Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case

Requests for arbitration

Arbitration Committee proceedings

• recent changes
• purge this page
• view or discuss this template

Case requests

Request name	Motions	Initiated	Votes
Kevin Gorman—Eric Corbett	Motions	17 February 2014	{{{votes}}}
Toddst1	Motions	18 February 2014	{{{votes}}}

[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

Clarification and Amendment requests

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)	13 May 2024
Amendment request: Article titles and capitalisation	none	(orig. case)	13 May 2024

Arbitrator motions

No arbitrator motions are currently open.

Kevin Gorman—Eric Corbett

Initiated by Giano (talk · contribs · email) at 19.16 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Involved parties

• Kevin Gorman (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
• Eric Corbett (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Giano (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) filing party

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

• Notification of Kevin Gorman
• Notification of Eric Corbett

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

• Administrator Kevin Gorman; ANI, 10 Feb 2014
• Attacks on Kevin Gorman, ANI, 11 Feb 2014

Statement by Giano

On 9 Feb 2014 an anon posted on J Wales's talk [1] beginning a thread "A day of kindness, fairness and understanding." Its apparent purpose was to infer that a nameless editor who had committed suicide had been let down by Wikipedia, and that the community should show greater understanding to those with mental health problems. Other editors, feeling they knew the editor being referred to, treated the thread as a tribute:[2][3][4][5] But given that the thread was ostensibly to discuss the treatment and problem of potentially suicidal editors, it was inevitable that editors would share their own experiences.

• Cullen328 was first to do so, mentioning his own experiences.[6]

• Later, Eric Corbett made his first comment.[7] Corbett also disclosed personal circumstances supporting his view.

• Cullen328 responded civilly: [8]

• Corbett replied, expanding on his circumstances.[9]

• At this point, Kevin Gorman first interjected.[10] Misunderstanding the thread, he claimed "Inappropriate posts are unacceptable", but there was nothing "inappropriate."

• Following Gorman's comment, the debate continued.[11]

• Gorman interjected again, using Corbett's former user name.[12].

• Gorman then posted a template on Corbett's talk page, [13] (05:58, 9 February 2014) accusing him of violating BLP and threatening to block him, despite no deceased Wikipedian having been mentioned.

• A heated but not offensive debate continued on J Wales' talk.[14]

• Gorman collapsed the thread,[15] and threatened Corbett with an Arbcom Enforcement BLP ban.

• Gorman is reverted by Corbett, and a brief edit war followed.[16]

At no time during the thread did Corbett make any disrespectful comment regarding any deceased Wikipedian; neither was any deceased Wikipedian referred to by name.

• Following Gorman's initial templating regarding BLP and threats of a block, unsurprising a heated debate followed on Corbett's talk,[17] during which Gorman alleged that Corbett was gravedancing and lacked "common decency",[18] a charge he subsequently repeated.[19] These allegations are completely unacceptable and false.

• Gorman further claimed Corbett was mocking the deceased.[20]

• Gorman also insulted Corbett, displaying how badly he had misunderstood the thread.[21]

Gorman has been asked repeatedly to retract and apologise but has not only refused,[22] he has compounded the insults by launching into a smear campaign on Corbett's reputation to save his own:

• [23] "it's a bit hilarious that anyone thinks an apology to Eric is warranted"

• [24] "...given his conduct any apology...would be insincere. I think his behavior is significantly problematic."

• [25] continuing to falsely threaten Corbett against policy.

• Gorman attempted to save face and justify his behaviour by claiming a long block of Corbett would be justified, and that he could produce 50 diffs none of which, even if found, would have had any bearing on the matter in hand.[26]

• Gorman's next post [27] suggests a hidden agenda, and that he was more interested in blocking Corbett for perceived past misdemeanours.

Gorman has made particularly nasty insults and threats to sanction against policy, refused to back down until pushed,[28] and an overdue apology to Corbett is clearly not forthcoming because he feels Corbett has erred previously:[29] [30][31] [32] This is unacceptable behaviour in an admin, for which he should be officially admonished or de-adminned.  Giano  21:02, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Responding to points made below

Justice cannot be denied because sections of society feel the subject matter is distasteful; and it's ridiculous to suggest that the improvement of safety aspects can't be discussed because there have already been casualties. This case is one of the simplest the Arbcom can be asked to decide upon and rests upon 7 easy questions.

• 1: Did Corbett begin the thread?
• 2: Did Corbett have a right to comment in that thread?
• 3: Did Corbett mention any late Wikipedian by name or inference?
• 4: Were his comments and shared experiences pertinent to the discussion on changing Wikipedia's views on mental health?
• 5: Did Gorman fully understand the intention of the thread?
• 6: Was Corbett deliberately dancing on the grave on a deceased Wikipedian [33], mocking the dead [34] and is he lacking common decency [35]?
• 7: Can fairness and justice be denied because an editor may have erred in the past[36]?

Question No 7 is obviously the most crucial. If guilty as alleged, the Arbcom should impose the severest retribution on Corbett. If he's innocent, then the unrepentant Admin [37] concerned needs to be very severely reprimanded. This is not something that can be swept away. These allegations are there in black and white and are extremely serious and damaging to an editor's reputation here and in real life. They need to be addressed. It is also vital that it does not appear that former employees and those connected with WMF receive special consideration and immunity from the civility policy and rules governing others; especially, when claiming to have "secret evidence" to justify their possible slanders and libels. Eric Corbett is as entitled to the protection of Wikipedia's laws and policies as anyone else; allowing outlaws to be attacked by the privileged is an antiquated, obsolete concept. Fairness demands that this case be accepted to either clear Corbett's name or condemn him.  Giano  14:52, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

@DangerousPanda Not at all, the Arbs have not finished their deliberations on an admonishment. The page was archived presumably in error.

Statement by Tryptofish

I gave evidence in the last ArbCom case that dealt with some of this (the Civility case), and I'm inclined to think that you should decline the request this time. As for Kevin, he appeared to believe in good faith that he was acting to treat a recently deceased editor with respect, and his subsequent statements indicate a very low likelihood that he will violate our policies for administrators. As for Eric, he made some comments about his own personal history that I would argue give him reason to deserve a lot of leeway with respect to his statements here. There will doubtless be opportunities for ArbCom to better define overstepping by administrators, and there will doubtless be opportunities for ArbCom to try again to figure out where the community stands on civility, but this case will prove to be too muddled to accomplish either of those goals. If there is any lesson to be learned from the loss of that editor, it's that life is short, and we all have better things to do than to get bogged down in the complaints raised here. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:57, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Even if the clerks made an error in the first closing, what has happened since the reopening is not the Committee's finest hour, to put it mildly. The motion, that is one vote away from passing at the time that I write this, is badly written, in that it fails to adequately recognize that Kevin acted in good faith, at least initially, on behalf of a dead editor. Basically, you are about to sanction him for resisting requests that he apologize. It's true that he dug in too much, but the motion lacks perspective. Those of you who have rushed to support the motion are being played masterfully by Eric's fan club, and there will be no shortage of observers who will seek to repeat this success with you in future requests. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:16, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Statement by Leaky Caldron

There was a WP:BDP violation, but it was not Eric's contribution. The attempt to disguise the identity of the dead Wikipedian was fatuous. It took me no more than 2 minutes using readily available resources to locate his user page. From that point on the soul searching screed was immediately an infringement of WP:BDP requiring BLP policy to be extended where material is "contentious or questionable material about the dead that has implications for their living relatives and friends, such as in the case of a possible suicide..." Eric's blunt response was almost word for word my reaction when I first read it. Eric was honest enough to put in writing. Why do I think it was questionable? Just over 4 years ago I lost a close family member in tragic and unexpected circumstances. He was not, thank God, a contributor here. Had he been, and if I had stumbled across some half-baked eulogy from an editor unwilling to identify themselves, using my family's grief as a means of advancing a pet cause on the founder's page, I would be absolutely horrified. The thread should have been removed as soon as the oblique references to "John" left it open to anyone to reach into history and identify the user, his family details and the tragic circumstances of his struggles though life.

As for Eric, he reacted to the traducement by Kevin and others with typical vigour.

As for Kevin, his was a mistake of omission. He should have recognised the OP as the problem, not Eric's post. However, I am extremely concerned about the subsequent attempt to introduce mystery and imagination into his subsequent explanations using various references to WMF and Arbcom. This has the appearance of subterfuge and requires urgent clarification.

As for the founder's page, he really needs to get a grip. His open door policy is allowing editors to rack up hundreds of edits on subjects which should rightfully be discussed in more appropriate venues such as WP:ANI, WP:CENT, WP:BLP/N, WP:VPT and WP:VPPOL to name a few. Not one meaningful initiative or policy directive has emerged from there and it looks more and more like a place where a handful of regulars can grandstand.

Finally, for 2014 Arbcom. Judging by the Fp@SR case below, you are clearly uninterested in addressing Admin. civility issues, so please do not hound Eric on that score.

@Northern Antarctica. So despite not studying the full circumstances, you conclude that Eric had a legitimate point and that Kevin's handling of the situation was not ideal. But then, also, "that this situation further demonstrates Eric's failure to respectfully tolerate dissenting positions and that maybe the committee should consider whether it wants to take decisive action now or wind up here again at some point down the road." So despite this case being brought for alleged Admin. behaviour, you want to turn this around onto the editor? Bad news, this Arbcom. doesn't appear to be the slightest bit interested in civility issues. Antipathy toward civility was even made clear in at least one of the AC Election candidate's statements and is fully reflected in their handling of the FS@SR case, below, where so many blind eyes have been turned it makes one wonder if the case has actually been studied beyond a cursory glance. Eric made a blunt and completely accurate comment about a thread that should have been removed for precisely the same reason that, it was alleged, Eric had breached, namely WP:BDP. Seeking to turn this into another Eric witch hunt is highly dubious. Leaky Caldron 11:05, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Statement by Andy Dingley

In the initial comment, I don't know which was more offensive: Eric's comments on the suicide, or his implication that having had a suicide in his own family gave him carte blanche to act in that way. Either way, I considered it way out of line, even for Eric. In that context, Kevin Gorman's actions were entirely reasonable and per policy. Hindsight might change just what Kevin might have done in detail, but the principle stays the same: Eric's actions were offensive enough to justify this level of admin intervention – There is thus simply no case to answer.

As a side issue, I don't know what Giano's behaviour since has achieved other than to make him look ridiculous. At least Eric has had thee sense to stay mostly quiet afterwards. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:15, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Statement by Kevin Gorman

I do not see much point in accepting a case here; I see very little good that would come out of it for anyone involved. I took action that was not perfectly thought out to remove a thread that needed to be removed, I've explicitly acknowledged that I could have handled the situation in a significantly better fashion and made significant mistakes in handling it, and have already stated that in similar circumstances in the future I would just directly email arbcom, the office, or more likely both, rather than trying to address it myself. Eric's behavior was problematic but nothing would come out of an arbcom case about it here. Giano's behavior has been problematic but nothing would come out of an arbcom case about it here. As a tangential comment: I have referred to Eric as Malleus in conversations because, frankly, I think Malleus is a really neat sounding name, and because it eliminates the possibility of confusion given the number of other Wikimedia movement people named Eric - if he asked me not to do so, I would of course not do so. Kevin Gorman (talk) 22:47, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

@Salvio: I think that the number of people, including a number of arbs and former arbs, who have said pretty directly 'don't do that again' serves as an admonishment. Wikipedia is occasionally accused of having a short institutional memory, but I would be pretty surprised if this situation isn't remembered in any discussion that comes up involving my handling of similar issues in the future. I realized quite some time ago that I handled this situation poorly, and certainly would not handle it in the same way in the future. Some of the comments I've gotten, both publicly and privately, will have a more significant impact on how I handle future situations than a form admonishment would. I'm not trying to say I shouldn't necessarily receive one - rather that I already have received (more than) one. If there's desire for the formality of one carried out via motion, I would suggest per NYB that there are good reasons to handle it expeditiously given the nature of the case. Kevin Gorman (talk) 22:33, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Since it's been brought up in multiple places, I feel like I should point out that I'm not a former WMF employee. Also: my internal wifi adapter on my main laptop has died, so any replies from me here or edits elsewhere will be either pre-typed and posted when my wifi adapter is momentarily less cranky, or when I'm on another machine. Kevin Gorman (talk) 22:33, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

@HJ and similar: I've expressed in multiple places that I see what was wrong with my actions here, would not repeat them, and in a similar situation would send it directly to arbcom, emergency, or both. I may have only been an admin here for a month, but I've been around for quite a bit longer than that. Some of your comments seem to suggest that I'm somehow incapable of learning, at least without formal arbcom action. I feel like I'm pretty decent at learning from past mistakes, have demonstrated this in the past, and also don't entirely understand why anyone would think that a formal admonishment from arbcom would have a greater effect at changing my behavior in similar situations in the past than the number of people I greatly respect (including multiple arbitrators) pointing out in the last week that I severely mishandled the situation. As I said previously, if arbcom ends up formally admonishing me, well then arbcom ends up formally admonishing me. What will effect my behavior the most in the future won't be that: it will have been the flood of comments I've received, both on and offwiki, from people I respect pointing out a good number of the flaws in my actions. I'd also point out to HJ in particular that if you examine my past record I've never tried to be the 'civility police.' Even here, I haven't even suggested sanctions against the abusive messages I've received, because sanctioning any of them would be (a)silly, (b) ineffective, and (c) unnecessary. As a sidenote, still only able to post on-wiki when I'm not on my primary machine. Kevin Gorman (talk) 00:09, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

• @IHTS: I don't have the time to dig for diffs currently (like I said, I'm not able to use my main machine currently,) but conversations with Snowolf, Drmies, Floquenbeam, Writkeeper, Dennis Brown, and a whole host of other people (some of whom I am disinclined to name given the attacks off-wiki conversations appear to result in) have certainly left quite an impact on me. And yes, some of these conversations have occurred on-wiki, some off-wiki, and some both. Regarding my previous statement about arbcom: I would still be very surprised if arbcom told me that the material I sent them was appropriate to discuss on-wiki. Beyond that, I've already said in multiple places that I'd direct a similar situation in the future to arbcom or the office, and I've already apologized for the way I handled the situation. As a metanote: this is likely my last comment here unless this somehow gets accepted as a full case - going to unwatchlist the page, since I assume I'll be notified of a case or motion. I also find it remarkable how for an arbcom case that is supposed to be focused on the behavior of at least three people, people seem to be awfully eager to cherrypick diffs of my behavior. Kevin Gorman (talk) 02:09, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
• Just a note that I have a statement incoming and would appreciate this case not being archived until I get the chance to post it, since it looks like the motion may have passed. Kevin Gorman (talk) 21:00, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

• As I've said previously, whether or not this case ends with a formal admonishment to me means relatively little to me. A formal admonishment does, quite literally, nothing. I already realized I made a serious mistake, and as was already said elsewhere, would probably desysopped if I did so again. The words of people like Writkeeper, Floquenbeam, Snowolf, Drmies, Dennis, and a whole host of other people means a fuck of a lot more than any formal admonishment from arbcom by motion possibly could. The BLP sanction I misused is about to be rewritten completely anyway. None of the upset parties will be satisfied by a motion that only admonishes me. Can at least one arb please explain to me what on earth is the point of an actual motion being passed here? As far as I can tell it's a bureaucratic maneuver to attempt to satisfy a couple people who won't be satisfied by it in the first place. Additionally, can someone point me to a similar motion ever executed against someone whose actions have shown no pattern of abuse?

I do want to say: I find it a little bit beyond ridiculous that a motion is being passed here after the case was reopened out of process by someone who was literally blocked for editwarring with multiple arbitrators. I have held back from providing large numbers of diffs here, but I also am rather disturbed that the only motion being taken from this case involves me and only me. Giano's been blocked for editwarring with arbitrators on an arbitration page. He's taken diffs and statements hugely and deliberately out of context to misrepresent what actually occurred. And now an RFAR is being resurrected out of process by him and actually being actioned on? That makes RFAR look like a capricious joke. Seriously, taking a motion on an RFAR that has been resurrected out of process by someone who was actually blocked for editwarring with arbitrators? I'd suggest modifying RFAR decline notices to indicate that they can be resurrected at any time that someone who just got off a block for editwarring with arbs feels like bringing the same RFAR back up out of process. I'd also suggest changing the wording that suggests that in an arb proceeding the behavior of all parties will be considered.

Eric has engaged in a pattern of personal attacks before deciding to ragequit over something that literally didn't matter. I didn't block him, I didn't stop him from editing anywhere except one single thread on Jimbo's talk page. He thinks I personally attacked him - and I admit readily that, I acted off bad information, see how he thought my comment was an egregious personal attack, regret that, and would apologize if anyone would take it seriously. Eric personally attacks everyone who pisses him off and has never been effectively sanctioned for it. Given his behavior, the idea of Eric ragequitting because of a perceived personal attack is literally a complete joke.

IHTS (among other people) have taken quotes from me deliberately out of context to make it look like I've lied, and when called on it, IHTS claimed the >60 minute period after I called him out where he was active and posting on my talk page was not long enough to explain why he was consistently misquoting me and misrepresenting the situation because "I had him to respond to as well at that point (I'm only one person with one keyboard and one set of hands)." That situation occurred over a more than sixty minute period - if IHTS can't explain why he's lying in sixty minutes or less because he has to respond to two whole different people, the criticism of me not responding to a flood of criticism from dozens of people fast enough is comical. Note that he's continued to explicitly lie in his last post on the clarification.

Any reasonable outcome to this would have happened days ago. Any reasonable outcome would have involved a motion involving other people in addition myself. Since I'm sure people will criticize the tone of this post and suggest that means I don't recognize I made serious mistakes, I'm going to go ahead and pre-address that. Yes, the tone of this post is aggressive. No, that doesn't mean I don't realize I made a significant mistake, which I've acknowledged in a ridiculous number of places. It just means that I'm confused with the capriciousness of this case and annoyed at the behavior of other editors involved. This whole thing should've ended a week ago, even if it ended in a motion admonishing me. The fact that it doesn't is a testament to ridiculousness, especially since it involves no alleged pattern of abuse of admin tools, but a one time incident. Also, whether or not you pass the motion out of process here, pass this motion too. That motion actually says and does something useful.

Also, @Carcharoth:, if you think a minimalist approach would be better, then don't vote for the motion. This thing has already stretched on long enough and distracted enough from the process of building an encyclopedia that another day of tinkering with motions is not, comparatively, a big deal. Kevin Gorman (talk) 21:24, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

• Though the motion now meets the technical requirements for passing, given all of the things that have already occurred in this RFAR, I'd suggest waiting for Carcharoth to reconfirm his vote before passing it. Also since six arbs have now voted in favor of it, I'd request an explanation of what the actual point of the motion is (see my earlier post.) Kevin Gorman (talk) 22:57, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
• User:Writegeist, please don't attribute sentiments to me that are not mine. I have said nowhere that I think that arbcom was masterfully played by Eric's supporters; that was not the part of Tryptofish's comment I was agreeing with. That said, I do view the set of events 2 ANI's -> closed RFAR -> RFClarification -> RFAR reopened by someone who was blocked for editwarring with active arbs -> the passing of a motion that first literally does nothing, and second, has at least one arb voting yes on it just because they want to be done with the matter as positively Vaudevillian. If you're curious, this was the portion of Trypto's comments I found a point in: "Even if the clerks made an error in the first closing, what has happened since the reopening is not the Committee's finest hour, to put it mildly. The motion, that is one vote away from passing at the time that I write this, is badly written, in that it fails to adequately recognize that Kevin acted in good faith, at least initially, on behalf of a dead editor. Basically, you are about to sanction him for resisting requests that he apologize. It's true that he dug in too much, but the motion lacks perspective." I do agree with you that formal admonishments lack meaning, but would request that you strike or otherwise refactor your comment so that it actually reflects what I said. Kevin Gorman (talk) 00:09, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
• @Carch - or really at any arb who is voting in favor of the motion - can you please then at least explain the actual point of the motion? As it's written, it seems to be quite literally, completely useless. (I would agree with Trypto that it's also not very well written, but that's a bit besides the point.) Also, it seems to be a literally horrible idea to have simultaneous statements and motions about the same case going on on two different arb pages at once - since the RFAR has been reopened, is there any benefit whatsoever to having two simultaneous discussions of the same thing in two different places at once? Kevin Gorman (talk) 00:23, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
• @NYB - of course I'm not going to take administrative action against Eric. That doesn't need to be stated in a motion, it would be one of the most egregious breaches of involved I've ever seen. If I did so unless it was revdeling 100% obvious libel or something followed by an immediate email to oversight, I'd go to the bureaucrats noticeboard and request a desysop myself. I'm still concerned about the course this case has taken. 2 ANI's -> closed RFAR -> RFClarification -> RFAR reopened by someone with a snarky comment who was blocked for editwarring with active arbs -> the passing of a motion that doesn't actually do anything, won't satisfy any of the involved parties, and ignores most of the issues here. Trypto pointed out many of the problems with the motion, but I'd add that I'm frankly a bit floored that a motion about me is passing after this string of events and apparently nothing else is being done. There's been a comic amount of bullshit in this thread, at least several people here are explicitly and intentionally lying (and I'll be happy to back that up with diffs as desired,) and it looks like arbcom is capriciously revisiting the issue to pass a motion to satisfy Eric&co (and this motion, to be clear, won't do that) while ignoring all the other shit in this thread. I'm still very curious for any of the arbs voting in favor of this motion to explain what the hell they think it actually accomplishes. Carcharoth appears to be voting for it while not actually supporting it, and so far no one else has stated what it does over what has already been done. Kevin Gorman (talk) 02:06, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
• @IHTS: I don't really feel like diff digging tonight but I'd be happy to do so tomorrow. Almost every statement you have made regarding me has been incorrect. I did not initially ascribe your misstatements to mal-intent, but AGF has a limit that you pushed past a while ago. If anyone else would like to examine some of them, a convenient place to start is the IHTS's first post in the above linked section on my talk page. A second convenient place to start is almost everywhere else IHTS has posted on my talk page. For that matter, you can look at his first post in this RFAR. Quite a few of the bullet points IHTS lists in it are flat out incontrovertibly wrong, and were when he posted it. IHTS has a bad case of IDHT. Kevin Gorman (talk) 06:13, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

@IHTS: surely you're familiar with the idea that in dealing with anything arb related, the behavior of all involved parties is examined? That combined with the fact that you've submitted a statement with multiple falsehoods in this RFAR makes it appropriate for me to point out those falsehoods here. Kevin Gorman (talk) 06:57, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

• Relatively busy morning, but I'd like to reiterate my question to all arbs who voted in favor of the motion. I know ARBACCT isn't a policy parallel to ADMINACCT, but it should be. Bolding so this hopefully doesn't get missed again. Can at least one arb who voted in favor of this motion please explain to me it's perceived benefit over what has already occurred, and how that perceived benefit is worth reopening out of process this RFAR? Best, Kevin Gorman (talk) 18:25, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Statement by Cube Lurker

"I find laughable the idea that anyone should apologize to Eric over a perceived personal attack."[38]

It's frankly disgusting that someone could make a statement like this and retain advanced permissions.--Cube lurker (talk) 01:13, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Statement by Volunteer Marek

This all started with the fact that a person killed himself. Some people said some stuff. Some other people replied. Some of the things said were pretty stupid. Some of the replies were also dumb. And now this turned into a situation where people... I can't say this without sounding callous... are turning the occurrence of this person's death into a hook to hang their wiki-politics on. Taking a step back, who really cares? All of you, everyone who's a party to this, really just needs to shut the fuck up and walk away and think about the fact that there's some way more important things in life than fighting out petty Wikipedia grudges. And using - in whatever way! - a tragedy to pursue these is particularly disgusting.

It does not escape me that just by commenting here I somehow become a part of this... twisted circus. Why does the Wikipedia environment cause you to end up in seriously fucked up situations like that? If you don't say anything, you're implicitly acquiescing and condoning this insanity. If you say something, you become part of it.

Close it. Blank it. I'd say something like "trout'em" but that would trivialize the situation. I dunno, give everyone who posted here and who was involved in this sorry fracas a month long "decency block", and you can include me in that, just for commenting on it. Volunteer Marek (talk) 01:39, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Statement by AndyTheGrump

Wikipedia is an online encyclopaedia, not a social club. This has f-all to do with article content. People said things they shouldn't? Get over it, and get back to things that matter. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:47, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Statement by Beyond My Ken

There's no case here. Eric Corbett's brutally blunt comments were wildly inappropriate for the thread they appeared in, he should have kept his mouth shut. Kevin Gorman admits he mishandled his response, but his actions were not so bad that Eric Corbett is due an apology. Gorman's comment "I find laughable the idea that anyone should apologize to Eric over a perceived personal attack." is precisely correct, given Corbett's general mode of behavior, although it would have been better if Gorman had not said what most everyone knows anyway. And Giano is just mixing things up, as usual, and has no standing to file this request - Eric Corbett is smart enough and bold enough to request a case if he wants one.

Much ado about nothing, and no basis for an ArbCom case. Trouts and minnows are all that's required here. I urge the committee to reject the request. BMK (talk) 02:01, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Also, Giano's chosen title for the request is misleading and grammatically incorrect. "Attacking" means an ongoing activity, which is not the case. It should have been past tense "Kevin Gorman attack on Eric Corbett". Giano's no idiot, so I assume this was a deliberate choice. BMK (talk) 02:18, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

The case name has been changed to be more neutral, so, assuming it holds, my comment above is not longer relevant. BMK (talk) 23:07, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

@Ihardlythinkso: I hardly think so. BMK (talk) 18:35, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Statement by Montanabw

I would suggest the committee consider authorizing the oversighting/ permanentl removal of the entire thread at Jimbo's page that gave rise to this kerfuffle, then do the same for all references in Gorman's talk page and Corbett's talk page to the same. Possibly add all diffs by anyone regarding this incident, including the diffs posted by Giano above. Someone died, let's just show some respect and clean up this mess. Montanabw^(talk) 06:38, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Statement by Ihardlythinkso

Eric added a much-needed counter-view to the thread topic that developed on Jimbo's Talk. Backed up by his own life example, he contended that WP is not the place to advertise serious personal RL issues and expect community support. And that the idea developing in that thread that tacitly supported templated advertising of same, and encouraging community involvement and support for editors who've indicated they have mental health issues, is a misguided direction for WP to take. Eric contended that serious personal issues like mental health s/b left to RL medical professionals, and to expect or encourage WP editors to extend personal support in view of same is a bad idea. For expressing his view Eric was subjected to a series of aggressive and baseless admonishments, accusations, insults, warnings, threats, and personal attacks by Kevin Gorman.

(I'll stop here. I have much more text detailing specific behaviors and my objections to them. But aren't those obvious?) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 08:14, 18 February 2014 (UTC) For consideration. Gorman, a new admin, tells publicly what he thinks of a fundamental Wikipedia pillar [39]:

even if it were an inappropriate description of his behavior [accusing Eric of "grave dancing" a suicide victim], I find laughable the idea that anyone should apologize to Eric over a perceived personal attack. [...] Kevin Gorman (talk) 21:02, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

(This goes without even admonishment? Personal attacks are now just fine against selected WP editors?! What does the future hold for this newbie admin, who right out of the box flaunts fundamental WP pillar with public and utter arrogance?!) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 23:51, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

This is evidence "Kevin has learned something"?!:

• Kevin hasn't backed off his claim Eric was grave dancing the suicide victim (stating he "doesn't have enough information to know" whether Eric gravedanced or not).
• Kevin doesn't understand the personal offense his "grave dancing" allegation is, calling it an "inflammatory word choice", and challenging another editor's value system who Kevin feels should understand that being called "fucking idiot" is a way more serious personal attack.
• Kevin still misunderstands the original IP thread (final statement says "it needed to be killed").
• Kevin admits to no wrong: he says he "fucked up" but hasn't specifically identified how; he crossed out his BLP warning template text, but never specified why he felt he was in error on policy. ;he says he'd "do things differently next time" then lists two communications he'd send that have no bearing on what he sees as emergency need to "kill the thread".
• Kevin has alluded numerous times to "secret information" he will reveal only to admins and "editors he trusts" that justifies or explains his decisions and actions. Then nothing.
• Kevin keeps congratulatory barnstars concerning his actions in this incident on his User talk, having deleted or archived anything contrary.

Ihardlythinkso (talk) 22:41, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Compare Kevin's statement below that it is pointless for Arbcom to issue admonishment over his actions, to his statement here [40]:

shutting down the thread at the point that I did was absolutely appropriate, and if arbcom publicly disagrees with me once I shoot them a more comprehensive summary, I would be more than willing to apologize and not repeat similar actions in the future. That said, they sure as fuck won't. [...] Kevin Gorman (talk) 16:47, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Ihardlythinkso (talk) 01:48, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

@Drmargi: "His comments were unnecessary, contributing nothing to the discussion, but precipitating everything that followed." Oh really? Eric added an important counter-view with reason for conviction. He advocated what he did to keep WP more sensible and safer (editors who've indicated mental health issues should seek medical help; it's not a time or place for WP editors to "get involved"). Kevin chose the actions and statements he did; your attempt to attribute responsibility for Kevin's followups to Eric is absurd. (Kevin is an adult, right!? An RfA-vetted admin. He's not a 5-yr. old and unaccountable for his decisions and statements.) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 10:58, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

@Northern Antartica: "it could be argued that this situation further demonstrates Eric's failure to respectfully tolerate dissenting positions. I have my doubts on if his retirement will last, and maybe the committee should consider whether it wants to take decisive action now or wind up here again at some point down the road." How is it that Eric showed "intolerance for dissenting positions"? When questioned in that thread he elaborated and clarified. (I think you are making that up.) Your last sentence is ... what? (Suggesting this case filed by Giano against Kevin Gorman's conduct, should result in some sort of serious sanction against Eric Corbett!? Oh that's rich! Can you pass that joint?) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 11:16, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

@BMK: "Gorman's comment 'I find laughable the idea that anyone should apologize to Eric over a perceived personal attack.' is precisely correct, given Corbett's general mode of behavior, although it would have been better if Gorman had not said what most everyone knows anyway." Why don't you speak for your fucking self, Ken!? (Are you trying to win "most insulting uncivil EP editor 2014" award!? You win.) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 11:22, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

@Resolute: "this was ultimately a minor fracas that escalated because Eric dishes it out a hell of a lot better than he takes it." More blame-the-victim stuff?! Eric is not permitted to offer his gut view on the Jimbo Talk-thread topic that developed, without receiving this kind of false blame?! (And you say Giano is appealing to manipulative argument?!) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 11:32, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

@Resolute: I read it. Gorman was the aggressor, Eric was responding defensively. Gorman made all kinds of unwarranted admonishments, insults, threats and demands. To accuse Eric of vulgarity when facing that onslaught including an untrue and vile accusation of "grave dancing", is blaming the victim (blaming the bear after poking). At one point Eric tried to reason and explain to Kevin: "You have completely missed the point Kevin. I found the tenor of that thread to be deeply offensive, but for a different reason than your shallow interpretation of events. What I took objection to was the notion that the suicide of a Wikipedian was in some way considered to be more important than the suicides of non-Wikipedians, and that as a result we all needed to be trained as psychiatric nurses." Giano was hiding nothing by not quoting the back-and-forths from that lengthy thread. The "grave dancing" allegation by Kevin was apparently the last straw and Eric took it to ANI. To characterize that as "escalating" or "sheer hypocrisy" is pure bollucks. You want to blame Eric if he breathes air. And blame him for polluting the environment when he exhales CO2. Not buying it. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 04:33, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

@AndyTheGrump: "This has f-all to do with article content." You're right, Andy. And neither do CIV and NPA policies, do they? (Hey here's a thought -- scrap them both. Kevin stated it was "weird" when he noted that he agreed with Eric on one thing: that policy must apply to all editors equally. It was an important cognition. By scrapping CIV and NPA, there can no longer be uneven enforcement. And that is the basis of Eric's complaint, and this case. The formerly contentious, unending debate ends. What say you!?) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 11:41, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

@Kevin Gorman: "What will effect my behavior the most in the future [...] will have been the flood of comments I've received, both on and offwiki, from people I respect pointing out a good number of the flaws in my actions." Since you say there are a "flood" of comments onwiki from "people you respect" that have pointed out your fawed actions, it s/b very easy for you to produce diffs as examples of that. Let's see you do that. (Oh, did you delete or archive them? Or were those from "people [you] didn't respect"?) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 00:41, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

@Kevin Gorman: When you wrote "flood of comments I've received, both on and offwiki, from people I respect pointing out a good number of the flaws in my actions" that seemed to imply numerous on-wiki comments, but in those editors you listed, 1) there are no conversations on the matter between you & admin Dennis Brown on your user Talk or his user Talk, 2) ditto re admin Floquenbeam, and 3) the only post by admin Drmies was the one on your user Talk Feb 12, where he basically discouraged you from carrying out your plan of producing "50 diffs" to "prove" that Eric Corbett is the most uncivil editor (so, that doesn't really qualify as "pointing out flaws in my actions" since it was not an action but an intimidation you created at the ANI thread Eric opened against you, and not related to the OP thread on Jimbo's Talk where you proceeded to take actions). So of the five admins you listed that leaves two who you say pointed out flaws in your actions that you took to heart. There are a total of five posts by admin Snowolf on your user Talk, over the days Feb 9 & 10 in which he emplores you to take a step back for reflection, because it was a non-issue, that you were making mistakes, and that you were wrong in your facts and on BLP policy. (Did you take his comments to heart? When? Because on Feb 11 you posted this [41]: "Was the action utterly justifiable? Yes, and I stand by that more strongly than I did when I made it [...].") So that leaves comments by admin Writ Keeper, who on Feb 11 posted to your user Talk that there was no basis in BLP policy as you were asserting. You appear to have taken that to heart, by striking the text in your templated warning to Eric, but I've never seen you admit your policy interpretation was flawed. At any rate, that is one "person you respected" who have correcting advice on-wiki that you appear to have accepted. (One doesn't constitute "a flood", nor even "some".) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 03:56, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

The one of the five (User:Writ Keeper) admins whom you potentially took criticism to heart, detailed to you how your reasoning was a misapplication of BLP [42]. In subsequent comments you still insisted that your BLP concerns were consistent with "the spirit of BLP/BDP and the WMF resolution on BLP" [43], so, I guess that leaves 0.5 admins out of the 5 admins you listed. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 04:10, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

@Kevin Gorman: Re IHTS (among other people) have taken quotes from me deliberately out of context to make it look like I've lied, and when called on it, IHTS claimed the >60 minute period after I called him out where he was active and posting on my talk page was not long enough to explain why he was consistently misquoting me and misrepresenting the situation because "I had him to respond to as well at that point (I'm only one person with one keyboard and one set of hands)." That situation occurred over a more than sixty minute period - if IHTS can't explain why he's lying in sixty minutes or less because he has to respond to two whole different people, the criticism of me not responding to a flood of criticism from dozens of people fast enough is comical. Note that he's continued to explicitly lie in his last post on the clarification

What I said is true. Cullen came in from nowhere in that thread I'd opened to your attention. I was mostly busy responding to Cullen, who was nipping at me like a pirana and interfering with both the coherency of the thread topic and my ability to discuss your concerns with you since I was busing fending him off. You didn't allow that, instead you deleted the entire thread one minute after what looked like perhaps the final response necessary to put the Cullen distraction to bed. Here's the complete record to show:

05:46 I opened the thread on your Talk.

06:19 You responded. (+33 mins)

06:31 Cullen intervenened. (+12 mins)

06:58 I responded to Cullen. (+6 mins )

07:04 You posted. (+6 mins)

07:09 Cullen posted again. (+5 mins)

07:12 I briefly responded to you, since I was mostly being distracted by Cullen's interference. (+4 mins)

07:16 (ditto) (+4 mins)

07:22 You posted and accused me of "deliberately misrepresenting [your] statements". (+6 mins)

07:23 I responded to Cullen. (+1 min)

07:25 You deleted the response I just posted to Cullen. (+2 mins)

07:27 Cullen posts at me again. (+2 mins)

07:29 You post including accusing me of being "disingenuous". (+2 mins)

07:34 I respond to Cullen. (+5 mins)

07:35 You delete the entire thread, with editsum "Nothing good will come from this section. If anyone sees User:Ihardlythinkso editing my talk page further about this matter, please feel free to revert at will." (+1 min) [44]

Ihardlythinkso (talk) 05:19, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

@Kevin, I don't know how many times here in this RFAR, on your user Talk, and in the associated RFAR that you have accused me of "lying" and "deliberately misrepresenting", but it is a lot, and all those pronouncements are baseless personal attacks on my character, so you s/ really zip your lip. You don't have a crystal ball to make those claims, they are right out of NPA. (I'd ask for an apology from you, but of course that would be laughed at and mocked by you, and it seems to take 100 additional editors suggesting that you apologize, before you do.) I have no trouble about engaging you over any your concerns, but not without a third party moderating, since I have seen how you handle discussions (you sweep them under rugs then delete or tell others to delete any further postings). My own opinion is that you have serious competency issues going on that account for your inexplicably irrational and incessant arguments and accusations. You want to get in cat-fight disputes with me inappropriately here in RFARs. IMO your behaviors are contrary w/ what is expected and required from an admin, and as a new admin instead of showing humility and carefulness, you display arrogance and berserkishness. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 05:41, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

@Kevin, re I don't really feel like diff digging tonight but I'd be happy to do so tomorrow. And where do you propose to post those diffs, Kevin? (Here, to continue an inappropriate dispute at your RFAR? On my user Talk or on your user Talk, when I've already said I wouldn't entertain discussion w/ you about anything without a third party moderating?) Who is it that exhibits IDHT?! You're all full of bluster when you s/b ashamed. Good luck. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 06:34, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Statement by Georgewilliamherbert

This is an extremely painful case on several levels. I believe that, despite sanity having somewhat restored itself, Arbcom should accept.

Reason one for acceptance is apparent consequence - though I have not contacted Eric offwiki, it appears that this caused his retirement. Even if we accept purest of motives and sincerest of regret by the admin in question, driving a high profile editor away from the site for anything less than obvious glaring violations of policy deserves scrutiny. Though there is some dispute, there is significant challenge to the idea that there was in fact any violation of policy or community trust on Eric's behalf.

Reason two is that civility matters. It is somewhat jarring that a case of this nature ultimately surfaces with Eric the victim rather than the other way around, but here we are. We here have an excellent case demonstrating that failure to treat other editors in a coegial fashion and respect their different backgrounds and ways of contributing materially damaged the discussion and editors' participation. This is exactly and precisely why civility matters. This is not a case about bad words or bad links; an editor assumed absolutely the worst about anothers participation and reacted abusively.

I am sympathetic that the admin in question understands they erred and are remorseful. I do not want to add insult to injury and drive them into retirement or exile. But this goes beyond expressions of remorse, a trout, or even a minor adminoshment by motion. This was a big one, we all screwed it up. It needs tobe taken seriously.

Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 10:16, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Statement by Jehochman

Editor squabbles that don't involve damage to articles are not a priority for arbitration, in general. It's easy enough to just tell the editors involved to leave each other be, or else you'll issue bans with a summary motion. The concerning issue in this case is abuse by an admin. If it is a one time thing brought on by heated emotions, it can be admonished and forgiven. If there is a pattern of past incidents of a similar nature, that would be worrisome. Giano, can you bring forth evidence of past issues with the admin in question? Jehochman ^Talk 13:35, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Statement by NE Ent

I too, am disturbed by folks using a real-life (i.e. important) death as a coattrack for Eric and Wikipedia's civility policy (lack thereof), round 42. If the Wales talk page squabble was all there was, I'd concur with let's move on. The fly in the ointment is:

• Rfa passed 18 Jan 2014
• Repeated references to Malleus instead of user's real name and current username.
• The comment "here's an absolutely strong argument to be made that blocking him for a years long pattern of personal attacks and incivility is thus preventative." 11 Feb 2014

For a newbie admin to jump headlong into a chronic problem arbcom 2012 wasn't able to put a dent in (Civility enforcement) indicates either a serious lack of judgement or that they were looking for an excuse to go after Eric. NE Ent 15:24, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Re "too few in the community are prepared to make allowances for his being a neophyte administrator,": editors should figure out how Wikipedia works before Rfa, not after. NE Ent 10:09, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Kevin Gorman what possibly makes you think this is "supposed to be about three people"? From the initial filing the primary focus of this case has been your poor use of admin tools, apparent subterfuge, and failure to accept criticism for them in a civil and timely manner. Even in "accepting" criticism KG continues to attempt to divert attention from his behavior to others -- admins don't accept that WP:NOTTHEM from blocked users, why should the community accept it from admins, who are supposed to be held to a higher standard of conduct? NE Ent 03:35, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Comment by Resolute

With respect to Georgewilliamherbert's views, this was ultimately a minor fracas that escalated because Eric dishes it out a hell of a lot better than he takes it. There is no great need to delve deep into what was, at worst, a good-faith overreaction by both Eric and Kevin. Eric's decision to leave in a huff was his own, and I have little doubt that he will be back. Giano's attempts to frame this around false dichotomies and appeals to emotion are uncompelling to me. I recommend the committee decline this. Resolute 17:25, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

@Ihardlythinkso - There is a difference between blaming the victim, and playing the victim. Looking at Eric's behaviour on his own talk page in the 'heated debate' that Giano mentions above shows that Eric was freely dishing out vulgar attacks. (Unsurprisingly, Giano chose not to post those, or even make mention in his case request because an honest presentation of Eric's behaviour would have undermined his WP:POINT.) Eric could have simply told Kevin that Kevin's interpretation was wrong and left it at that. Instead, Eric went on the attack - like he always does when people don't kowtow to him. For Eric to then run to ANI and demand a block for personal attacks after that was sheer hypocrisy. Resolute 23:31, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

@Roger Davies - I notice your motion fails to address Eric's behaviour. Or are comments like the ones he made here going to be treated as okay because, "it's just Malleus"? From my view, all you are doing here is affirming that a deplorable attitude is justifiable if one writes enough good articles. I hope you will accomplish more here than playing into the hands of Eric's enablers. Resolute 17:44, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Comment by Hahc21

I originally intended to not comment about this, but I think I should express my views. First, this request should be declined for several reasons:

1. There is nothing to be done about it. Kevin has not done anything to warrant a desysop. We all know that nothing good can come out from a heated situation involving Eric Corbett, and that Eric is not going to get banned for what he did, so it will be useless to hand out admonishments that wouldn't work (I'm sorry but that's the truth).
2. Accepting a case, as brad says, would only give unnecessary heat to a situation that should have never reached this page in the first place.
3. Kevin already recognized that he made some mistakes in how he handled the situation; that should be enough.

I admit that I am, in principle, aligned with Kevin. Situations like this are extremely delicate, and people must think carefully before hitting save. As somebody said somewhere, real life experiences do not give you leeway to make such comments on delicate matters on Wikipedia and get away with it. I fully agree. — ΛΧΣ^{21 Call me Hahc21} 18:41, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Comment by Carrite

New administrator pokes badger with stick, badger responds as badgers will do. People yell at new administrator for poking badger, Society For Prevention of Badgers cheers him. Badger shambles off into the bushes, new administrator is smug. Bad feelings all around. Did new administrator learn anything valuable? Doubtful. Is there an ArbCom case here? No. Decline this. Carrite (talk) 19:58, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Comment by DeCausa

Per Resolute and Carrite. Usual Wikipedia fare of poking, abrasiveness, petty squabble, poor/rash judgment and huffs ... signifying nothing. Except to the hangers on. The fact that an admin and a prolific editor behave (in either case) arguably badly is one thing. But what is really reprehensible, and what really sours Wikipedia is the way others (both sides) stoke up what is a minor incident. That's what really needs to be fixed here. Raising this to an Arbcom issue is a case in point. DeCausa (talk) 21:24, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

@Arbs. What a shambles. Having had little/no sympathy in this mess for Kevin Gorman previously, I now find myself thinking that he's been treated disgracefully. It's not the hangers on both sides of this pathetic squabble that have acted most reprehensibly, it's most of the arbs collectively for their complete lack of any sense of procedural propriety and intellectual integrity. 07:15, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Comment by Northern Antarctica

While I haven't fully studied the circumstances of this specific case (and don't intend to), I think Eric had a legitimate point in his original comment that Kevin took exception to. I certainly don't think that Kevin's handling of the situation was ideal, but he has admitted as much. Therefore, I don't see a need to further hammer him over it. On the other hand, it could be argued that this situation further demonstrates Eric's failure to respectfully tolerate dissenting positions. I have my doubts on if his retirement will last, and maybe the committee should consider whether it wants to take decisive action now or wind up here again at some point down the road. Northern Antarctica (talk) 00:29, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Re Ihardlythinkso: Eric was named as one of the parties to this case, so I don't see why there is any problem with the notion that he could face scrutiny. It gets tiresome watching you erupt at those who dare to speak out against Eric. Northern Antarctica (talk) 15:34, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Re Leaky caldron: Turning the scrutiny on Eric does not make this a witch hunt. He's one of the parties in this proposed case. Ir's not like he's being dragged into something he wasn't involved in. Northern Antarctica (talk) 15:34, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Re Writegeist: Nobody took Eric down. He voluntarily chose to retire. Northern Antarctica (talk) 21:10, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Re Writegeist: You said: "His methods are corrupt: for the rotten cop, the ends (taking your man down) justify the means (anything goes). That’s the behaviour we’ve seen from Kevin Gorman." So, what does that mean if it doesn't mean that Kevin Gorman took Eric Corbett down? Oh, by the way, it's interesting that you want to take this one incident and make broad generalizations about Kevin, yet you are unhappy with the people who are looking at Eric's established track record. Northern Antarctica (talk) 21:39, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Comment by Drmargi

This is a disgraceful situation all around. Was Kevin heavy-handed in his handling of this? Of course he was, which he has acknowledged, repeatedly. Has Kevin learned from this? I think so. Sadly, too few in the community are prepared to make allowances for his being a neophyte administrator, and are quick to judge, but slow to forgive. More to the point, what was Eric's excuse? This is yet another example of his penchant for firing with no concern for the consequences of his actions, then refusing to accept responsibility for what he says or does. His comments were unnecessary, contributing nothing to the discussion, but precipitating everything that followed. Moreover, the diva exit is the latest of many; he'll be back. We all know that. This needs to be declined with all haste; let's not continue to let Giano et.al stir the pot needlessly, creating more unnecessary strife. --Drmargi (talk) 01:19, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

@Johnuniq, with all due respect, nothing in my comments require correction. Perhaps the tools include a special set of glasses for reading subtext and editor intentions that I lack, but I simply don't see the intentionality you attribute to Kevin. Moreover, I find your "I am right and you are wrong" stance troubling, particularly coming from an admin, from whom I would expect at least an attempt at being objective as well as open to the opinions of others. I'd suggested that your level of involvement with Eric has colored your perspectives to the point you can't view Kevin's actions without bias. On the other hand, I have no skin in this game. I have had no involvement with any of the three major players here (Giano being #3), and can view this situation more objectively as a result. There is plenty of blame to go around in this sad situation and two editors who both made mistakes. The difference is in how they handled them: Kevin recognized his errors, and Eric laid down an ultimatum, then flounced off for the umpteenth time, followed by the usual round of frenzied activity designed to lure him back. Ultimata always end badly, and he made the choice to issue one in full knowledge of what the consequences would likely be. As for Kevin, he needs support and mentorship, not all this sound and fury signifying nothing, designed to avenge Eric. Finding a better approach is how you keep things like this from happening again, not exacting a pound of flesh. --Drmargi (talk) 18:35, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Comment by Johnuniq

I had intended keeping out of this, but the comment from Drmargi needs correction. Being "slow to forgive" has nothing to do with it because Kevin has not shown any acknowledgment of being in error—Kevin's "I could have handled the situation in a significantly better fashion" is a string of weasel words to say the minimum required to make the fuss go away. That non-acknowledgment is likely to mean that next time Kevin would employ different tactics to achieve his objective, but that's not the point. What about some consideration (per WP:ADMINACCT) of the underlying issue?

Kevin has used careful wording that carries the message that he was right and Eric and Giano were wrong (for example, see "Giano's behavior has been problematic" in Kevin's statement above—I suppose that refers to Giano strongly questioning Kevin's answers to questions on his talk). Even if Giano had been problematic, mentioning that here is just a deflection from the issue which concerns admin accountability.

Anyone can make a mistake, and someone not used to having their authority questioned may stick to their mistake for longer than necessary. That's all fine. My concern, however, is that Kevin has not acknowledged the central issue—does an administrator have a special authority that allows their judgment to overrule ordinary editors? For emergencies such as enforcing WP:BLP, the answer is yes. But nothing that Eric wrote constituted an emergency that required Eric to be threatened with a gigantic box stating unequivocally that Eric had violated BLP, and would be blocked if a repeat occurred (diff). Kevin followed that up with gratuitous insults: "Show some common decency ... Don't gravedance" (diff). That would be fine if Kevin's model of how Wikipedia operates were correct, namely that wisdom and authority flows from admins down. I have yet to see Kevin either retract those personal attacks or offer a plausible argument to support them.

Perhaps Kevin was in possession of secret knowledge concerning the recently deceased editor, and that may have justified removing the section from Jimbo's talk (I would have supported its removal due to the trolling nature of the original post). However, an admin needs to patiently and politely explain their actions without relying on "my stick is bigger than yours" to silence their critics. Johnuniq (talk) 10:01, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Comment by Gerda Arendt

Assume good faith. I have nothing more to say.

Eric's integrity does not rely on arbcom. He did not gravedance. (I like the analysis of Drmies.) If I had said so I would apologize. Next time I would ask first: this looks like gravedancing to me, did you mean that?

See also:

WP:NOJUSTICE

COI: I know the contributor of the post to the Jimbo Wales page (but didn't like the post). I am not Eric's maid (see Giano's talk) but perhaps a confidante (see Kevin's talk).

I think Giano worded the sequence of events well.

I learned the term grave dancing in 2012, - that taught me to avoid it, unless in mocking ;)

Assume good faith, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:06, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

@Kevin: You say "I've expressed in multiple places that I see what was wrong with my actions". I have not seen you apologize to Eric. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 00:25, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Comment by J3Mrs

Kevin Gorman completely misread a situation blaming Eric Corbett for something he didn't do and instead of diffusing the situation with an apology Kevin Gorman dug a deeper hole and promised to explain why everything was so secret and conducted off wiki. A satisfactory explanation has yet to appear and Kevin Gorman obviously still thinks Eric Corbett and Giano were problematic, as am I who he banned from his talkpage. Thank you to Giano for raising this, to Georgewilliamherbert who despite his preconceptions has been fair in his summary and Johnuniq. It's been said Eric drives editors away, that's untrue, it's the likes of Kevin Gorman. Are some arbitrators saying admins now have the power to say whatever they like? Seems like it to me. PS I am a "friend", without Eric my contributions would have been so much the poorer. J3Mrs (talk) 17:59, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Comment by Writegeist

The Wales TP thread that began with the IP’s mawkish, guilt-trippy trolling should have been shut down for the reasons Leaky Cauldron states. Instead administrator Gorman seized on it as an opportunity to pillory, threaten, harass and obstruct Corbett when he bluntly exposed the IP's thesis as a crock. Further, Gorman obdurately misrepresented Corbett (and I note Dingley still does) as insulting the dead, a repellent calumny which I’d have thought even a halfwit reading Corbett’s actual words would see as false; also as causing emotional harm to the living.

Gorman’s incompetence is manifest in his misunderstandings, misapplications of policy, and threats of retribution etc. His entrenched battleground mindset, with its brazen, oikish vindictiveness towards Corbett, is also on vivid display. Administrators should be held to higher standards. (They’re not, of course, as we’re seeing here.) Apparently this particular ex-WMF intern doesn't "see much point" in the arbs accepting this case. True. Nice if they opened this eyes for him, but we've all known from the outset that pigs will fly first.

As for the diversionary contributions that leach the toxic narrative of Corbett-as-villain into this page (e.g. Antarctica's "maybe the committee should consider whether it wants to take decisive action [against Corbett] now . . ." and Drmargi's assertion that Corbett is responsible for “precipitating” Gorman's abusive shenanigans, not to mention his follow-up that any of us proles—I count myself among those sniffily dismissed in that "et al."—who voice concerns about abusive admin behaviour are mere troublemakers), they’re every bit as creepy and Mintrue-worthy as Dingly peddling Gorman's grave-dancing propaganda.

Oh and I'm not buying Gorman's faux-naïve explanation for addressing his target as Malleus—that little trick fits right into the pattern of vindictiveness: "Look everyone, it's him again! That scum with the rapsheet of a bazillion busts! Watch me pin this one on the bastard!"

Sure, Gorman’s a rookie cop. He’s also clearly, on the evidence, a rotten cop. His methods are corrupt: for the rotten cop, the ends (taking your man down) justify the means (anything goes). That’s the behaviour we’ve seen from Kevin Gorman. And the arbs are washing their hands? Gosh well there’s a surprise. Writegeist (talk) 18:37, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

@ N Antarctica: I didn't say they did. Writegeist (talk) 21:25, 19 February 2014 (UTC) @ N Antarctica (again): Think. Please. A modus operandi is no less a modus operandi for being unsuccessful. And in this instance, as I thought I'd made clear, but apparently not to you, Gorman's odious (and bungled) methods were deployed to bring about numerous self-evident objectives, namely to impugn Corbett's integrity, humanity and probity, to denigrate his character, to smear, belittle, and outlaw him, and to pin trumped-up charges on him. That is, to bring him down. Writegeist (talk)

Apparently Gorman, like me, doesn't think much of an admonishment [45] ; and, unlike me but like Tryptofish, sees this whole thing as of little real significance, because it's just the Arbs being "masterfully played" by Eric Corbett's supporters in a "vaudevillian" routine. The relentlessness of the arrogance and the childish petulance are disappointing, to say the least. Writegeist (talk) 23:47, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Gorman has responded in his own section. Writegeist (talk) 03:06, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Comment by semi-retired Dennis Brown

Salvio is about as spot on in his assessment as you could be. Kevin would serve himself and Wikipedia best by sincerely apologizing, as he is held to a higher standard and the mistakes he made were pretty basic ones. Humble pie is good for the soul, and often it is best to ignore the flaws of another when your own mistakes are much greater. Then a formal admonishment would be unnecessary, in my opinion. Eric's actions weren't perfect, but the gist of what he said was pretty much on target. Considering the totality of the circumstances, I didn't see Eric's reactions as unusual as some might think. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 16:25, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Comment by Sagaciousphil

I am appalled that it looks as if this is about to be swept under the carpet with no action or admonishment directed towards Kevin Gorman. He deliberately set out to goad Eric Corbett at the first opportunity he found. The initial comment made by Eric in response to the IP was neither inaccurate nor uncivil. Kevin then attempted to justify his actions by claiming to have all sorts of “secret” information at the same time continuing to exacerbate the situation. I note that he still proudly displays his congratulatory barnstars yet he has concealed everything else regarding this deplorable situation in the archives. This includes his “final statement” in which his considered wording says: “ … my belief that that thread needed killed …” - hardly appropriate well thought out wording when making a statement about a thread started about suicide. He also accused Eric of “driving editors away” - again Kevin is totally inaccurate in this. I have always found Eric a pleasure and delight to work with. On the other hand, Kevin’s actions and attitude comes across as heavy handed, vindictive and, in this instance wholly wrong - especially from an Admin. At the very least he should be severely admonished while also hoping that Eric would be willing to accept the most fulsome of apologies from him. SagaciousPhil - Chat 17:29, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Comment by Writ Keeper

While I'm glad that Kevin has admitted at least some problems with his own actions (and probably am too late to the party in any event), the two things that really trouble me are this: one, Kevin said that he had consulted with other, more experienced admins before acting; that's generally a good thing, but here, it disturbs me that none of those he consulted came up with a better idea. Indeed, it kind of sounds like these advisors put him up to this. But that's just my speculation, and as we don't know who they were, Arbcom is probably not equipped to handle that. The second thing, which is one that I really do wish Arbcom would take on, is the fact that Kevin invoked BLP, and particularly the AE sanctions around BLP, to make his sanctions on Eric "stick". For my part, I can't see any plausible way that Eric's original comments are in any way a BLP violation, as he said nothing about the subject of the thread. The (mis)use of BLP and AE sanctions to make one admin's actions stick and exempt them from the usual processes of review is cynical, misguided, and (to me) deeply arrogant, and I think that, if nothing else, it alone warrants some kind of response from Arbcom. Admin authority is enough as it is; apparently calculated maneuvers to further increase one admin's authority without cause needs something. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 17:50, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Comment by Harry Mitchell

Arbs, are you really going to let an admin get away with what is the single most absurd interpretation of one of your rulings (and that title has plenty of competition) I've ever seen? This is squarely within your remit as it concerns BLP special enforcement and the idiotic conduct of an admin—precisely the kind of conduct for which the admin corps as a whole takes so much stick. If Kevin's action is allowed to pass without so much as a bat of an eyelid from ArbCom, then he will probably never realise why his actions were so problematic, and no doubt I'll be receiving a template soon for my use of the word "idiotic". To do nothing would be to completely renounce your responsibility as the only body capable of enforcing the policy on admin accountability. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:52, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Comment by JzG

I believe the appropriate sanction here is a vigorous trout-slapping. Rules be damned, that was dickish, from both parties. I've had the death of my sister exploited by another user in retaliation for stopping a POV-push, that kind of thing can make you feel physically sick.

Addendum: as it happens, Kevin is involve din something else where an OTRS ticket came in. He could not have been more helpful. So I don't think he's evil, and I am sure that Eric isn't. Maybe WP:TEA instead of WP:TROUT. Who knows. Guy (Help!) 00:32, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Comment by Robofish

I just have to observe the irony here that the various comments by users above contain stronger personal attacks than were made by either of the parties in this dispute. If they deserve blocking/admonishing, then most of those commenting above deserve blocking/admonishing as well. Urge ArbCom to recognise this as a fuss about nothing and reject it. Robofish (talk) 00:02, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Comment by DangerousPanda

Here's my motion:

1. Kevin is admonished for reading too quickly, and taking an unfortunate amount of time recognizing that
2. Eric is admonished for issuing ultimatae
3. Everyone who was suckered into this dramathread is admonished simply for being suckered in (and we all deserve it)
4. I'm admonished for pointing out the obvious.

DP 00:20, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

@User:Giano It's mathematically impossible to have further action, and overall that's rightly the correct way forward in the grand scheme of things. It's rather disruptive to have "unclosed" this, simply because you (according to your edit-summary) did not like the outcome, even though it's correct by policy DP 12:20, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Statement from The ed17

I'm floored that the committee feels necessary to "strongly admonish" Kevin, especially in a motion that is far stronger than what was originally proposed. It also rewards an out-of-process reopening of the case by the proposer, who didn't like the original outcome and wants the committee to "think again. This time properly!". Kevin was acting in good faith and has accepted that he was in error. He has stated that he will not repeat his actions. I completely fail to see why an admonishment is necessary.

In that spirit, I'd like to echo GorillaWarfare: "I believe that Gorman was truly acting in an effort to protect the subject of the discussion, which I respect. He definitely stepped over the line when he tried to apply BLP special enforcement to the issue, and I am also convinced that he knows that. I don't think a formal admonishment is necessary to drill that in further, and I have no concerns that people will forget this issue should Gorman make a similar misstep in the future." Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 19:19, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

@Newyorkbrad: I'm generally on board with your logic in arb discussions, but I'm confused. If that's the only thing holding you back, why wouldn't you oppose and just say "this should not be read as an endorsement of Kevin's actions"? Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 01:56, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Comment from Chris troutman

I was quick to criticize Kevin Gorman in light of his over-reaction to Eric Corbett's bomb-throwing. I'm particularly disappointed that he fell into that provocation but certainly Kevin does not deserve any sanction from ARBCOM for his actions. I am more disgusted by the lynch mob that has formed to roust him from his mop and bucket. Eric/Malleus has long been incivil and this incident is only the most recent. I encourage ARBCOM to discontinue handing out pro forma admonishments and instead seize this as reason to clean out the source of the consternation (Jimbo's talk page, Eric/Malleus conduct, and the quasi-legal reopening of this case) per Northern Antartica, Leaky Caldron, and The ed17. Chris Troutman (talk) 23:02, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Comment from MSGJ

The arbitration committee should rarely intervene in cases of an isolated incident such as this. The committee is supposedly the last stage in dispute resolution, and should only hear cases when there is a pattern of misconduct and all other avenues of resolution have been explored. The proposed admonishment is therefore entirely inappropriate, and will not actually achieve anything except perpetuate the drama surrounding this unfortunate incident. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 16:18, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Comment from Kaldari

Admonishing Kevin for a single statement that he has has repeatedly acknowledged as a mistake while taking no action whatsoever against Eric Corbett's deeply offensive behavior (both in publicly belittling the suicide of a Wikipedian and in personally attacking Kevin) is deeply troubling. Is the Arbitration committee now simply the executive arm of the Wikipedia administrator lynch mob? Kaldari (talk) 18:53, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Clerk notes

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

• Recuse. I just made a minor edit to correct an obvious typo. Otherwise no more.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:15, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
• Recuse. --Rschen7754 21:17, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
• Recuse I feel strongly about this matter. — ΛΧΣ^{21 Call me Hahc21} 23:03, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
• Just noting that I will not be recusing and that with the three arbitrator recusals and two inactives five votes to accept or decline are a majority. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 16:06, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Confirming Ks0stm's note above. This request is now mathematically impossible to accept. As it has been open for more than 48 hours, it can be archived as declined by the next available clerk. Carcharoth (talk) 00:49, 21 February 2014 (UTC) Striking this, as it was incorrect. I should have paid closer attention to Salvio's decline which was not a decline with no action, but a decline while holding for the possibility of a motion. I've apologised to Salvio and the rest of the committee on the mailing list. Apologies to the clerks as well for getting this wrong. I should have realised that it would have been better to wait until things were absolutely clear. Carcharoth (talk) 20:11, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Kevin Gorman—Eric Corbett: Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter <3/5/4/0>

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

• recuse Beeblebrox (talk) 23:47, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
• Recuse I've interacted significantly with Kevin regarding WikiPR, to a degree where I feel I should recuse. NativeForeigner ^Talk 02:27, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
• Recuse, as I've promised to do in all things related to Eric Corbett. However, I will note that I'm not recusing because of anything to do with Kevin Gorman, so if something like this ever happens again, not involving Eric, I will very likely vote to accept. --Floquenbeam (talk) 04:23, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
• Decline. A trout-slapping all around is in order, especially to Kevin—there's value in knowing when your actions are only going to exacerbate the issue, especially if your claim is per BLP. No statements bring up a serious pattern of problematic behavior outside of this incident, so opening a case seems premature. I would hope that Kevin does learn from this kerfluffle. In response to Georgewilliamherbet's statement, Eric leaves Wikipedia all the time; other editors storm off around arb cases all the time. That shouldn't have any bearing on accepting the case. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 13:48, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
• Decline expeditiously. Every aspect of this situation is unfortunate, but it is undesirable to publicize it further, and there is little value we can add. (Also, as a reminder, casenames should be neutral and non-argumentative.) Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:18, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
• Decline per David Fuchs and Newyorkbrad. No-one will forget what happened here in a hurry, but it is not something that should be escalated. The actions of several here (including Kevin) were not ideal in such a charged situation, but I'm not prepared to go further than that. It would be better for people to move on as I would hope we all have better things to be doing. Carcharoth (talk) 09:08, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Kevin, I got your message on my talk page and I've read your additional statements. I appreciate your argument, and I repeat that I don't think any outcome will satisfy anyone here. However, I don't think we need to take the time to craft a perfect response. What has been proposed will do, and once these motions have passed or failed, everyone should take a deep breath and move on. Carcharoth (talk) 23:15, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
• Both parties are at fault, here, in my opinion.

  Now, while I agree with the gist of Eric's remark (a person feeling depressed should always seek professional help), I think the way he phrased it was highly unfortunate and I do understand why Kevin felt he needed to act; his actions were ill-advised, yes, but had the best possible intentions. The most problematic part of this kerfuffle, for me, is what happened afterwards: Kevin made a personal attack on Eric and, when this was pointed out to him, he not only refused to apologise but actually doubled down on the attacks. Now, everyone has, at one time or another, put his foot in his mouth; that's not a big deal. What's important, however, is to acknowledge that and apologise. Saying I find laughable the idea that anyone should apologize to Eric over a perceived personal attack is unacceptably arrogant and is not the kind of behaviour I'd like to see in an admin.

  Then again, Eric is hardly blameless in all this: in addition to his inappropriate remark, he needlessly inflamed this dispute and his "I'll retire unless Kevin's blocked" is just sad.

  On balance, however, I find Kevin's conduct more problematic, in that we was acting as an administrator. That said, I don't believe a case would be helpful and so my vote is to decline this request, though I do support a motion admonishing Kevin for conduct unbecoming. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 13:52, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

• I largely agree with Salvio, but believe we should take care of the motion prior to declining the case. Kevin's behavior in this instance served to inflame the situation, and is not in line with what we should expect from an administrator. I hope it can be chalked up to inexperience, but we should be clear it can't happen again. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 20:58, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
• Decline per my colleagues, particularly David Fuchs, Newyorkbrad, and Carcharoth. I agree with Salvio's analysis of this situation, but do not see a motion as particularly necessary. T. Canens (talk) 08:15, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
• Procedural Accept in order to Decline and resolve by motion. I've gone active on this as it is the community's interests for as many arbitrators to participate as possible. NOTE: I shall be proposing motions shortly both here and on the clarification request shortly,  Roger Davies ^talk 15:06, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Hi, Kevin. This wasn't so much re-opened out of process as closed prematurely out of process. (This in turn came about because of misinterpretation of conditional decline votes, which were to close the case by way of motion. Not optimal, I know, and I'd like to apologise to you for the confusion. In passing, I should also mention that it would have been much better if the re-opening had been left to the clerks but, once it has been re-opened, it would have been very pointy to revert and then re-open.)

    Next, the purpose of the admonition is to get a formal warning/finding onto the record; without this, there's a chance that the whole business will be re-litigated at some later stage. In other words, it ties up a loose end.

    You've also commented about the two parallel "cases"; one here, one at WP:ARCA. The ARCA one is only peripherally about you; it's addressing the broader issues with WP:BLPBAN. It does include a formal reversal of the warning that triggered this but that's because WP:BLPBAN doesn't provide for admins to reverse themselves ("Where an action has been reversed or modified, this should be clearly marked, and must be accompanied by evidence of explicit approval from the Committee, or of clear consensus from the community"). So, again, that's just tying up another loose end.

    Anyhow, while it might be a day or two before the ARCA motion is finalised, this should soon be over.  Roger Davies ^talk 18:45, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

• As above: procedural accept to stop this request being delisted again as arithmetically impossible to accept, then decline and deal with by motion. By way of explanation, I cite the comments I made on the related clarification request (which was filed before this request was reopened). To amend my recommendation there (that we open a case), I'll simply say that, as there is no disagreement as to the facts of the matter, this can be resolved by motion as easily as by a case. AGK [•] 17:18, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
• Accept, then decline and resolve via motion. LFaraone 17:27, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
• Recuse, oh what fun I've missed. Having said that I'd resolved to miss it either way due to my name appearing in this list. Worm^TT(talk) 10:46, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Motion (Kevin Gorman)

For this motion there are 8 active arbitrators, not counting 6 recused. With 0 arbitrators abstaining, 5 support or oppose votes are a majority.

Majority reference

Abstentions	Support votes needed for majority
0	5
1–2	4
3–4	3

Proposed:

i.  The committee notes that it is not in dispute that User:Kevin Gorman has acted out of process and in a manner which is incompatible with the standards to which administrators are held.

ii.  The committee notes and accepts Kevin Gorman's assurances that he has learned by his mistakes and will not repeat them.

iii.  Kevin Gorman is strongly admonished.

iv.  The request shall be filed as "Kevin Gorman".

v.  The request for a full case is declined.

Support

1. See also the companion motion at Requests for Clarification,  Roger Davies ^talk 17:21, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
2. LFaraone 17:34, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
3. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 17:39, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
4. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 19:03, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
5. Not entirely happy with various aspects of this, and the varying reactions from different editors to what happened here shows that there is no approach that would satisfy everyone. I still think a minimalist approach would have been better, but since we are here and motions have been proposed, I am prepared to support this one. Carcharoth (talk) 20:43, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
6. With the thinking in my comments elsewhere. AGK [•] 21:51, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Oppose

1. GorillaWarfare (talk) 18:14, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
2. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 18:23, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Abstain

1. I still think that motions that do nothing more than an admonishment are rather pointless (cf. my vote here), but I won't stand in the way if my colleagues think it necessary. T. Canens (talk) 23:18, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
2. My initial reaction to this request was that the tragedy underlying the entire discussion made it undesirable as a subject of an arbitration proceeding. While I respect greatly the several editors who have disagreed with me, I still wish the situation had been handled in a different fashion (and I reject the assertion of "casuistry" that has been made in the related thread). That being said, I am concerned that my opposing this motion could be misunderstood as approving or accepting Kevin Gorman's statements and actions, which I certainly do not (nor, I am sure, do my colleagues who are voting to oppose) and which must never be repeated. So with the hope that lessons have been learned and we can put this behind us, I wind up here. As a postscript, the motion might have stated, and I hope that Kevin Gorman will readily agree, that Kevin must not take any further administrator actions regarding Eric Corbett. (See also my comments on the clarifications-and-amendments motions.) Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:41, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Comments

Comment by Arbitrators

Toddst1

Initiated by NE Ent at 15:04, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Involved parties

• NE Ent (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), filing party
• Toddst1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

[46]

Statement by NE Ent

Background: Toddst1 has a pattern of aggressive actions, which has been criticized by the community as documented on the following ANI threads. None warrant arbcom sanctions, but are presented to show a pattern. (Note I commented in some of these under prior username Nobody Ent.)

July 2012: Disputed block, inappropriate removal of rollback

Nov 2012: Inappropriate removal of rollback

Jan 2014: disputed edit warring block. Note especially Toddst1's refusal to acknowledge community consensus in this subsection. Subsequent to this event, Toddst1 proposed Edit warring policy wording to their interpretation, but dropped the issue after finding no community support.

Involved actions and failure to be accountable

February 2014: As fully documented on ANI thread Toddst1 made an editorial statement "As the admin who stopped the edit war, I recommend you consider making the the source for the contended material more explicit using <ref> tags.", to which the editor courtesy replied and waited 12 days for a reply, during which time Toddst1 was clearly on-wiki. Hearing no reply editor subsequently made the edit and was summarily blocked by Toddst1. In the context of the unblock request which followed, Toddst1 continued to argue content "as the blocking admin" [47].

The editor was subsequently unblocked by ErrantX who described the action as a "heavy handed block with very little justification." Toddst1 was subsequently requested to respond to the ANI thread.

Administrator accountability requires "Administrators are expected to respond promptly and civilly to queries about their Wikipedia-related conduct and administrator actions and to justify them when needed." Rather than do so, Toddst1 has indicated via setting on the wikibreak enforcer script [48] they intend to lay low for 11 months, which is, of course, one month short of the year of inactivity which results in removal of tools.

Reply to initial NYB, Flo, Beeblebrox comments: hopefully it's clear the Aprock block -- an attempt to direct content -- was bogus. While I respect the inclination not to take action with regard to an absent editor, I don't think Toddst1 should be able to duck out on very legitimate criticism, especially as his parting remark seems to indicate he hopes things will have changed in a year so he can continue as before. Not good. My concrete suggestion is:

1. Accept case
2. By motion, temporary injunction on using admin tools pending resolution of case. (But no desysop -- too much stigma with that)
3. Suspend case until Toddst1 returns

If he returns in a year with assurances he'll clearly distinguish the editorial and admin functions, and respond civilly to legit questions about his actions, a quick dismissal of the case would be entirely appropriate.

In other words, I guess I'm requesting this incident be transferred from unreliable "Ent" et. al. memory to institutional memory. NE Ent 19:53, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Reply to query

Carcharoth It's my understanding its generally left up to the bureaucrat community to discuss / determine whether a resignation of tools was "under a cloud." NE Ent 02:57, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Motion wording

@Beeblebrox: "asked" is too WP:WEASEL for an arbcom motion. "Directed" is preferred; this is Wikipedia, if Toddst1 cames back and if they use admin tools prior to case resolution -- especially if something innocuous -- it'll be something to argue about. NE Ent 23:07, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Statement by ErrantX

So, randomly spotted this reading the case request below... It was me that unblocked Aprock earlier this month. NE Ent summarises that situation quite well; Toddst1 was very heavy handed in that block and it left a poor taste in mouth (in terms of how an admin should treat other editors). Hence the unblock and my words to Toddst1.

Afterwards Toddst1 went on a lengthy wikibreak (ostensibly) with somewhat dramatic words. I have to say, I don't really have much respect for such stuff - it's fine to be upset or possibly cross when criticised. But to, in colloquial British, have a hissy fit is tedious and not worth our time responding to.

That said; there are things to look at here, possibly. This isn't the first time I've seen a Toddst1 block that looked heavy handed, irresponsible or out-of-policy - and I agree with NE Ent that the crux of the matter is less those actions and more the fact there seems no introspection or acceptance of criticism on show.

However, Toddst1 is now on an 11 month break and we can't really have a case in his absence. Perhaps a temporary de-sysop (if the committee feels it is warranted) and a suspended case for when Toddst1 returns? Or perhaps the committee could exam these problems in a wider context with a remit to clarify policy? --Errant ^(chat!) 15:38, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Statement by Ubikwit

Well, it's good to see somebody finally reporting Toddst1. I was subjected to what I consider to be a 'drive-by block' by him in User_talk:Ubikwit#December_2013.

Aside from that thread, I sent a somewhat detailed account of the events in a request to unblock using the ticket system on December 20, to which I received a response from @Fluffernutter: on the 23rd. I don't know if I have a copy of the text of that request, so please go through the log for that date. Here is the AN/I thread Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive821#Another_SPA_POV-pushing_and_edit_warring_at_Bukharan_Jews.2C_WP.

In short, however, there was an IP editing in a manner against several policies and he had been warned, it appeared that the IP then opened an account to continue edit warring in neglect of the warning. I described this as a loophole for gaming the system in a followup to Fluffernutter, but received no response--that issue had not seemed to be of interest to Toddst1, neither before nor after the block, even though it potentially represents a (minor) systematic lapse.

I've located the report I submitted with the unblock request through the ticket system, so I'll provide a few links to threads and expand a little. I'll post the text of that if a case is opened.
As can be seen from the following links, I had put a substantial amount of effort into dispute resolution regarding the case at AN/I. That effort had included a previous AN/I thread against the IP that appears to have subsequently registered user ID Coolforschool in order to circumvent the warnings he'd been given. That, however, remains an unexamined matter to this day.
The crux of the matter is that when editors expend significant time and effort on Wikipedia to engage the dispute resolution process, that has to be respected by admins and substantive due process afforded in order to evaluate a complex situation before any administrative action is taken.
Clearly admins such as Toddst1 pose a threat to editor retention on Wikipedia. I would support the "in absentia" mode for this case, because it should be resolved while fresh on peoples minds, and represents is another in a string of recent cases relating to admin conduct.

1. Archived previous AN/I thread filed against IP
2. Archived RS/N thread
3. Request article be unprotected based on result of RS/N
4. Article unprotected by admin that had placed it under indefinite full protection

At any rate, my take on the scenario was that Toddst1 didn't look at the specifics of the interaction at all, and blocked me basically because he determined that I was technically in violation of the edit warring policy.

He didn't respond to my requests on my talk page or participate in the AN/I discussion at all before issuing the block. An since at least one other administrator had already commented and taken an intermediary action, I can't see the justification for the non-communicative enforcer type action taken by the individual in question.

I banned him from my talk page, and then he reverted one of my edits and issued a warning in relation to an article on which he had absolutely no editing history. I suspected he was stalking me and told him so. that edit related to the current "Gun control" case, incidentally, and the distinction that should be made between "gun control" and "arms control"--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 17:54, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Statement by Leaky Caldron

An action of some sort is essential. Failure to establish a basis for proceeding now, reserving for the future or some other formal course of action simply allows any Admin. facing a case to disappear for a long enough period of time that the case against them is effectively negated. There is a "cloud" here that needs to be clarified by an Arbcom. decision. Leaky Caldron 19:41, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Statement and proposed motion by Hasteur

Assuming good faith on the actions of Toddst1, and recalling the wording of Admin Accountability, it only seems right that Toddst1 should give an accounting of their actions. Their actions were already of concern (and under scrutiny by established editors) prior to the wikibreak being enforced therefor there is reasonable perception of clouds having formed. Therefore I propose

An Arbitration case be opened and suspended for up to 1 year regarding the actions prior to Toddst1's wikibreak.

Toddst1 is provisionally desysopped pending the outcome of the case. Should the case not be opened prior to the expiry of the suspension, Toddst1's provisional desysop is to be treated as a ArbCom authorized desysop.

Toddst1 may apply for Admin privileges again by passing a new RfA candidacy should the provisional desysop become permanant

This gives Toddst1 the opportunity to account for the actions and gives a definite end point for the issue being resolved. Hasteur (talk) 21:56, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

With respect to Salvio's "dislike" of my solution, I would note that prior to going on wikibreak Toddst1's actions had been discussed at AN*, so there was cause for considering sanctions. Unless you're intending to give carte blanche that any administrator can stonewall discussions of questioning of their actions by going on wikibreak until people have forgotten about it. There is a presumption of guilt, but the actions (both implicit and explicit) of Toddst1 raise a reasonable suspicion that the break is designed to avoid responding to the questioning. For that reason the committee could authorize a injunction, but injunctions have little force beyond a "gentelman's agreement" that requires a significant amount of effort more to undo should the admin go off the rails. (effort required in monitoring + (Chance for off the rails action * Effort to clean up)) > (Effort to desysop and potentially resysop later). Preventing future harm to the encyclopedia at large is much more important than the hurt feelings of a previous sysop. Hasteur (talk) 15:44, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Statement by Johnuniq

I was shocked at Toddst1's "You were right, I was wrong" post at ANI. One such totally bizarre incident could be overlooked, but the pattern evident in NE Ent's links shows a trend that must be corrected.

Hasteur's suggestion looks good. For whatever reason, Toddst1 is not available to respond to this case, yet the underlying problem is severe since it is likely that good editors have been lost due to Toddst1's approach. It would be totally unacceptable for an administrator to be able to evade accountability by taking an extended break, then return to retain their admin tools—the same tools which NE Ent's links show have been repeatedly abused.

Toddst1's last edit (3 February 2014) was to set the 11-month wikibreak, and that edit is the most problematic in the case because the summary was "hopefully the community will have come to terms with the double standard that seems to have become superior to policy by then". The "double standard" link is to an essay created and largely maintained by Toddst1. The essay contains several insights and helpful observations, however, the linked section shows that in Toddst1's view, the only problem with their block was that the target was a "Vested Contributor" with "buddies".

Arbcom must take action to ensure that proper accountability applies. We all know that the 11-month break can be shortcircuited, and Toddst1 could resume admin work at any time without any response (other than the above edit summary) to the last incident raised at ANI. Johnuniq (talk) 10:48, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Statement by Binksternet

I was blocked unfairly in August 2010 by Toddst1 after a few days of discussion that I started at Talk:Memorex#Parody_in_film with an insistent dynamic IP editor from London. There was no consensus for adding trivia—it was just me and IP person talking back and forth—yet the editor re-added the trivia five times over two days. Toddst1 suddenly appeared to block me after I reverted the IP twice in one day, this coming after I reverted the IP twice on another day, with one intervening day. It was a petty block.

When Toddst1 unfairly blocked MrX in January 2014, a discussion was raised at ANI by Black Kite. In that discussion I pointed out that the obvious and best action taken in the situation should have been Toddst1 full-protecting the article against the three editors who were content-warring. Other observers such as Adjwilley, Black Kite, MastCell, Sportsguy17, Alanyst, Gamaliel, MONGO, Georgewilliamherbert, Dougweller and Drmies agreed that the article should have been protected rather than MrX blocked. The result was that MrX was unblocked by Fram, but a lot of editors expressed dissatisfaction with Toddst1 actions as an administrator. The bad block discouraged MrX, who had been a very constructive encyclopedia builder for four years, from further participation here.

Because of the current complaint and all the past complaints against him, I propose that Toddst1 be desysopped with the requirement that he undergo RFA to regain the tools. Binksternet (talk) 18:01, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Regarding the issue of Toddst1's absence because of his self-imposed 11-month break, I see no reason why a determination cannot be made here without Toddst1's involvement. His self-defense explanations in the past have never addressed the problem, and they have not led to a correction of the problem. Why would we expect that his self-defense going forward will be any different? It seems to me that Toddst1 can be discussed in absentia, and can just as well be desysopped in absentia, if the committee sees fit. If he comes back from his break to find his tools have been taken away, it will be less trouble and less drama for him than to come back and argue his case for a couple of weeks, then lose his tools. Binksternet (talk) 20:10, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Question from WJBscribe

I do not think a motion in the form proposed has been made before, but I may be wrong about this.
@User:AGK in particular: Please could you clarify whether the motion as proposed authorises a bureaucrat to remove Toddst1's admin rights were he to make an admin action without this case being resolved first, or whether we would need further instruction from ArbCom to do so? WJBscribe (talk) 11:13, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Question from Fut.Perf.

Why restrict Todddst from using admin tools until the case is resolved? In normal cases of admin conduct, even where a likely result of desysopping is on the tables, the admin in question has nevertheless always been at liberty to act as an admin during the proceedings. Why would this case be different? (Of course, if he does use the tools, it means he's back to active and the case can begin, but other than that, I really don't see what relevance the use of tools has or what grave danger of abuse this measure is meant to prevent.) Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:10, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Statement from Black Kite

Even before the MrX incident, I was a little concerned about Toddst1's use of the tools, and the large number of times he has been brought to ANI is evidence for this, quite apart from those listed above (of course, as with any admin at ANI a number of those complaints are baseless, but many aren't). But the MrX incident was unforgivable. There was no possible reason whatsoever why, in an edit war where two editors on one side have made four reverts and one revert, and two others on the "other side" have made three and two respectively, the two latter editors should be the only ones that are blocked. Nor is there any excuse for an admin, upon being called out on this behaviour, to not only insist that they were right, but to attack those pointing it out [49], trying to claim that the consensus forming that his block was wrong is because the editor "is one of us" and accusing other editors and admins of double standards [50] editsummary here, bad faith editsummary here and of being a "lynch mob" editsummary here. Not to mention that the blocked editor had already clashed with Toddst1 a short time previously over a single revert that they made (ANI here). The result of all this was the loss of a contributor with 40K edits. We can't afford this type of thing. I'd certainly be looking for a requirement that Toddst1, if not desysopped until a case can take place, at least pledges not use his tools for that period. Black Kite (talk) 15:25, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Statement from Ihardlythinkso

Hard to relate I think, unless you've been on receiving end of one of Toddst1's grudge/revenge blocks for having "talked back" to him. E.g. User:FleetCommand [51] [52] [53] the "usual deal" being subjugation, humiliation and domination [54] looking for grovelling backed up by his tag-team buddy admin User:The Blade of the Northern Lights defeated by two admins please note edit summary [55]. Much more but will stop now. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 17:06, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Statement by Jehochman

I am not going to comment on the merits of this case, but rather, on the construction of the motion. When a case is pending about an administrator, that administrator is not required to stop using admin tools. Toddst1 does not need to be restricted in that way. Instead, please vote to accept the case, and suspend it until Toddst1 returns. If he resigns or loses sysop access due to inactivity, then the case will be dismissed as unnecessary, and the tools can then be regained through a new RFA. There should be no assumption that he's done something wrong, but if he resigns while a case is pending, he has resigned under a cloud. Jehochman ^Talk 17:46, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Short statement from The Blade of the Northern Lights

Just a quick note that I'm no tag team buddy of Toddst1, despite Ihardlythinkso's protestations. Before I started refusing to work on almost anything outside of two articles Toddst1 and I would occasionally run into each other, and we tend to see eye to eye on things, but we don't have any significant influence over the other. I have no idea what this is all about, but I want to make sure that's 100% clear. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 17:44, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Note: Toddst1 blocked by Toddst1

I guess Toddst has got round the Wikibreak enforcer.[56] Or doesn't it affect blocks? Bishonen | talk 00:25, 25 February 2014 (UTC).

Disabling Javascript is all that's required to bypass the so called "Wikibreak enforcer", and yes, he had to bypass it to block himself. Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 01:00, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Not sure, but my reading of that action is that he did it on purpose to secure a desysop per the motion being voted below, and stay blocked indefinitely while being unable to unblock himself (given that he would be desysopped). — ΛΧΣ^{21 Call me Hahc21} 01:11, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

That's how I read it, too. Furthermore, I think that Toddst1 expects to get desysopped, and this is him getting in the last word. Binksternet (talk) 02:02, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Proposal related to the above by Konveyor Belt

Now that he's gone and committed suicide by admin self-block, I propose he be desysopped automatically without having to go through this case nonsense of a formal motion for desysop. The case can still be opened, then put on hold, though, per the motion. KonveyorBelt 04:10, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Clerk notes

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

• Recuse I heavily participated, and was involved in, the July 2012 and November 2012 posts presented as evidence by NE Ent, and as such, have aprevious history with Toddst1. Though it all has been resolved, for the record. — ΛΧΣ^{21 Call me Hahc21} 05:02, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Toddst1: Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter <0/0/0/9>

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

• Awaiting statements, which should discuss (in addition to any other issues) whether and how Toddst1's declared 11-month wikibreak bears upon the situation. (Please note that I have changed the casename from "Involvement and accountability" to "Toddst1". I appreciate the filing party's desire to avoid the potentially confrontational tone of a case named after a specific editor, but the alternative name is too vague and generic to be useful in identifying the case.) Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:15, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
• I, too, would be interested in hearing comments about how the 11-month wikibreak factors into this. On first blush, I'm not seeing any way to handle the case request in light of the break that doesn't have a significant downside. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:24, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
  • If Toddst1 were active, I would support opening a case. I can't support a case in absentia, and it would be a waste of time if he decides to never return. I'm also unwilling to decline and completely drop the issue for 11 months. But I don't consider being a few weeks into an 11 month wikibreak as "refusing to participate" in the ArbCom case; he's not likely to be monitoring his talk page if he's on a long break. I prefer a suspended case until his return, at which time he can choose to participate in a case, or give up his adminship. I prefer NE Ent's suggestion, but could live with Hasteur's suggestion, about what to do in the interim: whether we pass a motion simply instructing him not to use his tools until resolution of the case, or a motion that actually temporarily desysops him pending resolution of the case. (inserted later) Actually, if the case is accepted then suspended until his return or 12 months, I'm not sure either suggestion is necessary, so I could live with that too. (end insert) Either way, a permanent desysop should occur if this is not resolved in a year. I would support a motion opening and then suspending a case for up to a year if it looks like several of my colleagues feel similarly. --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:32, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
    • Holding off for now, until we see if Toddst1 replies to the email. But inclined to accept the motion below, although I've come around to the point of view that an instruction to not use the tools is not necessary. I won't let that stop me from supporting, nor do I think the difference is worth proposing a motion 2. --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:07, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
• Echoing the above. While I do see some cause for concern in what is presented here, at this time I don't think I see a good way forward. There doesn't seem to be a "smoking gun" that would merit a sumarry desysop, and we don't really do cases in abstentia. It looks like Todd's wikibreak is for real, so regardless of the merits of the concerns I don't see what we can or should do about it while he is on a nearly year-long break. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:23, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

I would be willing to consider a motion for some sort of suspended case, but I would not support any sort of provisional or temporary desysop. Revocation of admin status is generally something we do at the end of a case, not the beginning. Leaving the project in the face of an Arbcom case is by no means a new or unique event, but simply taking a break is not a free pass to avoid scrutiny or sanctions. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:09, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

• For some time I've shared NE Ent's concerns about this administrator, and agree that a reckoning is needed here. If more arbitrators agree, I would propose H.'s motion suspending this case until Toddst1's return or a year (whichever comes first, though I suspect the former will). Such a suspension would not require the rigmarole of opening empty case pages: I'd merely have us confirm we'll look into this at Todd's return. AGK [•] 11:10, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

• I have drafted a motion off-wiki, but will not present it until Toddst has had the opportunity to respond by e-mail or proxy. (I've just emailed him.) AGK [•] 12:44, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

• Editors should be given the chance to participate in ArbCom cases concerning their conduct; however, their refusal to do so should not prevent us from doing the needful. That said, I don't particularly like Hasteur's solution, in that it assumes guilt; I'd rather we heard a case in absentia, evaluating all the available evidence and deciding whether it warrants the imposition of a remedy. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 13:29, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
• I would also support the motion to suspend the case to be immediately resumed on Toddst1's return, and instructing Toddst1 not to use the tools until the case had been addressed. I don't see any need for an actual desysop at this point as I don't see any reason to believe Toddst1 would not heed those instructions. If and when Toddst1 returns, we can take the time and consideration of a full case to determine how to proceed from there. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 21:02, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
• I agree that a motion to accept and suspend a case pending Toddst1's return is the best way to proceed here (this has been done in the past before, with varying conditions attached). Per Seraphimblade, no automatic desysop needed now or in the future. I think the tools would be removed for inactivity at some point anyway - re-examine at that point to ascertain whether such removal is under a cloud or not. On a related note, if an admin hands in their tools before going on such a break, would we have to determine whether they can ask for them back as usual at the bureaucrat's noticeboard? Carcharoth (talk) 23:35, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
• OK with a motion to accept and suspend a case, and to instruct Toddst1 not to use the tools until the case has been addressed. I don't see a need for temporary desysop right now. T. Canens (talk) 08:22, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
• I think it makes sense to suspend the case, pending Toddst1's return. I will refrain from voting on the motion until Toddst1 is given some time to respond. GorillaWarfare (talk) 15:13, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Motion (Toddst1)

For this motion there are 13 active arbitrators. With 0 arbitrators abstaining, 7 support or oppose votes are a majority.

Majority reference

Abstentions	Support votes needed for majority
0–1	7
2–3	6
4–5	5

The "Toddst1" request for arbitration is accepted, but a formal case will not be opened unless and until Toddst1 returns to active status as an administrator. If Toddst1 resigns his administrative tools or is desysopped for inactivity the case will be closed with no further action. Toddst1 is instructed not to use his admin tools in any way while the case is pending; doing so will be grounds for summary desysopping.

Support

1. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:00, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

   Regarding the previous wording: I deliberately chose "asked" as we have not actually decided that there is any need to sanction at all and if Todd were to return his compliance with this request would have been a good barometer of his overall attitude toward these concerns, but I understand the concern that it will just give people something to fight about if he should come back and do even a simple, uncontroversial admin action, so I'll leave it as worded now. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:30, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

2. Moved from oppose. AGK [•] 23:38, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

   Waiting for Toddst1 to signal his intentions (as I've said all over the place today!). AGK [•] 23:07, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

   Copyedits: changed "asked" to "instructed" and added "; doing so will be grounds for summary desysopping". Revert if you disagree. AGK [•] 23:08, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

   @WJBscribe: This type of motion actually has been done before. If the subject violated the "instructed not to use his admin tools" clause, it is likely the bureaucrats would be authorised to desysop after a Level II hearing (that is, by a show of hands on the mailing list to desysop him). AGK [•] 11:42, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

3. As stated below, willing to support this approach. The bit about not normally restricting admin tools is a valid one, but I don't sense sufficient support from the rest of the committee to put up an alternative motion. Carcharoth (talk) 22:07, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
4. LFaraone 00:44, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
5. T. Canens (talk) 01:12, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
6. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 13:43, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
7. Satisified that Toddst1 has had an opportunity to reply. GorillaWarfare (talk) 18:27, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
8. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:37, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

   Signing statement: Toddst1's self-block hasn't violated the conditions of the motion; it hasn't been enacted yet. There's no need to treat his self-block as anything irrevocable. If he ever changes his mind and wants to come back, he can unblock himself if he still has the tools, and hopefully we will be reasonable enough not to get too excited about that one technical violation. If he decides to come back after he loses the bit through inactivity, he can just ask any admin to unblock him. --Floquenbeam (talk) 01:41, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

9. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 18:52, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
10. I might have limited the direction that Toddst1 not use the tools until the case is decided to just blocking, since that is the subject of the criticism of his actions, but this may well be a moot point. If Toddst1 is reading here, I would say to him that there is no need to leave Wikipedia either temporarily or permanently because people disagree with a few of your blocks, but if you are choosing to step away for whatever reason, the cleanest break would be to resign your adminship, and that in any event you are welcome to return as an editor if and when you choose. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:05, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
11. I do support this motion, but note that Toddst1 has blocked himself this morning.[57] I do not consider that an admin action in violation of this motion, nor would I consider unblocking himself and facing a case a violation of this motion. I see a hard working wikipedian who's come to the end of his tether and I wish Toddst1 the best. Worm^TT(talk) 10:53, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Oppose

Abstain

Comments

• Waiting another couple of days before voting, as the Committee has reached out to Toddst1 to make sure he's aware of this request. Given his break, I'm willing to give him a couple more days to see if we get a reply and if so what it is. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:38, 22 February 2014 (UTC) Now voted, see above. Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:21, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
• I am presuming from AGK's switch from oppose to support that nothing had been heard from Toddst1. I'll double-check that and if nothing had been heard, will then support the motion as the couple of days Newyorkbrad mentioned has now passed. Carcharoth (talk) 17:33, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
• Mentioned it above, but am also waiting for Toddst1 to reply. GorillaWarfare (talk) 01:45, 24 February 2014 (UTC)