Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case: Difference between revisions

Edit links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Line 2: Line 2:
<noinclude>{{ArbComOpenTasks|acotstyle=float:right}}</noinclude>{{NOINDEX}}
<noinclude>{{ArbComOpenTasks|acotstyle=float:right}}</noinclude>{{NOINDEX}}
{{Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Header<noinclude>|width=53%</noinclude>}}
{{Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Header<noinclude>|width=53%</noinclude>}}

== Resysoping of FCYTravis/Polarscribe ==
'''Initiated by ''' [[User:Dennis Brown|<b>Dennis</b> <b>Brown</b>]] - [[User talk:Dennis Brown|<small>2&cent;</small>]] [[Special:Contributions/Dennis_Brown|<small>&copy;</small>]] <small><b>[[WP:WikiProject Editor Retention|Join WER]]</b></small> '''at''' 20:22, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

=== Involved parties ===
<!-- use {{admin|username}} if the party is an administrator -->
*{{userlinks|Dennis Brown}}, ''filing party''
*{{userlinks|Polarscribe}}
*{{userlinks|Nihonjoe}}
<!-- commenting out per request of Risker. Not used to filing, assumed all who were involved were, well, involved.
*{{userlinks|MBisanz}}
*{{userlinks|The Rambling Man}}
*{{userlinks|Coren}}
*{{userlinks|Shearonink}}
*{{userlinks|Dr. Blofeld}}
*{{userlinks|SudoGhost}}
*{{userlinks|Thine Antique Pen}}
*{{userlinks|Djsasso}}
*{{userlinks|Reaper Eternal}}
*{{userlinks|Rschen7754}}
*{{userlinks|Aymatth2}}
*{{userlinks|Schrodinger's cat is alive}}
*{{userlinks|Fram}}
*{{userlinks|DuncanHill}}
*{{userlinks|Bwilkins}}
*{{userlinks|Leaky caldron}}
*{{userlinks|Sphilbrick}}
*{{userlinks|ErrantX}}
*{{userlinks|WJBscribe}}
*{{userlinks|Legoktm}}
*{{userlinks|Snowolf}}
*{{userlinks|NuclearWarfare}}
-->

<!-- The editor filing the case should be included as a party for purposes of notifications. -->

;Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request
<!-- All parties must be notified that the request has been filed, immediately after it is posted, and confirmation posted here. -->
*Everyone notified: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:NuclearWarfare&diff=522382395&oldid=522346874],[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Snowolf&diff=522382368&oldid=521855453],[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Legoktm&diff=522382331&oldid=522276888],[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:WJBscribe&diff=522382279&oldid=516711897],[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:ErrantX&diff=522382219&oldid=522329452],[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Sphilbrick&diff=522382165&oldid=522004808],[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Leaky_caldron&diff=522382112&oldid=521804775],[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Bwilkins&diff=522382059&oldid=522340750],[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:DuncanHill&diff=522382018&oldid=522251124],[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Fram&diff=522381973&oldid=522370884],[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Schrodinger%27s_cat_is_alive&diff=522381926&oldid=522356002],[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Aymatth2&diff=522381855&oldid=522323872],[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Rschen7754&diff=522381799&oldid=522203295],[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Reaper_Eternal&diff=522381752&oldid=522338698],[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Djsasso&diff=522381708&oldid=522297364],[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Thine_Antique_Pen&diff=522381664&oldid=522381146],[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:SudoGhost&diff=522381607&oldid=522359906],[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Dr._Blofeld&diff=522381545&oldid=522341405],[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Shearonink&diff=522381494&oldid=522336769],[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Coren&diff=522381446&oldid=522371550],[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:The_Rambling_Man&diff=522381386&oldid=522297941],[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:MBisanz&diff=522381333&oldid=522327331],[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Nihonjoe&diff=522381260&oldid=522291464] and [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Polarscribe&diff=522381210&oldid=522373266]

;Confirmation that other steps in [[Wikipedia:dispute resolution|dispute resolution]] have been tried
<!-- Identify prior attempts at dispute resolution here, with links/diffs to the page where the resolution took place. If prior dispute resolution has not been attempted, the reasons for this should be explained in the request for arbitration -->
*See talk page of [[WP:BN]] for full discussion. No other remedies are available for this particular issue.

=== Statement by Dennis Brown ===
{{hat|Statement struck and withdrawn}}<s>
FCYTravis / Polarscribe was desysop'd due to inactivity in 2011, last activity was in 2008. A discussion was ongoing regarding whether or not "a cloud" existed when he left Wikipedia in 2008. There was some question about his edit warring with [[User:Dr. Blofeld|Dr. Blofeld]] before the request to recapture the admin bit, after changing accounts. Questions also arose about why he deleted his own talk page in 2008, which was against policy even then and one of his last acts before leaving us. His activities in 2008, including threatening to mass delete files [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Polarscribe&diff=211337663&oldid=211336809] and other behavior that Bureaucrat WJBscribe then described as "outrageous behavior" [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&oldid=226691201#Unusual_action_by_admin_FCYTravis]. Other examples exist.

Bureaucrat [[User:Nihonjoe|Nihonjoe]] came to the discussion and immediately resysoped him before the discussion could be completed. While surely in good faith, it was unnecessarily hasty as the policy doesn't require it be granted within a few hours time. By acting too quickly, there wasn't an opportunity to review such an old case, to which myself and others are still pouring through diffs on. While the Bureaucrats enjoy the right to make the final decision, it should not be rushed into while there are legitimate questions being raised and a civil and constructive discussion is ongoing. I would ask ArbCom to review to insure it qualifies as "not under a cloud" and take appropriate action if needed, as the community has no other recourse in this situation. [[User:Dennis Brown|<b>Dennis</b> <b>Brown</b>]] - [[User talk:Dennis Brown|<small>2&cent;</small>]] [[Special:Contributions/Dennis_Brown|<small>&copy;</small>]] <small><b>[[WP:WikiProject Editor Retention|Join WER]]</b></small> 20:44, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

*'''@Risker''' I trimmed the list. Sorry, never had to file an Arb request before today. On point:In addition to threatening to go on a rampage and deleting his own talk page, a serious abuse of tools worthy of at least an admonishment:

*Unilaterally deleted [[Historical pederastic couples]] (see delete history) after an AFD was closed to no consensus/keep [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Historical_pederastic_couples_(2nd_nomination)], literally two hours after the AFD closed. I already linked to this whole ANI discussion.

*Of course, he just got off edit warring with Dr. Blofeld [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Alcatraz_Federal_Penitentiary&action=history], who is one of our more prolific editors and now has a retired banner on his page. Polarscribe did this under a different account [[User:Polarscribe (usurped)]], requiring another user warn him [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Polarscribe_%28usurped%29&oldid=521635562]. This alone shows questionable judgement, but was under another account and might not have been seen by the Crat. It wasn't disclosed in the request.

*I'm assuming others will have other other links as well, I need to run for a bit, and ask that others help with this.

*And this issue isn't solved by a one month delay in using the tools. It isn't up to Dr. Blofeld. The entire process shows that current policy isn't well equipped to deal with long delays, and maybe requiring an RFA is the best course for future policy, but in this case, it was rushed, there is a claim that Nihonjoe has an involvement with Dr. Blofeld, who was the complaining party, and the discussion was literally dripping with Bureaucrats, so there really was no justification in rushing here. It is my opinion that the entire process was fatally flawed. I had hoped Nihonjoe would have reversed himself and allowed discussion to simply continue, but since he won't, we are forced to look at the whole process. [[User:Dennis Brown|<b>Dennis</b> <b>Brown</b>]] - [[User talk:Dennis Brown|<small>2&cent;</small>]] [[Special:Contributions/Dennis_Brown|<small>&copy;</small>]] <small><b>[[WP:WikiProject Editor Retention|Join WER]]</b></small> 22:00, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
*'''@ ALL''' To be clear, I don't see any need to admonish or single out Nihonjoe here. He clearly acted in good faith, even if I think he made a big mistake. ''We all make mistakes.'' Perhaps the Crats can get together and agree to have a 48 hour waiting period in the future, simply to give the rest of us a chance to look and ''help you'' by providing diffs, just in case we have a case like this that deserves review first. Policy allows this, as there is no time table and 48 hour minimum (extended if needed) is plenty of time. I have tremendous respect for the Crats here, above all others to be honest, this doesn't change that, but the only reason we are all at Arb today is ''haste''. That part is easily fixable. [[User:Dennis Brown|<b>Dennis</b> <b>Brown</b>]] - [[User talk:Dennis Brown|<small>2&cent;</small>]] [[Special:Contributions/Dennis_Brown|<small>&copy;</small>]] <small><b>[[WP:WikiProject Editor Retention|Join WER]]</b></small> 23:20, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
</s>
{{hab}}
*'''WITHDRAWN''' It looks as if the admin has requested that the bit be removed and is aware of the ramifications of having it removed at this time. Because of this, my original concerns are now moot, and I would withdraw my initial report. While it is still up to the Arbitration Committee to still decide if they should hear the case or not, I would note that an RfC is now active, addressing the shortcomings in the current system, and I would note that the community appears to have found a mechanism to deal with the issue without requiring Arbitration. There are still questions to be answered, but I think it would be premature to answer them in this current case or forum. Thanks to everyone for considering my points, past and present. [[User:Dennis Brown|<b>Dennis</b> <b>Brown</b>]] - [[User talk:Dennis Brown|<small>2&cent;</small>]] [[Special:Contributions/Dennis_Brown|<small>&copy;</small>]] <small><b>[[WP:WikiProject Editor Retention|Join WER]]</b></small> 13:38, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

===Statement by Aymatth2===
On 5/6 November 2012, FCYTravis became engaged in an edit war with Dr. Blofeld over the featured article [[Alcatraz Federal Penitentiary]], e.g. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Alcatraz_Federal_Penitentiary&diff=521700802&oldid=521700244 this diff]. The article has a small section on "Alleged haunting", which FCYTravis objected to on the basis that haunting is unscientific. Edit warring over a trivial issue like this is inappropriate behavior for a sysop, and has seriously annoyed Blofeld, a very productive contributor. [[User:Aymatth2|Aymatth2]] ([[User talk:Aymatth2|talk]]) 21:14, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

=== Statement by Kumioko ===
I realize my opinions probably aren't wanted here but here it is anyway. I also have very little knowledge about the individuals case I can only speak in gernalities here regarding the situation in general so take it for what its worth.

I have mentioned several times before that I believe '''anyone''' who is an admin and leaves for a prolonged period (years especially but anything over 6 months potentially) either needs to get the tools back under a probationary period or go back through the RFA process. Its nothing personal but things change very quickly around here and what was common practice 4 years ago may not be anymore. These things need to be relearned before they go tearing around.

In regards to this particular case. Maybe the user left under a cloud and maybe they didn't. Either way, that was '''4 years ago'''. If the user comes back in good faith and edits in good faith and isn't a vandal I think we need to give that user the opportunity to participate. It appears that this user has voluntarily asked for the tools to be removed, in good faith it seems after looking at the Beauracrats noticeboard because they acknowledged that they might have done something in error when confronted by another user. In my opinion, this being the case, I recommend the tools be removed as requested (perhaps with a note) and we move on. I really don't see the need or validity for a long dramatic arbitration which will likely lead to desysop anyway, probably a block and potentially a ban. Were just wasting valuable time with this. [[User:Kumioko|Kumioko]] ([[User talk:Kumioko|talk]]) 21:21, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

=== Statement by polarscribe ===
I feel that this request is premature, and that other levels of dispute resolution should be allowed to be attempted. The current situation was primarily precipitated by a conflict with [[User:Dr. Blofeld]], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Polarscribe&diff=522182376&oldid=522144094 who has proposed, and I have accepted], a one-month voluntary/without prejudice relinquishment of my administrative tools so that I may re-familiarize myself with the community. I [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Bureaucrats%27_noticeboard&diff=522294393&oldid=522254741 posted a request that this be done], but it is currently tied up in even more debate. In the meantime, I have self-imposed a condition that I will not use administrative tools during that period. I would also note that there is no allegation that I have abused administrative tools since they were re-granted.
:In the situation with [[User:Dr. Blofeld]], there was an editorial dispute, both of us briefly reverted each other and I stepped back with the article remaining in Dr. Blofeld's preferred version. We have then had fruitful conversation on my talk page, resulting in greater understanding between us and reaching a mutually-agreeable conclusion.

As for the 2008 situation which precipitated my departure, I accept that I improperly used administrative tools at that time in deleting the article outside of process. However, it was not an ordinary content dispute - it revolved around questions of reliable sourcing and statements relating to pedophilia. When faced with the clear community opposition expressed in the ANI thread, I [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Historical_pederastic_couples&action=edit&redlink=1 undeleted the article] after scarcely more than one hour and removed myself from the dispute. There was consensus that I acted improperly, but absolutely no consensus that my actions rose to the level of desysopping. I would ask ArbCom to take [[judicial notice]] that the article in question was primarily edited by a user who has since been banned for pro-pedophilia advocacy and that the article [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Historical pederastic relationships (3rd_nomination)|has since been deleted by community acclamation]]. [[User:Polarscribe|polarscribe]] ([[User talk:Polarscribe|talk]]) 21:32, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
:If [[User:DuncanHill]] is going to be involved, it should be noted that [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Bureaucrats%27_noticeboard&diff=521994785&oldid=521910688 he filed a patently false report] accusing me of abusing administrative tools in a clear vandalism-related situation. His particular interest in this case is questionable and the veracity of all his statements should be considered in this light. [[User:Polarscribe|polarscribe]] ([[User talk:Polarscribe|talk]]) 23:20, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
I would also like to address the idea that I am "hell-bent" on retaining the admin bit. I am no such thing. There is a difference of opinion - the submitter feels that I should no longer have admin tools, and I feel otherwise. This question is in the proper place - in a fair and open hearing before ArbCom. I needn't drill through and link the innumerable discussions that took place then, and have no doubt taken place in the last few years, that have long shown the unworkable nature of proposals that amount to "Votes for Deadminship," as some here have suggested I should be bound by. If the ArbCom determines that my misconduct was such that I should no longer retain the tools, that is their remit and I shall have no further complaint. [[User:Polarscribe|polarscribe]] ([[User talk:Polarscribe|talk]]) 19:38, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Re: Shearonink and [[Pardis]], please see [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Bureaucrats%27_noticeboard&diff=522004319&oldid=522002444 this discussion] at [[WP:BN]] - virtually everyone agreed that my action in briefly semi-protecting the page was, if anything, the ''nice'' way of doing things, because the IP user in question was repeatedly blanking the page and could simply have been blocked for vandalism. Rather than issuing a block on the IP user, I decided to semi-protect the page to prevent the blanking while still allowing the IP user to participate in discussion and bring up their concerns on the article's Talk page. [[User:Polarscribe|polarscribe]] ([[User talk:Polarscribe|talk]]) 23:05, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
:Shearonink: [[WP:UNINVOLVED|I neither had nor have an interest or opinion in whichever way the page ends up]], other than a brief confirmation that the current page was not patently incorrect. I do know that [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pardis&diff=521962584&oldid=521961680 blanking the page and replacing it with a poorly-written sentence] is not the way to implement a change. Hence, the invitation to the user to discuss their concerns on the Talk page. [[User:Polarscribe|polarscribe]] ([[User talk:Polarscribe|talk]]) 00:07, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

After taking into account the well-reasoned opinions and arguments presented on both sides here, and in accordance with community wishes, I respectfully request that any bureaucrat withdraw my administrative tools. [[User:Polarscribe|polarscribe]] ([[User talk:Polarscribe|talk]]) 23:44, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

=== Statement by Youreallycan ===
Disappointing resyop by [[User:Nihonjoe]] - no reason at all to rush to jump in while discussion was ongoing - I expect more from Crats and my personal position is that [[User:Nihonjoe]] has lost my trust and should resign - a claim of [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Dr._Blofeld previous dispute] was alleged against [[User:Nihonjoe]] by [[User:Dr. Blofeld]] creating an involved position that the user should have avoided advanced controversial action in. - I also fully object to the user now called [[User:Polarscribe]] from automatically being granting advanced permissions as per the consensus / many objections to such.<font color="purple">[[User:Youreallycan|You]]</font><font color="orange">really</font><font color="red">[[User talk:Youreallycan|can]]</font> 21:14, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

@[[User:AGK ]] - [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case&diff=522395565&oldid=522395335 diff] - its not a matter of clear allegation - its just that the crat [[User:Nihonjoe]] has a previous interaction with the user and should have avoided using his advanced permissions to avoid this all occurring as a result- <font color="purple">[[User:Youreallycan|You]]</font><font color="orange">really</font><font color="red">[[User talk:Youreallycan|can]]</font> 22:55, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

@[[User:MBisanz]],- I agree with the comment - threatening retaliatory actions by crats (as you suggest in your fifth argument) does not help - <font color="purple">[[User:Youreallycan|You]]</font><font color="orange">really</font><font color="red">[[User talk:Youreallycan|can]]</font> 04:13, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

@Crats - as the Crats appear to be blindly following policy I support removal of their right to resyop users and suggest the decisions on such be elevated to arbcom level - <font color="purple">[[User:Youreallycan|You]]</font><font color="orange">really</font><font color="red">[[User talk:Youreallycan|can]]</font> 04:33, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

===Statement by Dr. Blofeld===
What outraged me enough to walk out of here was not the conflict over the Alcatraz article which I had personally tried to address, but the way in which Polarscribe applied for resysopping during the edit conflict, having been away for four years and returning in a worrying context which began with IP edit warring. What was suspicious to me is that an editor showed concerns of the paranormal content on the talk page of Alcatraz Federal Penitentiary and then just a day or two later two different IP addresses turned up to start removing it and talking of it being nonsense despite it being sourced, and then he opened a new account for some reason. I accused him of being a disgruntled or banned former administrator and said how amusing it was for newbies to cite policies. He later requested an account merger, which at the time seemed like a cover up for an edit summary indicating abuse of multiple accounts but in actuality he had filed the request earlier in which he had disclosed he was the same editor. But at the time my concerns of Polar were ignored at a time of edit conflict in which he successfully was granted his admin rights. Rambling Man, Bisanz (if a little rigid in his approach) and others were perfectly reasonable I thought given that they were following policy but I could not believe that this was actually policy and how it was permitted to grant somebody who has left wikipedia for 4 years, and simply demands admin tools before constructive editing at the time of an edit conflict. To me it seemed this editor wanted admin tools to shut me out of editing the article and that he would abuse his tools. I was admittedly concerned about the haste in which Nihon Joe granted the tools, but he was supported by the others but I was suspicious for reasons I think people are aware of.

I currently have patched things up with the editor I had the dispute with who has promised to not use his admin tools for a month, but I am still disgusted enough with the process in which this happened which has made me lose faith in the project; such actions are potentially dangerous if editors gone for years are not given them form of trial or education on what has change ''before'' being granted the tools.
<small>Moved by clerk</small>
::@AGK: I have quite clearly said that the other crats supported his decision and that it would have been done anyway. I have amended what I have said anyway as I have such a long history, finding things would be very difficult, I know I've seen his name crop up negatively. Even if he actually does not have a dislike for me as I think has been apparent, the haste in which he granted them despite what were obvious concerns was worrying I thought.♦ [[User talk:Dr. Blofeld|<span style="font-variant:small-caps;color:#000">Dr. ☠ Blofeld</span>]] 11:17, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
:::@PhilKnight: I'd be inclined to forget 4 years ago, but it seems that is the justification for this case. I was personally concerned about what he did ''since'' he returned and the context in which he reapplied for adminship while edit warring. Nobody seems to be looking at the history of the Alcatraz page and the IP warring. I had a right to be suspicious. That it could have been overlooked for a candidate so long gone from the project I thought was the biggest miscarriage of justice here. He applied for his tools before constructively editing wikipedia and it seemed for not the right reasons; maybe he will prove himself over time. Its sad that you are so set in policies that common sense is not permitted to be exercised. if you are not remotely suspicious of an editor who walked out on wikipedia 4 years ago to return prompted by edit warring and then filing for readminship ''during'' the warring then there is something obviously wrong with your policy which needs amending to allow for common sense on a case by case basis. If Nihon Joe is not actually at fault for following this something needs to be amended to at least look at the ''context'' in which admins return after a long break, and that would not be at arb of course. ♦ [[User talk:Dr. Blofeld|<span style="font-variant:small-caps;color:#000">Dr. ☠ Blofeld</span>]] 11:35, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

=== Statement by Coren ===
The only involvement I have in this matter is that, when the request was initially posted, there was some question about the interplay between the older account and the newer (declared) alternate account. I simply checked that checkuser data was consistent with FCYTravis's representations, and asked him to clarify the matter.

Additionally, and at around the same time, I was consulted by a 'crat on IRC as to my opinion whether this was the same editor that was originally in control of the administrator account. While checkuser data regarding the old account is long gone and would have been hardly probative either way given the long time interval, comparing the editing styles and areas of interest gave no indication that this was not the same editor, and I opined as much. &mdash;&nbsp;[[User:Coren|Coren]]&nbsp;<sup>[[User Talk:Coren|(talk)]]</sup> 21:38, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

=== Statement by IRWolfie- ===
I too share a deep unease with this, where Nihonjoe seems to have given next to no time for the issues to be looked at. Has the deleted talk page been restored? [[User:IRWolfie-|IRWolfie-]] ([[User talk:IRWolfie-|talk]]) 22:22, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

:I would agree with Dennis Brown that no single Crat should be singled out for any admonishment. [[User:IRWolfie-|IRWolfie-]] ([[User talk:IRWolfie-|talk]]) 14:58, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

=== Statement by Deryck ===
Adminship is no big deal. Now that we have a drought of new admins, we should make it easy for old-timers to return to their jobs. I believe Nihonjoe and other crats are acting correctly and in good faith when they re-grant sysop permission to those who are desysopped purely due to inactivity. The "in a cloud" clause applies to sysops who ''gave up'' their tools amidst a controversy, not those who left without being stripped of them. In all respect, the correct way to treat this case is to let FCYTravis keep his sysop flag for now; a case can be opened, if necessary, to determine whether his deeds before he left in 2008 and after his return this year warrant desysopping due to misbehaviour. [[User:Deryck Chan|Der]][[User talk:Deryck Chan|yck C.]] 22:39, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

=== Statement by Leaky Caldron ===
Nihonjoe acted with unnecessary haste by stepping into, cutting across and attempting to curtial the active discussion. He should accept admonishment. 'Crats in general appear to have began treating requests for reactivation with cavalier haste in recent months with requests fulfilled within minutes. Numerous examples and jokey discussion contained here [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Bureaucrats%27_noticeboard/Archive_25#Resysop_request], [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Bureaucrats%27_noticeboard/Archive_25]. This was a shambles waiting to happen and 'Crats should review their approach and look once again at introducing a fixed minimum period for consideration. There is no rush. The editor involved should consider an RFA. [[User:Leaky_caldron|<span style="color:Black;font:bold 8pt kristen itc">Leaky </span>]][[User talk:Leaky_caldron|<span style="color:Grey;font:bold 8pt kristen itc">Caldron</span>]] 22:28, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

=== Statement by SudoGhost ===
{{cot|Collapsing my own comment, since the accusation I responded to was removed.}}
I was notified of this on my talk page but my name being listed above as an "involved party" was rescinded. However, since Dr. Blofeld has brought my name up, I wanted to respond. I have no opinion or knowledge about the administrative tools issue, so I don't think it's appropriate to comment on that, but I don't think an editor should accuse me of having a "long standing grudge" without my being able to respond and explain. If an editor is going to make such a contentious and inappropriate comment, they need to back up such a claim or strike it, because it is both presumptive and inaccurate. I'm aware that Dr. Blofeld and I have interacted previously in a very limited and indirect manner, and I addressed him only once in the AfD he refers to, and certainly not in any manner that would create the "grudge" he seems to be looking for. Other than trumping up a "grudge" in order [[:File:Graham's Hierarchy of Disagreement.svg|to avoid addressing the issue]], I am not aware of why he would suggest any such thing.

Although why he says that I "obviously have issues with him over Gibraltarpedia" is beyond me, I wasn't aware about the whole "Gibraltarpedia" thing until it was brought to my attention ''after'' our interaction. At any rate, if I see an editor misusing rollback, I will typically leave them a message on their talk page letting them know, since misusing it is inappropriate and will typically lead to the privileged being removed. Dr. Blofeld is far from the only editor I have notified in this way,[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Balph_Eubank&diff=507715537&oldid=507715399][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=495998702][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=507712328][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:EncycloPetey&diff=481618942&oldid=481516797] (there are more, I just cannot find them) and I had no previous interaction (that I am aware of) with any of the previous editors, so I don't think it's as "obvious" as Dr. Blofeld seems to believe that I have some kind of grudge just because we previously interacted; I'm not sure why disagreeing would warrant that anyways, otherwise everyone would have a grudge against everyone else given enough time.

I don't have an issue with Dr. Blofeld, what I ''do'' have an issue with is an editor misusing user rights in a content dispute. When an editor does this, I have an issue with the action, not the editor. This is especially true when said user complains about another editor having access to tools in a manner that (to my knowledge) are in line with Wikipedia's community consensus on the matter, when they themselves are misusing the user rights given to them, in a content dispute with that very same editor.[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Alcatraz_Federal_Penitentiary&diff=521700244&oldid=521700100][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Alcatraz_Federal_Penitentiary&diff=521700871&oldid=521700802] I don't think it's appropriate for an editor to hold others to a higher standard than they themselves are willing to meet. - [[User:SudoGhost|Sudo]][[User_talk:SudoGhost#top|Ghost]] 22:50, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

@Dr. Blofeld: When you make unfounded accusations about other editors, don't be surprised when they defend themselves. That this "is not about you" is not a defense to that; this was not about me when you dragged my name through the dirt with your (still) unfounded accusations, yet you still brought my name into this. Therefore it should not come as a surprise that your unfounded accusations were addressed. - [[User:SudoGhost|Sudo]][[User_talk:SudoGhost#top|Ghost]] 01:13, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
{{cob}}

=== Statement by DuncanHill===
As the editor who surprised ''some'' crats by being able to find an old ANI thread, and someone who has expressed strong opinions on the crat board about this case, I shall be making a statement here. However, it is after 11 o' clock on a Saturday night, and like any good Englishman I may at this moment have had a drink or two. I would request that the arbs try to avoid making a decision before involved parties have a proper chance to contribute. [[User:DuncanHill|DuncanHill]] ([[User talk:DuncanHill|talk]]) 23:05, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
*Clerks - I regard myself as an involved partiy, given the history. [[User:DuncanHill|DuncanHill]] ([[User talk:DuncanHill|talk]]) 23:07, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

=== Statement by Churn and change ===

Here, per Risker's asking, is a summary of FCTravis's actions prior to vanishing in 2008:

'On May 9, 2008, FCYTravis (FC) threatened to delete all depictions of Muhammed and cartoons on Muhammed if another image, that of a child which others including sysops such as Walton One claimed violated BLP policy, were deleted: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Polarscribe&diff=211337663&oldid=211336809]. The image, "Image:Virgin_Killer.jpg" was deleted on May 13, 2008, and reinstated later after a deletion review and more discussion. On July 19, 2008, FC indeed broke policy by directly deleting an article, "Historical pederastic couples," a few hours after its deletion discussion had been closed by another admin as showing "no consensus." FC was involved in the discussion and an edit war that followed immediately after its closure. FC insisted the article violated the policies of verifiability and biography of living people (BLP). FC’s actions were criticized by admin Tony Fox, whose last comments were that "FCYTravis appears to have used his admin tools when involved in a dispute over the article, as he notes himself above". Bureaucrat WJBscribe put it more bluntly as "This is outrageous behaviour." See [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&oldid=226691201#Unusual_action_by_admin_FCYTravis]. WJBscribe stated BLP did not apply since Bernard Montgomery, the person FC thought would be affected, had been dead 30 years. Moni3, the third and last sysop to comment, stated "this [was] quite disconcerting." Just one other editor defended the action. FC stated on July 19, 2008 (9:08 PM): "Do what the hell you want" ([http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=226691201]), but restored the article at 9:20 PM the same day: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Historical_pederastic_couples&action=edit&redlink=]. This admin was spared a procedure seeking removal of the admin bit presumably because of taking a wikibreak, making it impossible to discuss the procedure except in absentia: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Polarscribe&oldid=226691873]. The article in question was eventually deleted much later, following the right process, after a community discussion.'

Re: NewYorkBrad: There was no "dispute" over the admin's action; it was a one-sided debate. It is long-forgotten likely because the admin chose to retire, and people had no stomach for judging this in absentia. <s>Policy may not tie "leaving in controversial circumstances" to inactivity-desysopping; it does tie it to resysopping.</s> Bureaucrats are human and make mistakes; we need a forum to correct those mistakes, without necessarily taking any action against the bureaucrat. Arbcom is that forum; you have to act, not abstain.

Re: Risker: No, that final discussion before the sysop's departure was not a "deletion discussion," nor a "deletion review", it was a questioning of an admin misuse of the tools, and the answers all pointed exactly one way.

I think on the bureaucrat's part this is a minor mistake; considering how difficult it is to do a thorough check on somebody who left so long ago, I don't think an ArbCom revert need be seen as anything other than correcting an oversight.

Re: MBisanz: [[WP:RESYSOP]] guideline 2 just says no restoration of admins if "they may have resigned (or become inactive) for the purpose, or with the effect, of evading scrutiny of their actions that could have led to sanctions." If bureaucrats claim their actions cannot be undone, with every mistake they will lose editors' respect faster than if the error were undone.

@MBisanz: The policy crats implement still has to be interpreted per community consensus, not crat consensus; so just the views of you, Avi and Dweller are insufficient. I looked through the threads and I do not see the community consensus (or even a crat consensus) for interpreting "evading scrutiny of actions" as crats having to read the minds of ArbCom members on whether the action should lead to removal of admin rights. As to ArbCom's charter, they get to define what "serious misconduct" is. No, FC did not just delete "out of processs"; FC threatened, credibly, to disrupt Wikipedia against policy, deleted a page "against policy," edit-warred against policy, and page-protected against policy, all in 2008. There is no statue of limitations on sysop behavior; I realize ArbCom members are volunteers and we have no leverage; however, their elected mandate is not for avoiding cases made harder because they happened a few years in the past. Uninvolved editors have dug up the evidence.

@Wehwalt:[[WP:Bureaucrats]] says, at the start: "[Bureaucrats] are bound by policy and consensus only to grant administrator or bureaucrat access when doing so reflects the wishes of the community, [usually after an RFA]." It doesn't say restore the bit unless opposition is unanimous. [[User:Churn and change|Churn and change]] ([[User talk:Churn and change|talk]]) 06:50, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

===Statement by MBisanz===
I commented in the original discussion, so I suppose I should comment here.

1. Coren and Courcelles aren't involved by virtue of the fact they can't make or deny a resysop, so I don't think either should worry about recusal. Nihonjoe also is not involved by virtue of a prior conflict with Dr. Blofled because the request for resysop involved conduct by Polarscribe from 2008 that Dr. Blofeld and Nihonjoe were not involved in.

2. Three crats, including myself, commented in favor of the resysopping prior to Nihonjoe performing the resysopping. The 24 hour suggested window is to ensure proper crat attention is given to a request. At least I, and possibly three other crats, reviewed the original thread from 2008 and did not see it as disqualifying Polarscribe from being given back the tools.

3. In 2008 Polarscribe deleted a page out of process, was taken to ANI, retired, and undeleted the page. He also deleted his user talk page out of process. The historical meaning, as I understand it, is that circumstances are controversial if the resignation or retirement is such that a reasonable person would believe the admin did it to avoid imminent scrutiny that would likely result in desysopping. RFC and RFAR can reasonably be seen as processes that inflict scrutiny such that a reasonable admin would fear desysopping; ANI and AN are not such venues nor was Polarscribe of such a level of fear of desysopping that he actually resigned the tools. From his actions in 2008, I did not and do not believe it is likely that the Arbcom of 2008, 2011, or 2012 would have desysopped him for it and therefore do not believe it was under a cloud. See also [[Wikipedia:Under_a_cloud#Examples of resigning under a cloud]].

4. It is within Arbcom's scope to hear requests for removal of the tools, see [[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Policy#Scope_and_responsibilities]], it is not within Arbcom's scope to correct errors unless those errors are the result of a conduct violation or result in disruption to the project. A crat exercising his discretion within policy, even if an arb would have exercised it differently, is not within that scope.

5. If Arbcom insists on intervening to reverse or remand, as indicated by Courcelles and alluded to by NYB, I would submit that I think most crats will be likely to decline most future requests for resysopping for fear of being second-guessed and admonished by the Arbs, who apparently believe they know how to interpret requests for resysop better than the crats. See also [[Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Race_and_intelligence#Statement_by_TC|T Canens comment on AE reviews]].

6. If people are upset with this result, I would urge them to go over to [[WT:ADMIN]] and [[WT:CRAT]] and change the policy. I've just made a proposal to that end, which it appears the community will be rejecting. That's the right way to handle it when people don't like results, not to appeal to Arbcom to re-write the policy and act outside its area of expertise to re-make the decision.

Thank you. '''[[User:MBisanz|<span style='color: #FFFF00;background-color: #0000FF;'>MBisanz</span>]]''' <sup>[[User talk:MBisanz|<span style='color: #FFA500;'>talk</span>]]</sup> 01:23, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
Re: Churn: Yes, and evading scrutiny has been interpreted to mean evading scrutiny of the type likely to lead to removal by Arbrcom. See [[Wikipedia:Bureaucrats'_noticeboard/Archive_18#Adminship]] (myself, Avi, and Dweller), [[Wikipedia:Bureaucrats'_noticeboard/Archive_8#Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship.2FMajorly]] (NYB), [[Wikipedia:Under_a_cloud#Examples of resigning under a cloud]]. Also, crat decisions have never been reviewable; that's why the threshold to become a crat is so high. The only protection against bad crat closures is Arbcom review of improper conduct in the close (corruption, collusion, etc); not re-review of if the crat made the best decision that the reviewing arb would have made. Ditto for DRV or SPI. If the community wants the crats to use a different standard to review decisions for resysop, like to consult with the community or have a waiting time, then I think you should propose it at [[WT:ADMIN]] or [[WT:CRAT]], not ask Arbcom to enact it by fiat by overturning the validly performed crat closure. '''[[User:MBisanz|<span style='color: #FFFF00;background-color: #0000FF;'>MBisanz</span>]]''' <sup>[[User talk:MBisanz|<span style='color: #FFA500;'>talk</span>]]</sup> 02:43, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Re: Cavarrone: There have been several threads at BN about establishing a minimum waiting period and they have always ended inconclusively. If the community lacks the consensus to establish a waiting period, I don't see why Arbcom should impose it by fiat. Also, I'm not making a threat to retaliate, I'm just saying that if Arbcom intends to review and overturn crat decisions that are not improper, but that it would have made differently if it were the crat, I'm more than happy to let them make the correct decision in the first place. '''[[User:MBisanz|<span style='color: #FFFF00;background-color: #0000FF;'>MBisanz</span>]]''' <sup>[[User talk:MBisanz|<span style='color: #FFA500;'>talk</span>]]</sup> 02:49, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Re: Courcelles: I would be interested to see how you justify the view that if crats are not empowered to remove the tools under these circumstances, then it must be within Arbcom's remit to do so. I find the language of [[Wikipedia:ADMIN#Arbitration_Committee_review]], what with RFCs and serious misconduct on the administrator's part, as incongruent with your view that Arbcom has plenary power to generally determine who is suitable to be an admin. You might suggest an amendment to the admin removal policy to remove the parts referring to serious admin misconduct as a constraint on Arbcom's jurisdiction to handle requests for removal. '''[[User:MBisanz|<span style='color: #FFFF00;background-color: #0000FF;'>MBisanz</span>]]''' <sup>[[User talk:MBisanz|<span style='color: #FFA500;'>talk</span>]]</sup> 03:08, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Re: Alanscottwalker: I can see how that looks contradictory and it's probably because of my strong belief in separating my subjective views from what policy requires. I hate having to evaluate if an admin resigned under controversial circumstances. If Arbcom would take cases against retired admins alleged of abuse (I know they sometimes do, like Aitias, but that's the exception) and if RFCs could be brought against retired admins, then crats could have a simple standard because there would be no admins who resigned to avoid scrutiny as resigning wouldn't avoid scrutiny. Also, Arbcom, for probably good reasons, generally sets a sunset on when complaints can be prosecuted. I would be very happy with Arbcom reviewing these controversial bit restorations in the general context of reviewing admin abuse. Not "was the decision to resysop wrong?" but rather "did X violate community norms in such a manner and context as to warrant sanction?" I would be unhappy with it overturning crats because Arbcom has decided not to hear cases against retiring users and Arbcom's general process doesn't let it review four year old behavior.

Re: Courcelles: You have not alleged Arbcom has private material in its possession and I have not contested that Arbcom does have unique expertise in dealing with private information that the crats should grant deference to. You are unhappy with the result and believe your opinion of the result should override that of the crats and policy; I would encourage you to run for RFB or propose amendments to ADMIN/ARB. I would also appreciate if you would clarify a point for me. Do you mean that Arbcom will review allegations of admin abuse no matter how old they are whenever a user seeks restoration of the tools? If so, I'm sure I can find plenty of situations to bring to Arbcom from [[WP:FORMER#Resigned]] (I probably should keep a list in this case) because nearly every admin I know (including myself) has committed some infraction at some point. In the alternative, do you mean that Arbcom will review substantive decisions taken in other areas of the project that lack a defined manner of appeal? If so, the Arb Policy needs to be re-worded to make clear the obvious appeals of DRV closures, FAC closures, etc. should brought here and the crat policy needs to be re-worded to make clear that crats can review otherwise unappealable desysop decisions of Arbcom. If every decision must be reviewable on its merits by someone, there are many many wrong decisions going unappealed.

Re: Jclemens: I appreciate your suggestion to define the various duties; I think that would be wholly appropriate. Arbcom has unique expertise in things like private information, reviewing admin abuse and investigating corruption and conspiracy; I believe the crats have universally deferred to Arbcom in the RTV context when the Committee has informed us of private information concerns. Crats have unique expertise in enforcing the policies to grant userrights and I believe that Arbcom has generally avoided interfering (such as ordering resysoppings or RFA closures). As I've said, I don't think the answer to question 1 is one for Arbcom to make, it's for the community to make in defining [[WP:ADMIN]]. I think the answer to question 2 is the same as if a crat disagrees with an Arbcom finding to desysop or I disagree with the closure of a DRV; every error doesn't have a remedy and editors should avoid acting outside of policy to try and enforce a view they believe is "the right decision." The goal is a valid decision made through the appropriate process (no COI, no bribery, no conspiracy, on the right page, for the stated duration, using the appropriate standard, etc), not decision a particular individual thinks would be the decision they would have made. '''[[User:MBisanz|<span style='color: #FFFF00;background-color: #0000FF;'>MBisanz</span>]]''' <sup>[[User talk:MBisanz|<span style='color: #FFA500;'>talk</span>]]</sup> 16:26, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

I would broadly agree with [[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Community_input_by_NE_Ent]]'s reading of the situation. '''[[User:MBisanz|<span style='color: #FFFF00;background-color: #0000FF;'>MBisanz</span>]]''' <sup>[[User talk:MBisanz|<span style='color: #FFA500;'>talk</span>]]</sup> 16:27, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Re: Courcelles: You aren't stating what you intend to do here. Re-filing a DRV isn't the same thing as saying the first DRV closer's opinion was wrong and you know better then them; ditto for FAC. A new FAC doesn't say the first FAC was wrong to fail it and that it should have passed the first time but for the closer's error. You've already [[Wikipedia:Bureaucrats'_noticeboard/Archive_25#Resysop_request|expressed your views]] at [[WP:BN]] and [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Administrators&diff=522229397&oldid=522157579 WT:ADMIN] about crat resysopping procedures and the community has failed to adopt your opinion of a need to change policy. To try and force your opinion into policy using your position on Arbcom is improper. If you think it's broken and the community doesn't agree, that doesn't mean you get to supervote here.

Re: Elen: I'm not sure where there is confusion in [[WP:ADMIN]]. The [[Wikipedia:ADMIN#Procedural_removal_for_inactive_administrators|inactivity section]] says "This desysopping is not to be considered permanent, or a reflection on the user's use of, or rights to, the admin tools." and "If the user returns to Wikipedia, they may be resysopped by a bureaucrat without further discussion as long as there are no issues with the editor's identity and they stopped editing Wikipedia while still in good standing or in uncontroversial circumstances." No one has contested that Polarscribe's desysopping did occur under this provision and no one has provided evidence that it's within Arbcom's remit to fix non-misconduct mistakes of the crats. Just as Arbcom wouldn't order a user to be sysopped if it thought the crat misinterpreted an RFA, I don't see why Arbcom would order a user desysopped if it thought the crat misinterpreted a user's resysop request. '''[[User:MBisanz|<span style='color: #FFFF00;background-color: #0000FF;'>MBisanz</span>]]''' <sup>[[User talk:MBisanz|<span style='color: #FFA500;'>talk</span>]]</sup> 22:55, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Re: AGK: Because I first proposed it back in 2008/09, I know that there has never been community consensus for the crats to act in a group. Furthermore, while I opposed Dweller's RFB for the reason that he was opposed to en banc crat actions, I now realize that it is part of the conservative aspect of the crat role that we don't act as a group to review each other's actions; the community has never told us we should and there is no historical precedent for it. In place of a motion, I would strongly urge you to propose a change in [[WP:CRAT]] or at least at [[Wikipedia:Bureaucrat discussion]] (Crat chats were invented without community input iirc, but at least they have historical use on their side). Arbcom is at the edge of its implicit remit (and beyond its explicit remit) when it imposes new processes on others without community approval and I don't see this as a situation warranting such action. Descriptively, Arbcom has explicit authority to innovate in the management of checkuser and oversight because those tools are derived from its position of managing private information and identifying disruptive parties; Arbcom implicitly can innovate in things like creating admin troikas for direct RFCs as an extension of its need to end disputes; Arbcom should not say it thinks a crat, acting properly, made a wrong choice and therefore the other crats should be tasked with review of his decision. It's just too attenuated from Arbcom's remit. '''[[User:MBisanz|<span style='color: #FFFF00;background-color: #0000FF;'>MBisanz</span>]]''' <sup>[[User talk:MBisanz|<span style='color: #FFA500;'>talk</span>]]</sup> 20:29, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Re: Elen: I'm not sure if I've said it here, but I had reviewed the 2008 thread prior to Nihonjoe resysopping and was preparing (I actually had the screen loaded and refreshed BN to see he had done it) to do it myself; I wish I had been more hasty because I could say I had all of the relevant information. If I could substitute myself into the userrights log (as is sometimes done for blocks or deletions), I would fully claim responsibility for it and for the pre-resysop determination that it was without a cloud. Also, if I were you, I would urge the community to urgently address it and create a method, but I don't think the creation of that method of review is Arbcom's job. '''[[User:MBisanz|<span style='color: #FFFF00;background-color: #0000FF;'>MBisanz</span>]]''' <sup>[[User talk:MBisanz|<span style='color: #FFA500;'>talk</span>]]</sup> 22:58, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

=== Statement by Cavarrone ===
I spent a couple of hours to review the situation and the previous discussions. About the "cloud", I found the [[Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive452#Unusual_action_by_admin_FCYTravis|ANI]] that moved FCYTravis/Polarscribe to the break is quite enlightening. It must be underlined that he did not only deleted a page a few hours the relevant AFD was closed as no consensus, but, when requested by other admins to restore the page, he refused if not on his own terms "''The offer was made on the user's talk page quite awhile ago: if he agrees not to blindly revert to a version that includes a multitude of unsourced, poorly sourced and speculative alleged relationships, I will undelete it''". And yes, he finally undeleted the article, but, according the ANI discussion, he undeleted it in his own version and he also protected it.

As well-described by Churn and change the ANI discussion was a one-sided debate, his actions were spectacularly wrong and his break was not a "coincidence". And it was not the first time (see the Muhammad's images incident) nor the last time (the talk page blanking) he abused of his tools.
The same crat who restored his tools didn't considered the ANI in his decision, as he [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Bureaucrats%27_noticeboard&diff=521848801&oldid=521848326 lately wrote] "''As for the ANI page, I hadn't seen that until now (for some reason, it didn't come up when I did a quick search before...perhaps I had a typo in my search terms). After reading it, I can see why there would be concerns, and I think they may be sufficient to be a "cloud", though technically, the tools were not removed under a cloud as that happened for inactivity a few years after he took the self-imposed wikibreak. He did, however, go on his break due to the scrutiny found in that ANI thread.''"

I think Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy and requires, at first place, common sense. There could be bureaucratic ways to escape from doing an action, but here we need to fix a patent error, even if it could be badly accepted by someone.

@ MBisanz, threatening retaliatory actions by crats (as you suggest in your fifth argument) does not help. The decision of the crat here was, anyhow, at the best premature, as the same crat basically admitted. [[User:Cavarrone|Cavarrone]] ([[User talk:Cavarrone|talk]]) 02:40, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

@ MBisanz/bis, I'm not asking for a minimum waiting period or for strict rules, I'm just asking for common sense. There are cases and cases; cases that require a couple of minutes and cases that require a inner look. Here, as lately admitted by the same craft, in making the decision it was not reviewed the whole edit history of the user nor it was checked the incident that caused the break. And that incident was later described by the same craft as "''a sufficient to be a "cloud''". [[User:Cavarrone|Cavarrone]] ([[User talk:Cavarrone|talk]]) 03:12, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

===Statement by Reaper Eternal ===
My interaction with this editor was limited solely to investigating the behavior to see if the original account's owner was still in control of the account and to investigate [[Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/FCYTravis]]. Having been convinced that the original account owner was indeed in control of the account and that there was no attempt to deceive, I had no further comment to make with respect to the resysopping. [[User:Reaper Eternal|Reaper Eternal]] ([[User talk:Reaper Eternal|talk]]) 02:42, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

===Statement by Rschen7754===
The deletion was out of process, unless you consider it to be an (inadequate) response to BLP (protection would have been better). It could be a response to BLP, but I don't have the credentials to say for sure or not; the diffs are a mess. If it's not BLP, then it's automatically an INVOLVED issue; verifiability is a ''content'' issue and I'm not aware that admins can enforce that ''with administrative tools'' unless it also falls afoul of BLP, or is sent through a deletion process. The deletion of the user's own talk was also bad; in policy, I don't know, but that's not optimal either. Consensus at the ANI seems to reflect that what happened was improper, though.

However, I don't think this would have resulted in a desysop in 2008, having been an active editor/admin at the time (with some abnormal editing breaks I will admit). 2008/2009 was the end of the cowboy era of adminship. So we're left with it a) being a proper BLP issue, in which case no desysop, or b) being improper, which still results in no desysop. Still thinking about the other issues, but that much is clear to me. --'''[[User:Rschen7754|Rs]][[User talk:Rschen7754|chen]][[Special:Contributions/Rschen7754|7754]]''' 08:43, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

I've read through the bureaucrats and administrators policies, and quite frankly, this is starting to turn into [[Impeachment of Bill Clinton|"It depends upon what the meaning of the word 'is' is."]] The guidelines aren't written very well, or we wouldn't have this issue. The community does need to resolve that. <s>I'm interested in what Nihonjoe has to say; if he wants to reverse his decision, I think he should be allowed to without penalty.</s> Failing that, Newyorkbrad's idea of giving the bureaucrats a chance to discuss the resysop is appropriate.

But beyond that, we're left with two options. I think overriding the bureaucrats by fiat is a very bad precedent to set. I also have some concerns about the ''recent'' actions: it seems that he requested resysop during an edit war, and seems hellbent on retaining his sysop status since (speculating here) he thinks he might not get it back, ever. That's not a good attitude to have: maybe it would have worked in 2008, but not now. If a person lose the trust of the community they should not be an arbitrator, or admin, or bureaucrat, or checkuser, or oversighter, and should step down. So it seems ArbCom is stuck between a rock and a hard place. If you want my opinion, I think alienating the crats would be the worse of the two options, since it is possible to desysop at a later point should any/further misconduct occur.

Polarscribe, this has nothing to do with being a net positive or negative for the project, and you should feel welcome to contribute, regardless of your userrights. I know several non-admins in [[WP:USRD]] who have been editing for years as non-admins and are happy to remain non-admins. --'''[[User:Rschen7754|Rs]][[User talk:Rschen7754|chen]][[Special:Contributions/Rschen7754|7754]]''' 10:06, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

'''@Courcelles''' If it was a clear mistake, then sure, ArbCom should reverse it. But my question is, was it? I'm interested to hear your reasoning on this. --'''[[User:Rschen7754|Rs]][[User talk:Rschen7754|chen]][[Special:Contributions/Rschen7754|7754]]''' 22:26, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

===Statement by Bwilkins===
Let me start by saying that until a couple of days ago, I cannot claim to have ever been aware of Travis/polarscribe. As such my "involvement" merely is around having monitored the Bureaucrat's Noticeboard ''via'' my watchlist, and been astounded by the recent actions - it is the recent discussion that is my only "involvement".
As a process argument, there was a discussion a couple of weeks ago where The Rambling Man immediately acted upon a resysop. His argument was that seeing as he had been the one to do the voluntary desysop, he would know whether there had been a problem. <s>The rest</s>''A good portion'' of the Bureaucrat cadre disagreed, and a delay process was implemented after much discussion. As such, '''this re-sysop fails established time process'''.
The original RFC that provided for automatic desysopping gave a method for resysop stating ''"if an inactive admin returns to Wikipedia, they may be resysopped by a bureaucrat without further discussion, providing they left Wikipedia in good standing and not in controversial circumstances, and that their identity is not in dispute"''. This situation fails this test in two separate manners: first, the linked ANI discussion and "final events" by Travis before he "disappeared" from the project were destructive, and contrary to Wikipedia policy - plus had [[WP:DIVA]] written all over them. By appearances, their "disappearance" for 4 years was to distance themselves from those actions so that we would foreget. These are controversial circumstances. The other half of the dispute involves the fact that an SPI report had actually been filed against polarscribe based on the account behaviour - there was clearly some degree of doubt whether polarscribe was Travis and ''vice versa''. As such, '''this resysop wholly fails the "not in controversial" test, and may fail the "identity" test'''.
When advised of the problems, Nihonjoe stated that although he had the authority to re-grant the bit, he was not permitted to remove the bit as per policy. An erroneous act must be reversible. '''This aspect needs to be clarified'''.
Polarscribe themself has refused to take part in a reconfirmation RFA - which would be the ethical thing to do in a circumstance such as this. Polarscribe acted unethically in requesting re-sysop knowing that a "cloud" existed.
The community does need to perform some work here to revamp much of what is a beneficial policy - time limits, possible re-training, etc, but those are beyond the remit of ArbCom. However, we now have an admin who had been granted the bit, [[WP:DIVA]]'d, went away for years under a cloud, and now believes they're beyond the reach of the community. ([[User talk:Bwilkins|✉→]]'''[[User:Bwilkins|BWilkins]]'''[[Special:Contributions/Bwilkins|←✎]]) 10:41, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

=== Statement by Snowolf ===
The committee faces two options, neither of them particularly likable: on the one hand, it can accept the case, and decide what to do with Polarscribe's sysop bit, this would be, I feel, an expansion of the ArbCom's role and would take a way a good chunk of the bureaucrats' discretionary powers. On the other hand, it can decline the case, hence showcasing a serious flaw in our policies dealing with the matter, and how bureaucrats are not technically empowered to reverse their own decision even if they wish to, and how we need to find a better way to handle the resysoppal process or overhaul it completely. I would very much like for the Committee to take a look at the situation, but I'm not sure it is really the right way to go about this. As a side-note and not entirely related, I'd like to note that there's hardly any agreement among the bureaucrats as to what the threshold for declining to resysop is, even the same person has taken two different positions over time, as discussed at [[Wikipedia:Bureaucrats'_noticeboard#Inactivity_vs_resignation]]. <i><b>[[User:Snowolf|<font color = "darkmagenta">Snowolf</font>]] <sup><small>[[User talk:Snowolf|<font color = "darkmagenta">How can I help?</font>]]</small></sup></b></i> 12:22, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

===Statement by NE Ent===
* Policy is clear removal of admin bit due to inactivity is explicitly a procedural security measure, not a reflection of an admin's status in the community.
* The linked ANI discussion is highly focused on the article; none of the usual keywords for admin status removal (e.g. ''desyop'',''open for recall'', ''Arbcom'') that get bandied about ANI are present. The strongest statement present is WJBscribe's [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=226690591 reconsider having (tools)]. Editors complaining about admin actions is situation normal, not ''controversial circumstances.''
* One of Polarscribe's last actions was, in fact, heeding community consensus [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=&user=Polarscribe&page=&year=2008&month=7&tagfilter=&hide_patrol_log=1&hide_review_log=1 restoring] the disputed article. Rather than continuing to disrupt WP, they did the prudent thing and took a wikibreak.
* No significant evidence of failure to follow policy is being presented, a lot of evidence of ''we don't like the policy'' is. As Arbcom's remit does not include making policy, regardless of how dysfunctional existing policy is (see ''Civility enforcement'' case), this case should be declined. <small>[[User talk:Nobody Ent|NE Ent]]</small> 13:03, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
@Courcelles [[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Policy#Scope_and_responsibilities]] lists the responsibilities of the committee. ''Fixing all other situations which do not have an obvious and clear route of appeal'' is not among them. <small>[[User talk:NE Ent|NE Ent]]</small> 22:12, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

=== Statement by Joefromrandb ===
I think it's perfectly obvious that this user has no business holding admin rights without re-RfAing. If it takes an Arb case to fix this, so be it. Adminship-for-life, no questions asked, is a problem that is largely outside of Arbcom's remit; in this case they have the opportunity to step in and mitigate the damage. [[User:Joefromrandb|Joefromrandb]] ([[User talk:Joefromrandb|talk]]) 13:23, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

:@SilkTork: Your suggestion that the user voluntarily give up the admin tools, edit for 6 months and then reapply for them is quite sound. In a perfect world Polarscribe would do just that. Then again, in a perfect world we would not need an Arbcom. I think it's obvious Polarscribe has no intentions of voluntarily parting with his beloved tools; the 'crat who resysoped no doubt did so in good faith, but we need some measure of red-tape cutting available to the community here, and it looks like Arbcom is the only plausible possibility. The extremely high threshold required for passing RfB's should not make it all-but-impossible to overturn a crat's error. [[User:Joefromrandb|Joefromrandb]] ([[User talk:Joefromrandb|talk]]) 15:32, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

=== Comment from Alanscottwalker ===
It seems too many disputes about process arise related to how long the process is open. Admittedly, it is a matter of balance. But everyone should realize that process needs to be open long enough for community members to participate. I would advise Crats to take that into consideration and come up with something fair, but hopefully you know that you're also here to serve the Community. So, show it, so the Community doesn't have to deal with such detail issues like that. Otherwise, the Community will have no choice but to deal with it, perhaps at Arbcom.

The "gloss" Crats put on "under a cloud" or fitness maybe problematic. Crats how do you address such concerns? And does the Community through Arbcom have to ask you to do so in a case?

@MBisanz: In one of the conversations linked above, you appear to have a different take on ArbCom involvement and in particular that ArbCom should be involved, [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Bureaucrats%27_noticeboard/Archive_25#Resysop_request]
{{Quotebox|. . . I also surmise that most of the current crats hate having the evaluate controversial behavior and wish that Arbcom would make decisions as to when re-sysopping is not permitted so that the burden isn't borne by a single Crat, hence the move to auto-regrant and let Arbcom sort it out. MBisanz talk 03:36, 29 September 2012 (UTC) }}
This appears to contradict your statement here. Can you explain that? [[User:Alanscottwalker|Alanscottwalker]] ([[User talk:Alanscottwalker|talk]]) 15:37, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

::Thank you, MBizanz, for your thoughtful reply. It is agreed that ArbCom should go carefully, but something about the above conversations over the past months and the either, apparent wide interpretation (so wide one side says there is discretion and on side says there is not), or Crats throwing up their hands to in effect exercise no discretion, at all, because they "hate it" sounds like it needs examination. [[User:Alanscottwalker|Alanscottwalker]] ([[User talk:Alanscottwalker|talk]]) 18:47, 11 November 2012 (UTC) <small>(edited for clarity and c/e[[User:Alanscottwalker|Alanscottwalker]] ([[User talk:Alanscottwalker|talk]]) 23:03, 11 November 2012 (UTC))</small>

*Salvio notes an important if hard distinction, discretion is one thing and review should be "abuse of discretion"; misapplication of policy or failure to allow procedure, is another and review is "de novo." Also, "de novo," are issues of "dereliction of duty". None of this predetermines the matter, but it does guide when and how to review. [[User:Alanscottwalker|Alanscottwalker]] ([[User talk:Alanscottwalker|talk]]) 17:34, 11 November 2012 (UTC)



Looks like we are done here. (Although the Crat issue raised about "no appeal" and "no self-reversal" seems like an absurdity waiting for another day). [[User:Alanscottwalker|Alanscottwalker]] ([[User talk:Alanscottwalker|talk]]) 13:51, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

=== Comment from Salvio Giuliano===
While it's true that bureaucrats are afforded a broad latitude when it comes to granting the admin bit, they do not enjoy absolute discretion in that area: there are rules which limit their power. This means that when a 'crat legitimately exercises said discretion, his decision cannot be challenged; on the other hand, however, when he acts outside the boundaries set by policy, there must be a body competent to review (and overturn, if needed) his actions. Granted, said body should not substitute their judgement to that of the original 'crat, but they should be able to examine if procedure was properly followed. If the 'crats as a body are not willing to review the actions of one of them (or believe they are not competent), then it's up to ArbCom to do so. <p>In this case, in my opinion, procedure was not properly followed and, so, polarscribe's resysopping should be reverted. <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.118em 0.118em 0.118em;" class="texhtml"> '''[[User:Salvio giuliano|Salvio]]'''</span> [[User talk:Salvio giuliano| <sup>Let's talk about it!</sup>]] 17:18, 11 November 2012 (UTC)


=== Statement by Trusilver ===

I know nothing about the original incident that led to the alleged "under a cloud" label, nor do I care to. From a procedural standpoint, I see nothing wrong with the bureaucrat restoring the tools in this case. If an admin's transgressions are not sufficiently severe enough to result in a desyssoping, then they should not be subject to subsequent opportunism after a totally procedural removal of the bit. [[WP:INACTIVITY]] was never intended to be used as a political weapon against people we don't like. There are other mechanisms (albeit very few of them) to address problematic administrators, I suggest using them instead. [[User:Trusilver|<span style="font-family:papyrus; color:#686868;">Trusilver</span>]] 17:24, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

=== Comment by Bbb23 ===

Disclaimers: I wasn't involved in the noticeboard discussion. I never heard of Polarscribe until reading that discussion. I know nothing about the underlying events that led to his departure from Wikipedia. I had never read the relevant Wikipedia material, e.g., [[WP:RESYSOP]], the precise scope of ArbCom's responsibilities, etc. Notwithstanding my ignorance, I recommend that ArbCom take the case for the limited purpose of deciding whether it has jurisdiction to review bureautcrat decisions pursuant to RESYSOP; if the answer is yes, ArbCom should then determine what the appropriate standard of review of those decisions should be and apply the standard to the decision at issue. In answering the first question, ArbCom should consider whether other kinds of bureaucrat decisions are reviewable, i.e., a decision by a bureaucrat to grant administration privileges after an RfA has concluded as that might illuminate the issue.--[[User:Bbb23|Bbb23]] ([[User talk:Bbb23|talk]]) 18:39, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

=== Statement by Nihonjoe ===
I think my comments [[WP:BN#Resysopping|here]] and MBisanz's statement above pretty much summarize my thoughts on this issue. I see no reason to add to this huge wall of text. As for the request by Youreallycan that I resign, I see no reason to do so. My action in this case was not blatantly out of order or even outside policy. ···[[User:Nihonjoe|<font color="darkgreen">日本穣</font>]]<sup>[[WP:HIJCS|?]]</sup> · <small>[[Special:Contributions/Nihonjoe|<font color="blue">投稿</font>]] · [[User talk:Nihonjoe|Talk to Nihonjoe]] · [[WP:JA|<font color="maroon">Join WP Japan</font>]]!</small> 19:39, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
:I should also add my comment to Dr. Blofeld from my talk page regarding an apparent vendetta he alleges I have against him: "I'm not aware of any significant interaction we have. I have no feelings one way or the other concerning you. My decision to return the tools to Polarscribe had nothing at all to do with you." ···[[User:Nihonjoe|<font color="darkgreen">日本穣</font>]]<sup>[[WP:HIJCS|?]]</sup> · <small>[[Special:Contributions/Nihonjoe|<font color="blue">投稿</font>]] · [[User talk:Nihonjoe|Talk to Nihonjoe]] · [[WP:JA|<font color="maroon">Join WP Japan</font>]]!</small> 19:45, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
:I should also note that I do not see [[Wikipedia:Bureaucrats#Removal of permissions]] as giving 'crats permission to remove the admin bit even in cases such as this where some view it as a mistake having been made. If the community wants to add the ability for 'crats to remove the bit in cases such as this, I welcome an RfC to do so. The current policy leaves our hands pretty much tied. ···[[User:Nihonjoe|<font color="darkgreen">日本穣</font>]]<sup>[[WP:HIJCS|?]]</sup> · <small>[[Special:Contributions/Nihonjoe|<font color="blue">投稿</font>]] · [[User talk:Nihonjoe|Talk to Nihonjoe]] · [[WP:JA|<font color="maroon">Join WP Japan</font>]]!</small> 19:56, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
:@AGK: I'm not sure what you are wanting to hear from me. Could be more specific about this? ···[[User:Nihonjoe|<font color="darkgreen">日本穣</font>]]<sup>[[WP:HIJCS|?]]</sup> · <small>[[Special:Contributions/Nihonjoe|<font color="blue">投稿</font>]] · [[User talk:Nihonjoe|Talk to Nihonjoe]] · [[WP:JA|<font color="maroon">Join WP Japan</font>]]!</small> 05:35, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
:Per [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case&diff=prev&oldid=522725856 Polarscribe's request], I have [[Special:UserRights/Polarscribe|removed his admin bit]]. As stated in my edit summary for doing so, I figured I should be the one to do it. ···[[User:Nihonjoe|<font color="darkgreen">日本穣</font>]]<sup>[[WP:HIJCS|?]]</sup> · <small>[[Special:Contributions/Nihonjoe|<font color="blue">投稿</font>]] · [[User talk:Nihonjoe|Talk to Nihonjoe]] · [[WP:JA|<font color="maroon">Join WP Japan</font>]]!</small> 05:35, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

=== Statement by The Rambling Man ===
Well. I suggested during the course of this re-sysop we spend some time to take a longer, harder look at this particular request, but as widely advertised, Nihonjoe was following current policy as far as I could tell for an admin desysoped for inactivity. It is clear, in the aftermath, that the re-sysop following inactivity is no longer viable, provoked by an editor who has disappeared to return four years later under "uncertain" circumstances. We need another look at the re-sysop approach, clearly. What we don't need is a "blame" culture. If the community continually disagree with the decisions made by 'crats, then these sorts of decisions should be made by Arbcom, or similar. [[User:The Rambling Man|The Rambling Man]] ([[User talk:The Rambling Man|talk]]) 19:58, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
:@BWilkins: "The rest of the Bureaucrat cadre disagreed" please show me evidence that the "rest" of the 'crats disagreed? Was it [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Bureaucrats%27_noticeboard/Archive_25#Resysop_request this thread] where you claim the "rest of the Bureaucrat cadre disagreed"? Perhaps I need to re-read it if so, because it looked to me as if that thread didn't support the accusation you've made. Maybe it's in another thread? Please let me know. [[User:The Rambling Man|The Rambling Man]] ([[User talk:The Rambling Man|talk]]) 20:14, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

=== Statement by Dweller ===
I was in the process of starting a subsection at BN to establish firmly that a resysop was the only option open to the Crats when I spotted that Nihonjoe had already done the resysop, so I ditched it. This was my clear view at the time and it remains so.

Current policy gives us little wriggle room to deny the mop back to those all those other than admins who obviously resigned to avoid the kind of scrutiny likely to end in desysopping. In a theoretical case where an admin may have behaved poorly, but not to this critical level, before, after or during his 'absence', only ArbCom, and not the Crats, currently has community consensus to remove or withhold the tools.

I think it's worth bearing in mind that the consensus that led to the implementation of inactivity desyopping was built on a premise that giving back the tools would be pretty much automatic. For that reason, I think that the clear water I outlined in the paragraph above this, is a good thing.

Some of the comments made here are inflammatory and insinuations of Nihonjoe acting in bad faith without substance and should be withdrawn. I could easily have done the same myself and I have no previous interaction with the main parties.

I'd also like to rehash some of Ten's thoughts that the tone of some of this 'discussion' has been uncalled for. In the unlikely circumstance that any inactive admin is resysopped and goes rogue, there are channels, swift and not-so swift, for them to be desysopped again. Can we please have less hyperbole? --[[User:Dweller|Dweller]] ([[User talk:Dweller|talk]]) 20:13, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

@Courcelles, you may want to check the wording at [[Wikipedia:Bureaucrats#Restoration_of_permissions]], which reflects our interpretation of consensus regarding the much looser wording at [[WP:ADMIN]], and applies not just to returning inactive admins. --[[User:Dweller|Dweller]] ([[User talk:Dweller|talk]]) 22:55, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

===Statement by Shearonink===
In my statement I am only addressing my real-time impressions of the polarscribe/Polarscribe/FCYTravis account’s interactions with me or other editors since their return to editing.

On [[:Alcatraz Federal Penitentiary]] and [[Talk:Alcatraz Federal Penitentiary]]… Yes, I was under the impression, at the time, that the IP, the new account and the old account were representing themselves as being three different people. From their posts on that page, as it was happening in real time, I was thinking that they could be socks. Now, I am not saying that this individual editor’s intent was to represent their edits as coming from different people. I take it on good faith, from their subsequent explanations, this appearance of behaviors was inadvertent, but, unfortunately, at the time their behavior appeared suspicious.

On [[:Pardis]]: I am somewhat perturbed that a new editor trying to get across that they thought something was seriously wrong with the article’s title, after some changes/reversions, got the article locked on them by Polarscribe/FCYTravis. The fact that this new editor was really trying to say (not in generally-accepted Wiki-speak, but *still *) that the title was incorrect didn’t seem to be noticed but how many towns of approximately 30,000 don’t get the country (or maybe the County/District/whatever) in the title after the city/town?

I see no screaming-red flags in Polarscribe’s behavior since the protecting of ‘Pardis’ and in general after the restoration of their administrative rights. Their behavior before anyone was aware of their previous identity and then especially during the initial various noticeboard discussions does concern me…lots of noise and crashing during and lots of things to be mended afterwards.

In my opinion it doesn’t really matter why an editor stops editing, so long as no inauspicious circumstances are involved. Procedurally, Polarscribe/FCYTravis has technically done nothing wrong. They asked, per stated procedure, for their administrator’s userrights to be restored. That request was granted, again, per a Bureaucrat’s understanding of procedure. All that being said, in my opinion the present re-sysopping rules are either a problem waiting to happen or the problem is upon us <u>now</u>. Being voted up as an administrator is a user-right conferred by editors upon trusted colleagues to do certain internal/external tasks around Wikipedia. If admins stop editing for, say, one year, then what is the point of retaining this user-right in all effects for perpetuity? Retaining this right as a lifetime right is meaningless if the editor isn’t active. Wikipedia is the encyclopedia that anyone can edit, not having this active user-right doesn’t stop them from <u>editing</u>. If FCYTravis had edited as a plain editor for six months and ''then'' have asked for their admin rights to be restored, then this discussion would probably be moot.

The fact that issues haven’t occurred yet could be ascribed to the relative youthfulness of the Wikipedia project, rather than the present Wikipedia design's essential goodness. If we all must rely on procedure, then let’s bite the bullet and fix this mess before it happens again. [[User:Shearonink|Shearonink]] ([[User talk:Shearonink|talk]]) 20:41, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

:@polarscribe (Re: Shearonink and [[Pardis]]): My point is that you looked at the appearance of their edits but that you did not look at the content of what that particular editor was trying to do - this editor ''did'' have a valid point. Yes, you would have been well within your admin. rights to have blocked that particular user for their revert/change actions. [[User:Shearonink|Shearonink]] ([[User talk:Shearonink|talk]]) 23:48, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

===Statement by Beeblebrox===
Because you obviosly need still more statements... Seriously though, one thing that was made abundantly clear to me when I ran at RFB is that boldly ignoring a rule is not a quality the community wants to see in crats. They want them to do only what is clearly dictated by policy or consensus. Policy says that admins who are desysopped for inactivity can have their tools back upon request. So, from a crat perspective I don't see how there was any choice but to grant the request. It seems the timing of the request caused a long term prolific editor to jump to various conclusions and retire. That is unfortunate but I can see from his talk page that quite a few users tried to convince him he was freaking out about a problem that hadn't actually happened yet, and he was deaf to all their arguments, insisting that it was a ploy to gain advantage in the content dispute. We can't blame the crats for doing what policy says they are supposed to do and we can't blame Polarscribe for how Blofeld chose to interpret this series of events. Maybe admins who have been absent for four years should have to go through a new RFA but at present that is not what policy says. [[User:Beeblebrox|Beeblebrox]] ([[User talk:Beeblebrox|talk]]) 21:36, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

===Statement by WJBscribe===
I disagree with the decision to return admin rights to Polarscribe. Bureaucrats are apparently (on review of the relevant policy) not required to restore user rights to those who had them removed for inactivity where that user's departure from the project was in controversial circumstances / under a cloud.<br />I think this user left in controversial circumstances / under a cloud within the normal meaning of those words. Flagrant abuse of admin rights, followed by a swift departure is to my mind exactly the basis on which the return of rights should be refused. To have to look into the mind of ArbCom and decide whether a desysopping would have been likely absent the departure from the project takes things a step too far. That said, I certainly don't think Nihonjoe should resign, or that his action departed from a reasonable application of the discretion bureacrts are granted in these circumstances. I note that I am in a minority of the bureaucrats who have opined to say so, but I do think this was a wrong decision. ArbCom must have jurisdiction to review the regrant of access rights by bureaucrats, and I think it would be appropriate for them to consider doing so in this case. <strong style="font-variant:small-caps">[[User:WJBscribe|WJBscribe]] [[User talk:WJBscribe|(talk)]]</strong> 00:21, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
:@Risker. I'm not sure what you're getting at. My comments in the 2008 thread are quoted at the start of this very Request for Arbitration, so there seemed little reason to repeat them. I was not involved in the debate as to whether the article should exist: as you will see in the ANI thread, I expressly made no comment on that point, and contributed only to a discussion regarding whether the use of admin tools to delete it after the AfD was closed was appropriate. Don't you think disingenuous is a bit strong?<br />As to the wider point you seem to be making, I don't think having first hand knowledge of the issues prior to a user leaving should disqualify a bureaucrat from acting, on the contrary part of the problem arises from the fact that long absense allow scrutiny to be avoided because memories of past misconduct fade. No doubt it is partly because I remember the actions in 2008 (which were not out of character as I recall), that I believe controversial circumstances existed. Unfortunately, the user rights were restored before I could articulate such views in the discussion at [[WP:BN]]. <strong style="font-variant:small-caps">[[User:WJBscribe|WJBscribe]] [[User talk:WJBscribe|(talk)]]</strong> 01:30, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

===Statement by Thryduulf===
{{ec}} The key issue to me seems to be that the 'crat action was hasty. It was not immediately clear whether Polarscribe left under a cloud or not. As has been noted, neither AN/I nor DRV discussions automatically equal controversy, but as they not infrequently do it is hardly imprudent to want to check. What I see happened here is like Polarscribe asking, "Can I have my admin bit back please?", with a community response of "Hmm, it's not immediately clear whether you left under a cloud or not. Please bear with us while we look into this a little deeper.". A reasonable reply to this would be "That's fine.", and I see no allegations that Polarscribe was unreasonable. The community response could be either, "It looks like you did leave in controversial circumstances, policy says you must apply at RfA if you want your tools back." or "It seems there were no clouds above you when you left, you should get your tools back when a 'crat next stops by here, sorry to keep you waiting." and prior to the 'crat action neither reply was prejudiced. However, while the community were still discussing whether there was a cloud or not they were unexpectedly usurped by the 'crat.

Given the situation, and that the 'crats say they cannot hear an appeal, it falls to the arbcom to do something. But what should that be? I think the fairest way forward for all parties would be that '''ArbCom should to hold a case or motion to answer the community's simple question, ''"Did Polarscribe lose his tools under a cloud?"'''''. If the answer is no, then no further action need be taken beyond acknowledging Polarscribe's status as an admin and suggesting that the 'crats may wish to learn from this experience. If the answer is yes, then they should direct Polarscribe to undertake a reconfirmation RfA before undertaking any admin actions. and suggesting that the 'crats may wish to learn from this experience.

I was about to propose that to avoid this situation in future, there should be a minimum of 24 hours between the posting of a request for readminship, in all circumstances, and the request being granted. [[user:Jc37|jc37]] has already made such a proposal, at [[Wikipedia talk:Administrators#24 hours]], so I would strongly encourage everyone to comment there. [[User:Thryduulf|Thryduulf]] ([[User talk:Thryduulf|talk]]) 00:42, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

:I have started a discussion (not yet a proposal) regarding a de jure process by which bureaucrat decisions to (not) resysop can be appealed. In a nutshell this is discuss first. Appeal decisions to not resysop by applying at RfA. Appeal decisions to resysop to ArbCom. Please comment at [[Wikipedia talk:Bureaucrats#Appealing decisions to (not) resysop]]. [[User:Thryduulf|Thryduulf]] ([[User talk:Thryduulf|talk]]) 01:28, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Based on Polarscribe's request to have the tools withdrawn, I think there is no longer a need for arbcom action with regards this specific case. However, per Elen we (the community) '''must''' determine where such actions as this may be appealed in future. The core principle for me is that ''every'' other action on Wikipedia is appealable at least once - arbcom actions to Jimbo, Jimbo to arbcom, etc. Even [[WP:OFFICE]] actions (the most draconian process we have) can be appealed (although the circumstances where appeals, particularly of non-DMCA actions, will result in change are very few, they can be appealed). There is no conceivable reason why a 'crat's flipping the admin bit should be different. Frankly I'm not impressed with the apparent refusal to acknowledge that there is an issue here. [[User:Thryduulf|Thryduulf]] ([[User talk:Thryduulf|talk]]) 10:30, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

=== Statement by Wehwalt ===
The fact that editors can differ over whether Nihonjoe was hasty, on whether Polarscribe left under controversial circumstances, and the other matters at issue says to me that this matter fell squarely within the discretion given to bureaucrats. Bureaucrats are elected with a high community consensus. I don't think ArbCom has any role reviewing matters that fall within crat discretion.--[[User:Wehwalt|Wehwalt]] ([[User talk:Wehwalt|talk]]) 06:16, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
:@Churn and change. We operate with a minimum of rules, meaning there are many gray areas, even in policies. Arbcom is principally here to deal with behavioral issues, not to second guess crats and others. They are not set up well to do it.--[[User:Wehwalt|Wehwalt]] ([[User talk:Wehwalt|talk]]) 08:01, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
:@SilkTork. After what happened to PumpkinSky ([http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/PumpkinSky by the way]) after coming back and editing constructively for six months ''and'' being a major part of taking Kafka to FA, Polarscribe would have to be mad to surrender the tools and submit himself to the tender mercies, such as they are, of the community. And if you tell me "oh, he should make sure he has the confidence of the community", then he should get in line behind the arbs who were asked to surrender the bits during the latest Malleus imbroglio.--[[User:Wehwalt|Wehwalt]] ([[User talk:Wehwalt|talk]]) 11:56, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

=== Statement by Fram ===
Leaving Wikipedia in the middle of a discussion about improper use of the tools (out of order deletion and protection of an article and deletion of his user talk page), returning to edit war and then asking the admin bit back as if nothin happens and he just happened to retire? His comments about the undeletion of his user talk page don't ring true, e.g. "It was undeleted by User:Nihonjoe as part of the account merging process." and "I didn't have a *chance* to ask for it to be undeleted - it was done as part of the merger process, as I understand it." is not correct, it was only undeleted because the deletion was brought up at the Burocrats noticeboard after the accounts were merged and the tools restored. Polarscribe never mentioned at the BN discussion what the circumstances of his departure were, and the burocrats failed to look into this. When that error was pointed out, they refused to undo their restoration of the tools, claiming that they were not allowed to do so. I wonder, if after an RfA they mistakenly give the wrong editor the tools (e.g. the nominator instead of the nominee), would they be equally reluctant to undo their error?

Anyway, if Polarscribe didn't leave under a cloud but in good standing, then a reconfirmation RfA shouldn't be a problem. Nothing can be gained by letting him keep the tools now under this cloud though. [[User:Fram|Fram]] ([[User talk:Fram|talk]]) 07:59, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Oh, and can someone tell him that if he does use his tools, then deleting a page as "improbable redirect" and recreating it as a redirect in the same minute isn't really logical or necessary: pages can be immediately redirected, leaving the perfectly acceptable older versions in the history. See [[Mother lover]]. [[User:Fram|Fram]] ([[User talk:Fram|talk]]) 08:11, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

=== Comment by Tijfo098 ===
It was established in other ArbCom case requests that the sudden departure of the main party does not vacate the case, but rather that it is to be suspended. Although no ArbCom case for abuse of tools was filed against Polarscribe before he departed, the fact that he did not edit for four years does not preclude a case being opened now. Arbitrators claiming that potential abuse of admin rights should be overlooked simply because some years have passed ''without the admin being active'' is disconcerting. The policies regarding use of tools in 2008 were not very different from those today. Futhermore, unlike the time-limited, one-year bans that ArbCom usually hands out for other kinds of disruption, most ArbCom desysops have had indefinite-until-new-RfA provision, so the passage of four years, especially four years without discernible wiki activity, would not have vacated such a measure. ¶ As for Polarscribe's resysop by bureaucrat, it is clearly a hasty and questionable decision, although ultimately irrelevant because the original issue of abuse of admin tools is now before the ArbCom, which according to [[WP:ARBPOL]] has "duties and responsibilities" among which "3. To handle requests (other than self-requests) for removal of administrative tools". Seeing that some arbitrators appear uncomfortable with fulfilling one the few responsibilities for which there are no other venues by claiming that they cannot hear a case of desysoping because some bureaucrat just procedurally resysopped is quite disconcerting. The RfC/U suggested by an arbitrator is particularly laughable given that Polarscribe already said he won't voluntarily relinquish the bit except as a temporary measure, to be procedurally reinstated (again) whenever he choose to request it. [[User:Tijfo098|Tijfo098]] ([[User talk:Tijfo098|talk]]) 12:31, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

=== Statement by Cyberpower678 ===
I honestly believe this case is a bit premature. It's true that the restoration of polarscribe as an admin was hasty, but what's done is done and the bureaucrats can't do anything about it. We have established through local discussion that polarscribe left under a cloud. Polarscribe has not yet demonstrated that he is abusing his use of the tools at the moment and what happened 4 years ago should be at this point considered stale. Just like a report of a disruptive editor who has become productive a day ago should also be considered stale. ArbCom should only consider a case of desysop once polarscribe demonstrates that s/he can't use them properly. Any person making a comment towards me please notify me every time.—[[User:C678|<span style="color:green;font-family:Neuropol">cyberpower]] [[User talk:C678|<sup style="color:red;font-family:arnprior">Chat]]<sub style="margin-left:-4.4ex;color:red;font-family:arnprior">Offline</sub> 14:40, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

=== Statement by Hex ===
I think that common sense would dictate that if the prospect of giving someone back the tools produces this much controversy, then it's a bad idea. If the bureaucrats are unable to recognize that, perhaps it's time to reassign the responsibility for making the decision. &mdash; [[User:Hex|<font color="#000">Hex</font>]] [[User_talk:Hex|<span title="Hex's talk page"><font color="#000">(❝'''</font><font color="#900">?!</font>'''<font color="#000">❞)</font></span>]] 15:22, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

=== Statement by Black Kite ===
*1. In my dealings with FCYTravis (as xe was then) I did not find anything problematic, and knew them as a trustworthy admin.
*2. If a resysopping is problematic enough that the community finds there is a serious issue with the crats' decision, the community must prevail, and perhaps we need to find an alternative route to making such decisions. Note that this is '''not''' a comment on polarscribe's particular case. [[User:Black Kite|Black Kite]] ([[User talk:Black Kite|talk]]) 23:49, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

=== Statement by Avraham ===
For what it is worth, I have, to the best of my recollection, viewed the awfully ambiguous wording "under a cloud" to mean that the user was actively trying to escape scrutiny that may have resulted in a possible sanction. Leaving an argument, even on ANI, in a huff is not ''ipso facto'' a cloud. The circumstances have to indicate that there was reasonable possibility of a sanction being applied by the community or arbcom. I am making no statement of opinion as to whether polarscribe's situation was such, but wanted to comment if Arbcom chooses to clarify the "cloud" statement. -- [[User:Avraham|Avi]] ([[User talk:Avraham|talk]]) 01:44, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

=== Clerk notes ===
:''This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).''
*Clerks, please reduce the list of parties to the re-sysopped user, Dennis Brown, and the bureaucrat who did the resysop. [[User:Risker|Risker]] ([[User talk:Risker|talk]]) 21:29, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
*Clerks, please reduce Dr. Blofeld's statement, which at 781 words is well over the word limit. Thank you, [[User talk:AGK|<font color="black">'''AGK'''</font>]] [[User talk:AGK#top|[•]]] 22:48, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
**Would you like it chopped off at 500 words or selectively cut. I would rather to do the first since I do not want to run the risk of changing his post's meaning --[[User:Guerillero|<font color="#0b0080">Guerillero</font>]] &#124; [[User_talk:Guerillero|<font color="green">My Talk</font>]] 00:18, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
***Quite: chopped off is always best. When you notify him of your action, he can always choose to shorten the whole statement to include some of the material you removed--the choice is his. [[User talk:AGK|<font color="black">'''AGK'''</font>]] [[User talk:AGK#top|[•]]] 01:12, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
*All editors are reminded to comment in their own sections only --[[User:AlexandrDmitri|Alexandr Dmitri]] ([[User talk:AlexandrDmitri|talk]]) 13:22, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

=== Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (2/7/0/2) ===
<small>Vote key: (Accept/decline/recuse/other)</small>
*Awaiting statements. Commenters should be aware that in [[Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Giano#Return of access levels]], this Committee adopted the principle that "''determining whether a user left under controversial circumstances is, in most cases, to be left up to bureaucrats' discretion.''" The relevant policy, [[Wikipedia:Administrators|Voluntary removal]], although not quite as clearly worded, appears to be to the same effect (as the filing party observes). Both the ''Giano'' decision (2006) and the policy I've quoted predate the community's decision in 2011 that administrators inactive for one year should be procedurally desysopped, but may have the tools back on request to the bureaucrats subject only to satisfactory confirmation of identity. <s>There does not appear to be any policy governing the interplay between the "controversial circumstances/under a cloud" proviso and the new "inactivity desyopping" procedure (if there has been any community discussion on the issue before the current dispute arose, I'd appreciate being pointed to it).</s> I am also concerned about some implications of a set of rules that would have the effect of requiring either the bureaucrats or this Committee to judge the merits of an otherwise-long-forgotten dispute that ended more than four years ago. I'll await input on the request and on these observations before commenting further. [[User:Newyorkbrad|Newyorkbrad]] ([[User talk:Newyorkbrad|talk]]) 21:03, 10 November 2012 (UTC) I've struck one sentence as Courcelles noted a sentence of the policy that I'd missed. [[User:Newyorkbrad|Newyorkbrad]] ([[User talk:Newyorkbrad|talk]]) 22:30, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
**I don't necessarily agree with AGK that an admin's leaving while an action of his or hers is being discussed on ANI necessarily bars resysyopping on request; the real question for me is whether the administrator left (resigned or became inactive) for the purpose of avoiding scrutiny in his or her actions, rather than just out of a temporary feeling of ennui or disgust with one or another aspect of this place. (Most of us have felt that at some point or another, whether we admit it or not.) In this regard, Risker's comment makes some good points and in general I agree with it.
**A separate question is whether the ''process'' a particular bureaucrat used in deciding to resysop was sufficient. I suppose we would have the authority to vote to direct the bureaucrats to collectively reconsider this issue and make a fresh decision after a collegial discussion among them (I can write more formal wording if that's the decision that we make). I'm not convinced this will be necessary, but it is certainly a more palatable prospect than simply overruling a 'crat decision on a 'crat issue.
**A few of the commenters (particularly Kumioko and Dr. Blofeld) have basically asked us to overturn the inactive administrators policy that the community decided on last year, and to impose what they think would be a better policy which would include a time limit on how long an inactive admin can wait before returning. Given that "the ArbCom doesn't (isn't supposed to) make policy" and the amount of time the community spent in deciding on the policy we have, I don't believe there would be much community support for our doing that, and it's the sort of thing that would keep our friends in the "ArbCom Reform Party" up late on election eve updating their posters. [[User:Newyorkbrad|Newyorkbrad]] ([[User talk:Newyorkbrad|talk]]) 23:01, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
**Leaning toward decline at this point, per SirFozzie; leaving a bit more time for any further input before voting. [[User:Newyorkbrad|Newyorkbrad]] ([[User talk:Newyorkbrad|talk]]) 19:49, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
**General procedural note: flagging whether oneself is involved in the underlying dispute, or uninvolved, or borderline-involved, or just-a-little-bit-involved, in the header of one's statement, is not necessary. "Statement by X" is generally sufficient for a header. [[User:Newyorkbrad|Newyorkbrad]] ([[User talk:Newyorkbrad|talk]]) 20:01, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
**'''Decline''', mostly per the other decline votes. The bureaucrat's decision to resysop was consistent with current policy. Whether and how that policy should be changed is for community discussion. ''To FCYTravis/Polarscribe: you do need to bear in mind that the restoration of your adminship has been sharply disputed, and if you retain your adminship, you need to make sure that your future administrator actions are above reproach.'' [[User:Newyorkbrad|Newyorkbrad]] ([[User talk:Newyorkbrad|talk]]) 20:03, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
*'''Comment''': I have asked the clerks to reduce the list of parties to the actual parties. Dennis Brown, please explain why you think that FCYTravis left under controversial circumstances as opposed to leaving while a deletion discussion was following its acceptable course. ANI threads do not automatically confer "controversy", nor do deletion reviews. Links to the actual deletion discussions involved will help, as will the subsequent deletion discussion that ultimately resulted in complete deletion of the article involved. Admins have deletion decisions questioned on a regular basis, and that is not only acceptable, but provisions for doing this are built into our policy. [[User:Risker|Risker]] ([[User talk:Risker|talk]]) 21:35, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
**'''Decline'''. The policy and procedure were followed. That some people don't like the policy and procedure is not something that Arbcom should be trying to adjudicate. If people want to change the policy, they can go out and develop community consensus to do so. It is noteworthy that community consensus to desysop for inactivity was almost entirely predicated on the ability of bureaucrats to easily resysop; thus, this is the consensus that would need to change. More importantly, there is absolutely no indication that FCYTravis/Polarscribe left Wikipedia under controversial circumstances, which at the time he left would have been either in the middle of an RFC specific to his adminship, or during an arbitration case in which his administrator actions had been called into question, or following an arbitration case in which he had been sanctioned specifically for his administrator actions and remained under sanctions with respect to his adminship. These remain the circumstances considered controversial even to this day. The Arbitration Committee is not the appropriate body to develop or revise policies and procedures relevant to this issue. The only circumstance under which I can foresee the Committee accepting a case for "improper resysopping" would be if there was evidence that the bureaucrat deliberately and flagrantly failed to follow process, in which case the subject of the case would be the bureaucrat. Nobody has provided any evidence that Nihonjoe has failed to follow the existing process, although several have said that they don't like the existing process. Further, there is no evidence provided that harm is coming to the project because Polarscribe has reactivated his administrator status. The Arbitration Committee has no difficulty whatever in desysopping administrators whose actions are significantly inappropriate, provided that the administrator's behaviour is brought to the Committee's attention. [[User:Risker|Risker]] ([[User talk:Risker|talk]]) 23:20, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
:::<s>@WJBScribe, I'm finding your comments on this issue to be somewhat disingenuous, because as far as I can see you have not once identified that you were one of the users involved in the [[Historical pederastic couples]] deletion debate. Yet, you have commented, apparently in your role as a bureaucrat, on the Bureaucrat noticeboard, and you have commented here as well without identifying your own involvement. This silence on your role in the discussions of 2008 seems to be out of character for you. [[User:Risker|Risker]] ([[User talk:Risker|talk]]) 01:18, 12 November 2012 (UTC)</s> After further thought, and following some discussion with WJBScribe on my user talk page, I believe that my comment here is too harsh. [[User:Risker|Risker]] ([[User talk:Risker|talk]]) 04:36, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
:::@Many commenters: You are seeking to have Arbcom change the policy, either to require an extended review period (despite the policy saying "without further discussion") or to require some other waiting period where the account only edits (ranging from days to months), or to require a repeat RFA. This is outside of our power: the community needs to change this. Frankly, I never saw the point of this specific policy; we've had as many "active" admin accounts compromised as we have had inactive admin accounts, and the policy explicitly does not include any requirements to demonstrate knowledge of revised policy. I'll look forward to the RFCs. <p>The request does not suggest that Nihonjoe operated outside of existing policy (although some commenters have suggested that he did). I cannot see an outcome that would result in removal of the admin tools from Polarscribe that would not also remove the bureaucrat tools from Nihonjoe: if giving the tools was wrong, then the responsibility lies with the bureaucrat. If that is the desired outcome, then the request needs to be reframed. [[User:Risker|Risker]] ([[User talk:Risker|talk]]) 16:36, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

*Contra what some have said, [[WP:ADMIN]] does not require a resysopping if the crats are satisfied the account is still under control of the same person, in fact, it says, "If the user returns to Wikipedia, they may be resysopped by a bureaucrat without further discussion as long as there are no issues with the editor's identity and they stopped editing Wikipedia while still in good standing or in uncontroversial circumstances." As far as I can see, this was a error to resysop, and should be able to be undone quickly by us. [[User:Courcelles|Courcelles]] 22:22, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
**@MBisanz, actually, I think Nihonjoe ''could'' and in fact '''''should''''' revert his decision to re-grant the bit here. If he doesn't, however, then we can look at the decision, as there is misconduct on Polarscribe's part, even if most of it was four years ago, it still matters in the question of whether he should be forced to RFA. As to the general point you make about crat's autonomy, it is trivial to imagine a situation where this Committee could be aware of things that the 'crats are not; a situation that would be obviously reversed if the regranting was done before Arbcom heard about the request. (Not the case here, but clearly a situation that disproves the idea that 'crat decisions can't be reviewed.) [[User:Courcelles|Courcelles]] 04:01, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
***Mbisanz, all those things have an obvious and clear route of appeal. A DRV that closes as endorse may be re-DRV'ed. A DRV that closes as overturn may be sent back to XFD. An FAC that closes as not promoted can be sent back to FAC in two weeks; one that closes as promoted can be (eventually) taken through FARC. An ArbCom decision can be appealed to Jimbo, except in the special case where ArbCom is working as the appeal body of a Jimbo decision. Really, everything has a "this was really fouled up, how do we fix it", except, in your argument, 'crat decisions. [[User:Courcelles|Courcelles]] 19:06, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
*<s>'''Accept'''</s> to deal with this, though a simple motion would likely fix the error, and a case is not necessary. [[User:Courcelles|Courcelles]] 21:44, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
*'''Decline''' since Polarscribe has resigned the bit, there's no point at all in continuing this. [[User:Courcelles|Courcelles]] 08:11, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
* <s>Preliminary comment: I would add [[Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Macedonia 2#Return of access levels|"Return of access levels" in ''Macedonia 2'']] to Newyorkbrad's list of decisions and policies, and I agree that current policy requires sysop tools removed for inactivity to be restored only if the ex-sysop did not leave in controversial circumstances. The [[Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive452#Unusual action by admin FCYTravis|ANI thread]] that was the last thing FCYTravis edited for ''4 years'' was plainly 'controversial circumstances'. Given that this committee is the only body currently able to hear desysopping requests, I suppose we are compelled to do something here (as much as it pains me to intervene in the bureaucrats' processes, which that user group has historically administered with admirably little drama). However, I'm awaiting community statement and more information before voting. [[User talk:AGK|<font color="black">'''AGK'''</font>]] [[User talk:AGK#top|[•]]] 22:43, 10 November 2012 (UTC)</s>
:* Dr. Blofeld, you have alleged that Nihonjoe resysoped Polarscribe because of some vendetta against you. That is a serious (and rather outrageous) allegation to make. Please immediately substantiate or withdraw it. [[User talk:AGK|<font color="black">'''AGK'''</font>]] [[User talk:AGK#top|[•]]] 22:47, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
:* DuncanHill, be assured that we will not hurry into a decision, and that the list of disputants (being, in the event of request acceptance, entirely within our control) is of little importance to us. [[User talk:AGK|<font color="black">'''AGK'''</font>]] [[User talk:AGK#top|[•]]] 23:59, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
::* '''Final comment:''' I would prefer us to '''resolve by motion''' that the bureaucrats should make a decision ''[[en banc]]'' concerning the return of rights to FCYTravis. I would have the bureaucrats return to us with a decision, and have us implement that decision. If the bureaucrats determine that the sysop bit should never have been returned, I'd then have us make a further motion that he be desysopped pending a full RFA. I'll draw up a motion to this effect in a short while.<p>The question of ambiguity or shortcoming in policy seems to have been answered by MBisanz's recent RFC; in my mind, that issue is therefore resolved. However, I'd like to hear from Nihonjoe before proceeding (as well as any other active bureaucrats who have not opined so far). [[User talk:AGK|<font color="black">'''AGK'''</font>]] [[User talk:AGK#top|[•]]] 19:55, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
*Awaiting some insight. I believe procedurally we have no policy grounds on which to ask "the crats" as an entity to overturn their '''decisions'''. I believe we could (if it seemed at all likely) examine whether the crat in the case - who does seem to have jumped the gun a tad - committed some kind of malfeasance (eg he took a bribe), and we could overturn his '''action '''if that were found to be the case. And while it is certain that we could examine a request to desysop Polarscribe, that would have to be on the basis of something he has done now. I would be far from comfortable doing it on the basis of something he did four years ago. So I'm not really sure what can be achieved here, other than suggesting to the crats that slowing down slightly might be a good idea. [[User:Elen of the Roads|Elen of the Roads]] ([[User talk:Elen of the Roads|talk]]) 02:11, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
**This idea is very strange; the crats say they have no grounds to remove the bit, and you're saying we have none, either. Taking this to the logical conclusion means the community, who has no desysop mechanism, is forced to accept an admin who shouldn't be because no one can desysop without modern-day misconduct. This makes no sense whatsoever. If the crats err, we absolutely can correct the mistake, because there is no one else who can. Should, or can we, be the ordinary deciders of who gets the mop back? No. But someone has to be able to fix the crats mistakes, and if it won't be them, it has to be us. Not because we want the job, but because there is no one else who can. [[User:Courcelles|Courcelles]] 02:51, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
::::Salvio has expressed it more clearly above. I cannot see anything that gives us the power to overturn a legitimately made decision (one following policy), but there must be some mechanism to overturn a decision out of process, and absent something already written down, the Wikipedia way would be to have Arbcom do it. However, the crats themselves do not appear to have any policy or guideline relating to making checks prior to resysoping an admin who lost the bit for inactivity. Is that in itself grounds to overturn the decision and ask that it be made again once some procedure is in place? I'm being very bureacratic, I know, but it's an area I'm used to working in, so I'm viewing it like a local government officer. Perhaps that's the wrong way to look at it??? [[User:Elen of the Roads|Elen of the Roads]] ([[User talk:Elen of the Roads|talk]]) 20:39, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
:::::One of the chief problems here is that we have some 'crats saying they had no discretion at all, and HAD to flip this switch. That is patently not what policy says, in fact, [[WP:INACTIVITY]] states "they may be resysopped by a bureaucrat without further discussion as long as there are no issues with the editor's identity '''and they stopped editing Wikipedia while still in good standing or in uncontroversial circumstances.'''" (emphasis mine). So it is there needs to be a procedure, or just that the crats need to be told to follow [[WP:ADMIN]]? Either way, since the crats state, even in clear error, they can't fix this, we have to. [[User:Courcelles|Courcelles]] 21:55, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
*'''Accept '''to examine the demarcation dispute, unless some better venue is proposed. I do think Courcelles has a point. [[User:Elen of the Roads|Elen of the Roads]] ([[User talk:Elen of the Roads|talk]]) 22:39, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
::@MBizance - the crat in question cannot show that he took proper account of '''and they stopped editing Wikipedia while still in good standing or in uncontroversial circumstances.''' from [[WP:ADMIN]]. Maybe he did, maybe he didn't, but he cannot show that he did. Therefore, it is MHO quite reasonable for Arbcom to request, on behalf of the community, a re-run of the resysop request, which does show the Bureaucrats taking it into account. This is without prejudice to the outcome - 'crats are free to look at the evidence and say it doesn't amount to a hill of beans, and give the man his tools back, but I do feel that they have to be able to demonstrate to the community that they <u>took that into account</u> when making their decision. The idea that this cannot happen, that there is no mechanism to recall a decision and review it, is very strange, and if this is the final response, then I feel the community must urgently address this. Admins are already blessed with sufficient security of tenure, without turning the 'crat action that switches on the bit into some kind of irreversible magic spell that cannot be undone. [[User:Elen of the Roads|Elen of the Roads]] ([[User talk:Elen of the Roads|talk]]) 22:47, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
* Comment, leaning towards a decline as I'm not sure there is a case here. In order for us to open a case that would consider a desyop of Polarscribe, he would actually have to done something worthy of a desyop, and it doesn't appear that he has. For something that was done 4 years ago to be worthy of a desyop now, it would have to be pretty terrible, and just being discussed at WP:ANI isn't nearly enough. Otherwise, while we are empowered to remove privileges from crats as well as admins, making a single slightly hasty decision almost certainly isn't enough. [[User:PhilKnight|PhilKnight]] ([[User talk:PhilKnight|talk]]) 02:57, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
*'''Accept''' I see two questions worthy of consideration: 1) was there sufficient evidence of circumstances that should have paused the resysoping? and 2) If ArbCom differs with the 'crat interpretation of things, what do we do? Obviously ArbCom ''could'' trump the 'crats by voting to desysop the resysop'ed editor, but that strikes me as a bazooka-vs-fly solution and entirely inappropriate unless the admin in question behaves so badly after getting the bit back that a desysop on the basis of that conduct would be reasonable. Both ArbCom and the Bureaucrats are selected by the community in respective processes, and I am inclined to think that formalizing--or even just reiterating--a separation of duties is appropriate. [[User:Jclemens|Jclemens]] ([[User talk:Jclemens|talk]]) 05:26, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
**I still think a statement reaffirming the bureaucrats' authority would be appropriate, but it's obvious this is not going to be a case for that. No opposition to closing this as rejected. [[User:Jclemens|Jclemens]] ([[User talk:Jclemens|talk]]) 05:11, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
*'''Decline''' After reading all the statements here, I fail to see a reason for us to step in here. 'Crats are given a large amount of discretion with regards to their duties, and while there may be a procedural matter for the 'Crats to consider how to better do their jobs, I find that the action taken by Nihonjoe was within the discretion granted to 'crats in making such decisions. [[User:SirFozzie|SirFozzie]] ([[User talk:SirFozzie|talk]]) 06:06, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
*'''Decline''' per SirFozzie. [[User:Kirill Lokshin|Kirill]]&nbsp;<sup>[[User talk:Kirill Lokshin|[talk]]]</sup> 08:09, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
*Under our policies and procedures he is technically within his rights to claim back the tools. However, given the circumstances it might be appropriate for Polarscribe to relinquish the tools and go through a RfA; that will either confirm for him and the community that he has the trust of the community, or will confirm that he does not. If there is a flaw in this situation it is the procedures not the decisions and actions of anyone following those procedures. We are constantly questioning the admin process both in terms of granting the tools, and in removing them, and this is another aspect to consider. On a personal level I would be one to support a notion that if an admin has the tools removed through inactivity they should go through RfA to get them back. Also on a personal level, I would be uneasy with any individual who preferred to simply reclaim the tools after four years of inactivity rather than face a RfA, especially when their reclaim resulted in this much drama. As regards the incidents in 2008, if what happened then is felt to be significant, it might be worth holding a RfC on Polarscribe if he doesn't voluntarily go through a RfA; and if the outcome of that RfC is that it is felt that Polarscribe/FCYTravis did misuse his tools, then ArbCom could be called in to look at the matter. It's a longer process, but is perhaps the more appropriate one. '''Decline''' case as currently formulated. '''[[User:SilkTork|<span style="color:purple; font-family: Segoe Script">SilkTork</span>]]''' '''[[User talk:SilkTork|<font color="#347C2C"><sup>✔Tea time</sup></font>]]''' 10:27, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
::Agree with Fram that this: {{ex|(del/undel) 08:36, 10 November 2012 Polarscribe (talk <nowiki>|</nowiki> contribs <nowiki>|</nowiki> block) deleted page Mother lover (Already has an article at Motherlover, improbable redirect.)}} is an inappropriate deletion, but by itself is evidence of an admin not familiar with procedure who hasn't learned the ropes rather than a question of overall competence. However, it is indicative that someone returning after four years absence may not be familiar enough with current procedures, and at the very least should wait until they have familiarised themselves with current consensus before either asking for the tools to be restored or going through a new RfA. '''[[User:SilkTork|<span style="color:purple; font-family: Segoe Script">SilkTork</span>]]''' '''[[User talk:SilkTork|<font color="#347C2C"><sup>✔Tea time</sup></font>]]''' 11:41, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
::@Tijfo098. If we had a case request before us of looking into the incident from 2008 we could respond to that, but the current case is about looking at the "Resysoping of FCYTravis/Polarscribe", and it is that case which I personally am declining. And as regards the incidents from 2008 - before the community asks us to go as far as a desysop it would be worthwhile for the community to discuss those incidents to see if the community is in agreement that FCYTravis/Polarscribe needs desysopping. A link to any previous community discussion on FCYTravis/Polarscribe's competence would also be worthwhile. '''[[User:SilkTork|<span style="color:purple; font-family: Segoe Script">SilkTork</span>]]''' '''[[User talk:SilkTork|<font color="#347C2C"><sup>✔Tea time</sup></font>]]''' 11:49, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
:::And of course all this (drama and wasted time) would be rendered moot if Polarscribe did the appropriate thing and gave up the tools. I think that the best course of action would be for Polarscribe to request full removal of the tools, and then edited for at least six months before going through a RfA (provided they still wanted to be an admin after six months back). '''[[User:SilkTork|<span style="color:purple; font-family: Segoe Script">SilkTork</span>]]''' '''[[User talk:SilkTork|<font color="#347C2C"><sup>✔Tea time</sup></font>]]''' 11:59, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
*'''Decline as moot'''. And noting, for the record, that by relinquishing the tools during the currency of this present case, FCYTravis/Polarscribe is unambiguously resigning them under controversial circumstances. &nbsp;[[User:Roger Davies|<span style="color:maroon; font-variant:small-caps">'''Roger Davies'''</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:Roger Davies|''talk'']]</sup> 04:30, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
----

Revision as of 16:37, 14 November 2012

Requests for arbitration

Arbitration Committee proceedings

Currently, there are no requests for arbitration.

[edit]
Open cases
Case name Links Evidence due Prop. Dec. due
Venezuelan politics (t) (ev / t) (ws / t) (pd / t) 20 Apr 2024 04 May 2024
[edit]
Recently closed cases (Past cases)
Case name Closed
Conflict of interest management 13 Apr 2024
Mzajac 7 May 2024
Request name Motions  Case Posted
Amendment request: Conduct in deletion-related editing none (orig. case) 30 April 2024
Clarification request: Palestine-Israel articles 4 none (orig. case) 8 May 2024

No arbitrator motions are currently open.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case&oldid=523011421"