don't see a bright line here. I watched something similar happen to Kwamikagami; I have found both him and EncycloPetey to be occasionally abrasive, and I think EncycloPetey was in part responsible for driving away some editors that I valued. But my general rule is to avoid crossing any administrator, because, frankly, a lot of you seem unpredictable, and you all have the power to block me and otherwise make my WP life miserable. Case in point, an editor of tree was bold, another editor reverted and began a discussion. Drmies warned the reverting editor of the possibility of a block, Mark Arsten blocked him and Dennis Brown protected the article. I'm sure they misunderstood the sequence of events, but what an ordinary editor sees is that following the rules is still "edit warring" if an admin thinks it is. I in no way condone what EncycloPetey did (nor Kwami nor Drmies and Dennis Brown, for that matter), but I don't see a bright line, I see good-faith and in some cases quite productive editors routinely being pushed around by admins, and only some of the admins being taken to task. Dennis Brown wrote, 'I say that in good faith, as some of the older admins have had some issues adjusting to the "kinder, gentler" Wikipedia....' I'm looking for the login for that Wikipedia, but I haven't found it yet.--Curtis Clark (talk) 22:55, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Based on some feedback I've gotten, I want to make it clear that I understand admins have hard jobs (that's one reason why I never want to be one), and although I regard many of them to be scary and unpredictable, I am nevertheless willing to cut them slack. And that includes EncycloPetey. He's not the only admin who was warned before, he's not the only admin who has misused the tools, and he's certainly not the only admin who's been quick to use the tools without fully grasping the situation.--Curtis Clark (talk) 02:06, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from HJ

I agree very much with the spirit of Wehwalt's comment—it is odd to see ArbCom jumping to be seen to respond to community concerns over an admin's conduct, when action against Raul654 for his poor use of admin tools wan't even considered.

However, in this case, we have a clear misuse of admin tools, some semblance of a pattern of such misuse, and an apparent lack of understanding of the policies related to admin actions. He has clearly not acted in bad faith, but these things are concerning enough to warrant serious consideration of removal of admin tools.

That said, I honestly don't see the need for a full case—a weeks-long arbitration case, regardless of eventual result, is about the worst outcome possible here, and EncycloPetey doesn't deserve to be subjected to the rigmarole of a full case when a motion could accomplish the same. None of this should be taken as a reflection on EncycloPetey as an editor outside of his use of admin tools. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:27, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from uninvolved user Rich Farmbrough

EncycloPetey has been an asset to the project, and to other WMF projects. It is far more sensible to make sure that EP understands how WP:INVOLVED is interpreted, and is prepared to work on that basis than to apply masses of bureaucracy to the issue. EP has pretty much indicated (and I don't blame him) that if an Arb case is accepted he will simply leave the project rather than have anything to do with it - I can imagine such a thought has crossed the minds of most folk subject to that particular Lake Cocytus. It would represent one more triumph for the culture of confrontation and conflict, and another defeat for cooperation and collegiality. Rich Farmbrough, 02:29, 30 August 2012 (UTC).[reply]

Comment from uninvolved Black Kite

Hmm, use of admin tools whilst WP:INVOLVED and an unwillingness to admit being in the wrong? I don't recall the last one of those ending up at ArbCom? In fact, I don't remember anything happening at all. Black Kite (talk) 08:21, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from uninvolved Count Iblis

While ArbCom should look into cases like this, this should not happpen on an ad hoc basis, especially not if the number of incidents isn't that large and you are then likely to find many more similar cases if you put the sysop actions of all Admins under the microscope. The best thing to do would be for ArbCom to create a de-Adminship committee whose task it is to systematically look into the behavior of all Admins. In case an Admin is found to have made mistakes, the Admin will be put on notice, in case the problem persists, the case will be referred to ArbCom. Count Iblis (talk) 15:36, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from uninvolved Alanscottwalker

Sad, yes. First thanks to EncycloPetey (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) for their contribution and service. Second, I as much as anyone detest when Admins make excuses for each other at ANI or elsewhere, instead of the more apt: 'colleague, you did wrong.' So, thanks for not doing that. Third drawing parallels between a case where there is consensus for some action or arbitration, and a case where there was not, is a distraction. No thanks for that.

Here we are. The admin has said 'goodbye.' At present then there is no reason for a case, motion will do. I can see several ways the 'retirement' could be judged in the motion deliberations -- for one, obviously a retirement means no further admin action to concern us, and any call for an RfC/U is obviated. At this point, I would suggest something like an "order to show cause" by the Admin, should they return to the project, why they should have the trust of this committee and the project, with whatever record made and restrictions are necessary to carry that into effect. They should answer the questions raised above about their actions and their brusqueness, with an automatic inactivity deadmin (should they not take that course) after some reasonable point (1 month, two months, three months, six months?). Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:26, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by uninvolved IRWolfie-

I think if EncycloPetey is unable to see his mistake and learn from it there is no other option but to remove the bit to prevent future misuse. His contributions are solid and a future RFA shouldn't be excluded. IRWolfie- (talk) 12:25, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by uninvolved Buffs

A slap on the wrist and a gentle "don't do that again" would be sufficient in this case. No need for ArbCom to even be considered at this time. Buffs (talk) 22:32, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Carcharoth

Commenting here not on the substance of the request, but more how the impasse of EncycloPetey's apparent departure (or break from editing) is being handled. The previous case that I'm aware of that had a similar situation was the March 2009 request involving User:Aitias. For how that was handled, see Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Aitias/Proposed decision#History of the case, and see also the five motions voted on there, and in particular motion 2. The third motion there was to limit things so a case wouldn't have to be heard many months later. Some of the motions there don't apply here, but some do. What is not needed is the (somewhat awkward and patronising) negotiating currently taking place at EncycloPetey's talk page, specifically this and this. Just suspend the case (or case request if you prefer) until/if EncycloPetey returns to editing (this is a sufficiently rare occurrence that it can be done at times), leave a suitably encouraging note asking them to contact you if/when they return, and move on. Deal with the automatic desysopping due to inactivity and whether the tools can be returned after that, when that point arrives. Until that point, leave the decisions as to what to do next with EncycloPetey. Carcharoth (talk) 08:27, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk notes

This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).
Whilst the request has met the procedural requirements for opening, this is on hold per request from the Arbitration Committee, pending further instructions --Alexandr Dmitri (talk) 18:26, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (8/0/0/2)

  • Awaiting EncyclopPetey's statement, but I'm minded to accept this case. EP's apparent inability to recognise that he is involved, and his consistently poor judgement, lead to me conclude that this issue would probably not be resolved by continued community coaching (whether by yet more AN threads or through a RFC). AGK [•] 11:24, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
@Ed17 - the issue is admin tool use. This is where it gets reviewed. It's one of our roles, so is not the usual "last avenue exhausted". Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:09, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
@Wehwalt, HJ etc. accepting doesn't mean desysopping. It means examining tool use in the first instance, which is what we'll do. See above. Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:09, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Accept. As this type of review is almost entirely restricted to Arbcom purview, and there is clear evidence of the community attempting to resolve the issue prior to bringing it here, I believe the case should be accepted, despite the fact that we have not yet heard from EncycloPetey. Risker (talk) 12:46, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Concur with the request to hold this for a few days. While certain options for resolution are available only through Arbcom at this point, a satisfactory resolution developed between EncycloPetey and members of the community would be preferable. Risker (talk) 20:31, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Accept. Per Risker, despite EncycloPetey not having responded yet. I believe this case could be handled by a direct Arbcom review of EncycloPetey's admin actions - they are all in logs, the definition of WP:INVOLVED is clear, and we don't have to work out who is "right" in the content dispute, only whether it was a content dispute. That would save everybody time and effort if it was agreeable with the community. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 12:57, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
@Hammersoft, it is often the case than when one finds out someone has been fiddling the books, one also realises that they have been doing it for some time without detection. Admins are expected to sign up to WP:ADMIN when they get the bit, and this admin has already had warnings about the issue and not taken them to heart. Elen of the Roads (talk) 13:02, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
@Hammersoft, haven't you got anything better to do than end up getting another admin into trouble with your "support". Elen of the Roads (talk) 13:31, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No problem with NYB's request for a hold. This is only an issue with the use of tools - EncycloPetey appears to be a good editor. I don't think an RFC/U would be any better - there is enough serious momentum that it was bound to end at RfAR - but there may be other opportunities to settle this. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:44, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Awaiting statement from EncyclopoPetey. The only thing that might stave off the need for a case would be a clear commitment from EncycloPetey that he will not use administrator tools in matters where he is involved in a dispute, and particularly that he will not protect pages he has actively edited. Without prejudging any case, my preliminary impression is that EncycloPetey has not kept up with the tightening of the community's (and this Committee's) expectations that administrators will not use the tools when they are "involved" in a dispute, that has occurred since he became active in the project. EncycloPetey needs to abide by the current policies in this area, even if he personally (per his comment in the ANI thread) finds them to be bureaucratic or unwieldy, and even in instances where his real-world subject-matter expertise is greater than that of a non-administrator with whom he has a content disagreement. I understand the frustration that administrators in this situation may feel sometimes, and have shared it in some circumstances myself, but the "involved" policy, construed reasonably, is not merely a bureaucratic obstacle to quality control but serves important purposes that should be respected. Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:04, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hold for a couple of days. It appears the EncycloPetey is thinking of leaving the project altogether because of the likelihood that this case is going to be accepted. I fear that EncycloPetey has overlooked the multiple statements in the ANI thread, as well as my comment above, that it would have been helpful if he had simply stated that he won't page-protect articles he is editing any more. I also fear that he's at the point where this dispute is taking all the fun out of not only administrating but editing for him, as he says, and that if we open the case right now the chances of losing him as an editor as well as an admin will increase. I think it might make sense to put the case on hold for a couple of days to see if there might be a better answer here than opening a case that, unless something significant changes, has an obvious outcome. Of course, I would expect EncycloPetey to refrain from using admin tools during that period. As a sidenote, I don't think I agree with either the reference to snowball or the reference to Snowball. Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:07, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Accept Allegations of administrative misuse go to ArbCom, so in the face of apparently valid evidence there really isn't much other option to take. Furthermore, EncycloPetey's statement contains none of the assurances that NYB was looking for, and in fact seems to indicate that he doesn't believe this is a problem at all, and certainly not as large as alleged ("a simple page protection," when five this year are noted in the opening statement), making other dispute resolution worthless as noted by the filer. If this does turn out to be a case of inappropriate tag-teaming as EncycloPetey alleges, then I'm sure that will come out in evidence. Hersfold non-admin(t/a/c) 14:45, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Just to add, I'd be open to this being handled by a simple motion for desysopping, without predjudice towards EncycloPetey regaining the tools at RFA at some point in the future. Presumably in order to do so he'd need to demonstrate an understanding of WP:INVOLVED, but that would be between him and the community at that point. Hersfold non-admin(t/a/c) 14:37, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Accept per Hersfold. The statement by EncycloPetey doesn't allay concerns, and so a case is needed. PhilKnight (talk) 16:16, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Accept Courcelles 16:30, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • No objection to NYB's request that this hold here for 24-36 hours. This case is a fairly predictable pattern in front of it; there will be a lot of drama, a lot of talking, and in a few weeks, we'll be voting on whether or not to desysop EncycloPetey. I'm not sure at all how that vote would go, but we are absolutely on a course to it -- and it isn't an optimal outcome at all. So, let's take 24 hours and let everyone sleep on this. Courcelles 19:11, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think we have enough evidence to deal with this by motion. This is either a reminder, an admonishment or a desysopping, depending on one's view.
I empathise with EncycloPetey's statement in which he expresses that he finds this situation unenjoyable. There are aspects of editing Wikipedia which are stressful - and, certainly, being questioned about one's decisions and actions are one of those. We tend to expect of admins that they deal with these questions in a responsible manner, difficult though they are. Sometimes it seems that we expect too much of our volunteer admins who are largely doing this for fun in their spare time, and with little or no thanks when they get it right, but criticism for when they get it wrong. However, this project is also more than just a hobby - it is a serious endeavour in which we are building something very significant. Sometimes it is hard to keep the balance right, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't try. We want to keep people engaged, happy and involved - but we also want to make sure that those who are involved are fully aware of our guidelines and policies which are designed to keep the project not just on track, but also fun for everyone. Being blocked isn't fun. Being blocked for having a different point of view to an admin is the least sort of fun it is possible to have on Wikipedia, and a cause of concern to the community.
The blocking of WP Editor 2011 appears from what I have seen to be a misuse of admin privileges; that it is not an isolated incident, and that EncycloPetey does not accept that they have acted inappropriately, gives - to my mind - sufficient cause for a serious sanction, certainly more than a reminder. A considered statement by EncycloPetey which shows awareness of why the community are concerned, and outlines how they intend to handle things in future, may mitigate any sanction.
To allay any possible concerns that EncycloPetey may have - we would not be looking at blocking or banning. EncycloPetey has made some valuable contributions (including a number of Good Articles and a Featured Article), and does not appear to be a disruptive user. We would only be looking at the use of the admin tools, and of sanctions related to their use. SilkTork ✔Tea time 21:35, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case&oldid=511078087"