Main case page (Talk) — Evidence (Talk) — Workshop (Talk) — Proposed decision (Talk)

Case clerk: TBD Drafting arbitrator: TBD

Case opened on 15:42, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Case suspended by motion on 15:42, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Case closed on 02:40, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Watchlist all case (and talk) pages: Front, Ev., Wshp., PD.

Do not edit this page unless you are an arbitrator or clerk, or you are adding yourself as a party to this case. Statements on this page are copies of the statements submitted in the original request to arbitrate this dispute, and serve as verbatim copies; therefore, they may not be edited or removed. (However, lengthy statements may be truncated – in which case the full statement will be copied to the talk page. Statements by uninvolved editors during the Requests phase will also be copied to the talk page.) Evidence which you wish to submit to the committee should be given at the /Evidence subpage, although permission must be sought by e-mail before you submit private, confidential, or sensitive evidence.

Arbitrators, the parties, and other editors may suggest proposed principles, findings, and remedies at /Workshop. The Workshop may also be used for you to submit general comments on the evidence, and for arbitrators to pose questions to the parties. Eventually, arbitrators will vote on a final decision in the case at /Proposed decision; only arbitrators may offer proposals as the Proposed Decision.

Once the case is closed, editors should edit the #Log of blocks, bans, and restrictions as needed, but the other content of this page may not be edited except by clerks or arbitrators. Please raise any questions about this decision at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment, any general questions at Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee, and report violations of the remedies passed in the decision to Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement.

Case information

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)

Prior dispute resolution

Preliminary statements

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" [1].

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 [2] 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:

Accept case
By motion, temporary injunction on using admin tools pending resolution of case. (But no desysop -- too much stigma with that)
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]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Preliminary decision

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. — ΛΧΣ²¹ ^{Call me Hahc21} 05:02, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
- 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)[reply]
  - 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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

Motion (Toddst1)

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

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.

Enacted 15:42, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Support

Beeblebrox (talk) 23:00, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
Moved from oppose. AGK [•] 23:38, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
~~Waiting for Toddst1 to signal his intentions (as I've said all over the place today!). AGK [•] 23:07, 20 February 2014 (UTC)~~[reply]

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]
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)[reply]
L Faraone 00:44, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
T. Canens (talk) 01:12, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 13:43, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Satisified that Toddst1 has had an opportunity to reply. GorillaWarfare (talk) 18:27, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
--Floquenbeam (talk) 18:37, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 18:52, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
I do support this motion, but note that Toddst1 has blocked himself this morning.[3] 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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
~~Mentioned it above, but am also waiting for Toddst1 to reply. GorillaWarfare (talk) 01:45, 24 February 2014 (UTC)~~[reply]

Temporary injunction (none)

Final decision

All tallies are based the votes at /Proposed decision, where comments and discussion from the voting phase is also available.

Principles

Findings of fact

Remedies

All remedies that refer to a period of time (for example, a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months) are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.

Enforcement

Enforcement of restrictions

0) Should any user subject to a restriction in this case violate that restriction, that user may be blocked, initially for up to one month, and then with blocks increasing in duration to a maximum of one year.

In accordance with the procedure for the standard enforcement provision adopted 3 May 2014, this provision did not require a vote.

Appeals and modifications

0) Appeals and modifications

This procedure applies to appeals related to, and modifications of, actions taken by administrators to enforce the Committee's remedies. It does not apply to appeals related to the remedies directly enacted by the Committee.

Appeals by sanctioned editors

Appeals may be made only by the editor under sanction and only for a currently active sanction. Requests for modification of page restrictions may be made by any editor. The process has three possible stages (see "Important notes" below). The editor may:

ask the enforcing administrator to reconsider their original decision;
request review at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard ("AE") or at the administrators’ noticeboard ("AN"); and
submit a request for amendment at "ARCA". If the editor is blocked, the appeal may be made by email through Special:EmailUser/Arbitration Committee (or, if email access is revoked, to arbcom-enwikimedia.org).

Modifications by administrators

No administrator may modify or remove a sanction placed by another administrator without:

the explicit prior affirmative consent of the enforcing administrator; or
prior affirmative agreement for the modification at (a) AE or (b) AN or (c) ARCA (see "Important notes" below).

Administrators modifying sanctions out of process may at the discretion of the committee be desysopped.

Nothing in this section prevents an administrator from replacing an existing sanction issued by another administrator with a new sanction if fresh misconduct has taken place after the existing sanction was applied.

Administrators are free to modify sanctions placed by former administrators – that is, editors who do not have the administrator permission enabled (due to a temporary or permanent relinquishment or desysop) – without regard to the requirements of this section. If an administrator modifies a sanction placed by a former administrator, the administrator who made the modification becomes the "enforcing administrator". If a former administrator regains the tools, the provisions of this section again apply to their unmodified enforcement actions.

Important notes:

For a request to succeed, either

(i) the clear and substantial consensus of (a) uninvolved administrators at AE or (b) uninvolved editors at AN or

(ii) a passing motion of arbitrators at ARCA

is required. If consensus at AE or AN is unclear, the status quo prevails.

While asking the enforcing administrator and seeking reviews at AN or AE are not mandatory prior to seeking a decision from the committee, once the committee has reviewed a request, further substantive review at any forum is barred. The sole exception is editors under an active sanction who may still request an easing or removal of the sanction on the grounds that said sanction is no longer needed, but such requests may only be made once every six months, or whatever longer period the committee may specify.
These provisions apply only to contentious topics placed by administrators and to blocks placed by administrators to enforce arbitration case decisions. They do not apply to sanctions directly authorised by the committee, and enacted either by arbitrators or by arbitration clerks, or to special functionary blocks of whatever nature.
All actions designated as arbitration enforcement actions, including those alleged to be out of process or against existing policy, must first be appealed following arbitration enforcement procedures to establish if such enforcement is inappropriate before the action may be reversed or formally discussed at another venue.

In accordance with the procedure for the standard appeals and modifications provision adopted 3 May 2014, this provision did not require a vote.

Log of notifications and sanctions

Any block, restriction, ban, or sanction performed under the authorisation of a remedy for this case must be logged in this section. Please specify the enforcing administrator, date and time, nature of sanction, and basis or context. Unless otherwise specified, the standardised enforcement provision applies to this case. Notifications given pursuant to a remedy (most commonly, discretionary sanctions) should be logged below; the required information is the user who was notified, the date they were notified, and a diff of the notification. Sanction log entries should be followed by your signature, but do not append your signature when logging a notification..

Notifications

Sanctions

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