Wikipedia Arbitration
About arbitration Talk Arbitration policy (CU/OS) Guide to arbitration Noticeboard +  Talk Search archived proceedings Ban appeals Report
Open proceedings All open requests Case requests Clarification and Amendment requests Arbitrator motion requests Enforcement requests
Active sanctions Contentious topics ( Log) General sanctions Editor sanctions
Arbitration Committee Discuss + Contact Members Procedures Elections Talk History Clerks +  Talk Clerk procedures
Audit Talk Statistics Talk Reports (pre-2016)
Track related changes
v t e

After considering /Evidence and discussing proposals with other arbitrators, parties, and editors at /Workshop, arbitrators may make proposals which are ready for voting. Arbitrators will vote for or against each provision, or they may abstain. Only items which are supported by an absolute majority of the active, non-recused arbitrators will pass into the final decision. Conditional votes and abstentions will be denoted as such by the arbitrator, before or after their time-stamped signature. For example, an arbitrator can state that their support vote for one provision only applies if another provision fails to pass (these are denoted as "first" and "second choice" votes). Only arbitrators and clerks may edit this page, but non-arbitrators may comment on the talk page.

For this case there are 14 active arbitrators, not counting 1 recused. 8 support or oppose votes are a majority.

If observing editors notice any discrepancies between the arbitrators' tallies and the final decision or the #Implementation notes, you should post to the clerk talk page. Similarly, arbitrators may request clerk assistance via the same method, or via the clerks' mailing list.

Under no circumstances may this page be edited, except by members of the Arbitration Committee or the case Clerks. Please submit comment on the proposed decision to the talk page.

Arbitrators may place proposed motions affecting the case in this section for voting. Typical motions might be to close or dismiss a case without a full decision (a reason should normally be given), or to add an additional party (although this can also be done without a formal motion as long as the new party is on notice of the case). Suggestions by the parties or other non-arbitrators for motions or other requests should be placed on the /Workshop page for consideration and discussion. Motions have the same majority for passage as the final decision.

Template

1) {text of proposed motion}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

A temporary injunction is a directive from the Arbitration Committee that parties to the case, or other editors notified of the injunction, do or refrain from doing something while the case is pending.

Four net "support" votes needed to pass (each "oppose" vote subtracts a "support")
24 hours from the first vote is normally the fastest an injunction will be imposed.

Template

1) {text of proposed orders}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Proposed final decision Information

Administrators

1) Administrators are trusted members of the community who, after being vetted by the community, have been granted access to a certain set of tools, including the ability to effect blocks and unblocks and to protect and unprotect pages from being edited.

Within the boundaries set by policy, administrators are allowed to exercise their discretion in using said tools for the purpose of maintaining the encyclopaedia and protecting its integrity; however, abuse of tools or their repeated misuse may lead to sanctions, up to and including a desysop.

Support:

1. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 10:00, 14 January 2014 (UTC) reply
2.   Roger Davies ^talk 12:25, 14 January 2014 (UTC) reply
3. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 17:55, 14 January 2014 (UTC) reply
4. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^{( talk)} 18:04, 14 January 2014 (UTC) reply
5. Courcelles 22:12, 14 January 2014 (UTC) reply
6. L Faraone 22:52, 14 January 2014 (UTC) reply
7. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 04:11, 15 January 2014 (UTC) reply
8. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 11:48, 15 January 2014 (UTC) reply
9. -- Floquenbeam ( talk) 16:17, 15 January 2014 (UTC) reply
10. T. Canens ( talk) 00:51, 16 January 2014 (UTC) reply
11. NativeForeigner ^Talk 07:18, 16 January 2014 (UTC) reply
12. – GorillaWarfare (talk) 19:04, 16 January 2014 (UTC) reply
13. Carcharoth ( talk) 02:15, 17 January 2014 (UTC) reply
14. Worm^TT( talk) 08:27, 17 January 2014 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Administrator involvement

2) With few exceptions, editors are expected to not act as administrators in cases where, to a neutral observer, they could reasonably appear involved. Involvement is generally construed very broadly by the community, to include current or past conflicts with an editor (or editors), and disputes on topics, regardless of the nature, age, or outcome of the dispute.

While there will always be borderline cases, best practices suggest that, whenever in doubt, an administrator should draw the situation to the attention of fellow sysops, such as by posting on an appropriate noticeboard, so that other sysops can provide help.

Support:

1. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 10:00, 14 January 2014 (UTC) reply
2. With small tweak ("they" > "other sysops")   Roger Davies ^talk 12:25, 14 January 2014 (UTC) reply
3. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 22:29, 15 January 2014 (UTC) reply
4. -- Floquenbeam ( talk) 22:34, 15 January 2014 (UTC) reply
5. T. Canens ( talk) 00:51, 16 January 2014 (UTC) reply
6. As edited. Thanks for addressing my concerns. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 03:41, 16 January 2014 (UTC) reply
7. Yes indeed, thanks for the edit. That addresses my concerns as well. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 06:54, 16 January 2014 (UTC) reply
8. NativeForeigner ^Talk 07:18, 16 January 2014 (UTC) reply
9. GorillaWarfare (talk) 19:06, 16 January 2014 (UTC) reply
10. As edited. Courcelles 21:22, 16 January 2014 (UTC) reply
11. Carcharoth ( talk) 02:15, 17 January 2014 (UTC) reply
12. Worm^TT( talk) 08:27, 17 January 2014 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Although it has become common usage, I don't know that the word "involved" by itself conveys exactly what we are trying to say; the key is an administrator shouldn't act as such in a dispute where he or she is either involved in the dispute, or where he or she has a history with one of the parties to the dispute such that he or she won't appear impartial. In that light, I think that item (i) of the proposal is overbroad; it's one thing to say that an administrator shouldn't use the tools in a matter involving an editor with whom they are currently embroiled in the underlying dispute, or even a significant unrelated dispute in the recent past. But (i) could be read to mean that an administrator is disqualified from using the tools in a dispute if he or she has ever disagreed with one of the parties about any content issue on any article ever. That is too broad. The phrase "significant personal interaction with" is also a little bit vague, although I can't quickly think of a rewrite that won't degenerate into rules-creep. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 18:00, 14 January 2014 (UTC) reply

Would a phrase like "participated in a significant editorial dispute recently" or something similar address your concerns with i ? Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^{( talk)} 18:04, 14 January 2014 (UTC) reply

Can't speak for Newyorkbrad, but I'd find that an improvement. As is, I agree that this casts the net a little too widely. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 04:12, 15 January 2014 (UTC) reply

The word "dispute" is used in the policy wording, so I'm not sure that "editorial dispute with the editor" is incorrect. However, to simplify matters, we could quote the policy: With few exceptions, editors are expected to not act as administrators in cases where, to a neutral observer, they could reasonably appear involved. "Involvement is generally construed very broadly by the community, to include current or past conflicts with an editor (or editors), and disputes on topics, regardless of the nature, age, or outcome of the dispute." I think that covers the events here well enough that we don't need to rephrase the policy sentence. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 12:15, 15 January 2014 (UTC) reply

I agree that the easiest thing to do might be simply to link to the policy rather than paraphrase it here. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 14:45, 15 January 2014 (UTC) reply

I agree with paragraphs 1 and 3; I think linking to the policy is better than trying to reword it in paragraph 2. -- Floquenbeam ( talk) 16:19, 15 January 2014 (UTC) reply

I have changed the second paragraph, @ Roger Davies: feel free to revert if you disagree. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 18:57, 15 January 2014 (UTC) reply

Knowledge of policy

3) Administrators are generally expected to know policy and to keep abreast of its developments.

Occasional errors or deviation from community expectations in the interpretation or application of policy are to be expected, and are not incompatible with adminship provided that the admin is willing to accept community feedback when the situation arises, and modify his or her conduct accordingly. However, serious or repeated breaches or an unwillingness to accept feedback from the community may be grounds for the removal of administrative tools.

Support:

1. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 10:00, 14 January 2014 (UTC) reply
2.   Roger Davies ^talk 12:25, 14 January 2014 (UTC) reply
3. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 18:00, 14 January 2014 (UTC) reply
4. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^{( talk)} 18:04, 14 January 2014 (UTC) reply
5. Courcelles 22:13, 14 January 2014 (UTC) reply
6. L Faraone 22:52, 14 January 2014 (UTC) reply
7. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 04:19, 15 January 2014 (UTC) reply
8. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 12:16, 15 January 2014 (UTC) reply
9. -- Floquenbeam ( talk) 16:20, 15 January 2014 (UTC) reply
10. T. Canens ( talk) 00:51, 16 January 2014 (UTC) reply
11. NativeForeigner ^Talk 07:18, 16 January 2014 (UTC) reply
12. GorillaWarfare (talk) 19:07, 16 January 2014 (UTC) reply
13. Carcharoth ( talk) 02:15, 17 January 2014 (UTC) reply
14. Worm^TT( talk) 08:27, 17 January 2014 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Nightscream's use of tools while involved

1) Nightscream ( talk · contribs), an administrator and longtime user, used his tools twice on 6 December 2013 in an inappropriate fashion.

The first time, he blocked Rtkat3 ( talk · contribs) with whom he had been in a content dispute ( Rtkat3's edit and subsequent revert).

The second time, he edited an article after it had been fully protected to put a stop to an edit war he had participated in ( first revert, second revert, third revert, fourth revert, page protection, fifth revert).

Both times Nightscream's actions violated the policy on administrator involvement.

Support:

1. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 10:00, 14 January 2014 (UTC) reply
2. Both taking place on 6 December last. I've added this to the opening sentence,   Roger Davies ^talk 12:30, 14 January 2014 (UTC) reply
3. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^{( talk)} 18:09, 14 January 2014 (UTC) reply
4. Courcelles 22:14, 14 January 2014 (UTC) reply
5. L Faraone 22:54, 14 January 2014 (UTC) reply
6. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 04:19, 15 January 2014 (UTC) reply
7. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 12:52, 15 January 2014 (UTC) reply
8. I've read Nightscream's evidence and other comments on the case, and I can understand why he acted as he did; no one should think that Nightscream was edit-warring or took the administrator actions he did in a completely arbitrary fashion. Nonetheless, I can't disagree with the consensus that Nightscream was too close to these situations as an editor for him to participate in them also as an administrator. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 14:51, 15 January 2014 (UTC) reply
9. I think the action with Rtkat3 is less clear-cut and more borderline than some, perhaps most, of my colleagues. However, the behavior at Jessica Nigri is correctly described. If I could support 80% and oppose 20%, I would, but since I can't, this is a reasonable description of things. -- Floquenbeam ( talk) 16:25, 15 January 2014 (UTC) reply
10. T. Canens ( talk) 00:52, 16 January 2014 (UTC) reply
11. The Nigri edits weren't mal intentioned, but clearly violated policy. NativeForeigner ^Talk 07:18, 16 January 2014 (UTC) reply
12. GorillaWarfare (talk) 19:12, 16 January 2014 (UTC) reply
13. Carcharoth ( talk) 02:17, 17 January 2014 (UTC) reply
14. Looks like a fair summary. Worm^TT( talk) 08:27, 17 January 2014 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

I've replaced "recently" with the date itself: "6 December 2013". SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 19:03, 14 January 2014 (UTC) reply

Historical background

2) Nightscream ( talk · contribs)'s use of the block tool has on three previous occasions been the subject of noticeboard threads; on each occasion, he was counseled regarding the prevailing best practice: ( Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive405#User:Angry Christian, Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive184#Block of User:Asgardian, Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive201#admin Nightscream).

During the course of this case, Nightscream has also made assurances that, if allowed to keep his administrative privileges, he would conform to the current interpretation of the policy in question (see Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Nightscream/Workshop).

Support:

1. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 10:00, 14 January 2014 (UTC) reply
2.   Roger Davies ^talk 12:30, 14 January 2014 (UTC) reply
3. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^{( talk)} 18:09, 14 January 2014 (UTC) reply
4. Courcelles 22:14, 14 January 2014 (UTC) reply
5. L Faraone 22:54, 14 January 2014 (UTC) reply
6. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 04:23, 15 January 2014 (UTC) reply
7. Though those incidents are from five and four years ago, they deal with the same concerns as this case: that Nightscream uses the block and the protection tools in situations where he is involved. They also indicate that he has previously been given warnings about his behaviour. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 12:44, 15 January 2014 (UTC) reply
8. Though these incidents are of older vintage, the use being made of them here is a legitimate one. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 14:51, 15 January 2014 (UTC) reply
9. -- Floquenbeam ( talk) 16:25, 15 January 2014 (UTC) reply
10. T. Canens ( talk) 00:52, 16 January 2014 (UTC) reply
11. NativeForeigner ^Talk 07:18, 16 January 2014 (UTC) reply
12. GorillaWarfare (talk) 19:13, 16 January 2014 (UTC) reply
13. Carcharoth ( talk) 02:17, 17 January 2014 (UTC) reply
14. Worm^TT( talk) 08:27, 17 January 2014 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Slight tweaking: "In the past" → "previous"; "which where followed at the time" → "prevailing". If disagree, please revert or amend. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 12:44, 15 January 2014 (UTC) reply

Worth noting that in Feb 2012, he blocked an IP account [1] with which he was editing warring on Jennifer Grey: [2], [3]. When the edit warring continued with User:Cerenok9919, [4], [5], [6], he protected the article: [7]. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 23:23, 15 January 2014 (UTC) reply

Nightscream's views on involvement in relation to those actions: [8]. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 23:31, 15 January 2014 (UTC) reply

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

Nightscream admonished

1) For repeatedly violating the policy on administrator involvement, Nightscream ( talk · contribs) is strongly admonished, with the warning that further violations will likely lead to the revocation of his administrative privileges.

Support:

1. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 10:00, 14 January 2014 (UTC) reply
2. (clarifying as second choice.) Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^{( talk)} 18:28, 14 January 2014 (UTC) reply
3. Second choice should 1.1 fail, but after reviewing the history, I believe this is insufficient. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 04:29, 15 January 2014 (UTC) reply
4. Second choice. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 12:51, 15 January 2014 (UTC) reply
5. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 14:57, 15 January 2014 (UTC) reply
6. Second choice, see comments at 1.1. -- Floquenbeam ( talk) 16:27, 15 January 2014 (UTC) reply
7. The community has already warned him repeatedly, hence second choice. NativeForeigner ^Talk 07:18, 16 January 2014 (UTC) reply
8. Second choice,   Roger Davies ^talk 20:00, 16 January 2014 (UTC) reply
9. Second choice. T. Canens ( talk) 04:03, 17 January 2014 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

1. Inadequate. He should be going to RFA, where the community can judge his record and their trust in him going forward. Courcelles 22:17, 14 January 2014 (UTC) reply
2. Per Courcelles. An admonishment is not sufficient. GorillaWarfare (talk) 19:21, 16 January 2014 (UTC) reply
3. In favour of 1.1. Carcharoth ( talk) 02:24, 17 January 2014 (UTC) reply
4. Per Courcelles. I have no issue with the community returning the tools. Worm^TT( talk) 08:27, 17 January 2014 (UTC) reply

Abstain:

Comments:

Nightscream desysopped

1.1) For repeatedly violating the policy on administrator involvement, Nightscream ( talk · contribs)'s administrative privileges are revoked. Should he wish to regain administrator status in the future, he may file a new request for adminship.

Support:

1. After thinking about whether to leave it at an admonishment or move forward with a desysop, I find myself falling on this side of the fence. Nightscream, has been cautioned against problematic behavior and given similar assurances to those given in this case that this would not happen, but we arrived at this point anyhow. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^{( talk)} 18:28, 14 January 2014 (UTC) reply
2. Only choice. Courcelles 22:18, 14 January 2014 (UTC) reply
3. Were this the only incident of poor administrative conduct or judgment, I might be supporting 1 instead. It is not, and I don't think we can accept another assurance that this time will be different. The community can, of course, return the tools any time at RfA. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 04:28, 15 January 2014 (UTC) reply
4. First choice. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 12:51, 15 January 2014 (UTC) reply
5. First choice. I agree almost completely with NYB below, except that instead of a narrow margin in favor of yet one more chance, I find by a narrow margin that a desysop, with a possible RFA if desired, to be better. I won't be heartbroken if an admonishment ends up being the consensus instead, but I think a desysop is the more appropriate of the two. -- Floquenbeam ( talk) 16:31, 15 January 2014 (UTC) reply
6. Basically same reasoning as floq. I think in this case the history is enough in my mind to support a desysop. Although it is certainly a possibility he now understands policy, I thought that things were clarified at the times of his previous incidents, but they were not, as we are here. NativeForeigner ^Talk 07:18, 16 January 2014 (UTC) reply
7. I would really like to take Nightscream at his word that he now better understand the nuances of policy, but the persistence of problems in this specific issue indicates that similar past assurances were not accurate. As such, requiring a second confirmation through RfA is the only way we can assess that he has regained community trust. L Faraone 16:03, 16 January 2014 (UTC) reply
8. First choice. I think that a desysop is appropriate; these issues add to a history of poor judgment. I agree with Newyorkbrad's clarification that Nightscream may regain administrator tools after a successful RfA. GorillaWarfare (talk) 19:19, 16 January 2014 (UTC) reply
9. First choice,   Roger Davies ^talk 20:00, 16 January 2014 (UTC) reply
10. Carcharoth ( talk) 02:24, 17 January 2014 (UTC) reply
11. First choice. T. Canens ( talk) 04:03, 17 January 2014 (UTC) reply
12. Only choice. The community can return the tools. Worm^TT( talk) 08:27, 17 January 2014 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

1. I understand why this is being proposed and why it is being supported, both by my arbitrator colleagues and by community members. "How many chances does one person get?" is a legitimate question. Nonetheless, I believe that Nightscream now understands the relevant principles and policy and the importance of abiding by them. I conclude by a narrow margin that this long-time, dedicated administrator should be given a final chance to conform to them. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 15:01, 15 January 2014 (UTC) reply

Abstain:

Comments:

Noting that under our numbering conventions for decisions, I take it that remedies 1 and 1.1 were proposed as alternatives. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 18:01, 14 January 2014 (UTC) reply

Might be useful to clarify that, as standard, Nightscream may get the tools back after a successful RfA. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 12:51, 15 January 2014 (UTC) reply

I've taken the liberty of adding a sentence to that effect. Any arbitrator may revert if undesired. (Historically, we've sometimes also allowed the option of appeal to this Committee, but I don't think there would be support for that here, if this passes.) Newyorkbrad ( talk) 15:01, 15 January 2014 (UTC) reply

Standard enforcement

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. Appeals of blocks may be made to the imposing administrator, and thereafter to arbitration enforcement, or to the Arbitration Committee. All blocks shall be logged in the appropriate section of the main case page. (Default provision: adopted by motion on 4 June 2012.)

Comments:

• Not applicable here based on the decision as it stands (i.e., there are no users being subject to restrictions). Newyorkbrad ( talk) 00:05, 17 January 2014 (UTC) reply

General

Implementation notes

Clerks and Arbitrators should use this section to clarify their understanding of the final decision—at a minimum, a list of items that have passed. Additionally, a list of which remedies are conditional on others (for instance a ban that should only be implemented if a mentorship should fail), and so on. Arbitrators should not pass the motion to close the case until they are satisfied with the implementation notes.

These notes were last updated by Rs chen 7754 19:10, 17 January 2014 (UTC); the last edit to this page was on 12:27, 12 May 2022 (UTC) by User:WOSlinkerBot. reply

Proposed Principles
Number	Proposal Name	Support	Oppose	Abstain	Status	Support needed	Notes
1	Administrators	14	0	0		-6
2	Administrator involvement	12	0	0		-4
3	Knowledge of policy	14	0	0		-6
Proposed Findings of Fact
Number	Proposal Name	Support	Oppose	Abstain	Status	Support needed	Notes
1	Nightscream's use of tools while involved	14	0	0		-6
2	Historical background	14	0	0		-6
Proposed Remedies
Number	Proposal Name	Support	Oppose	Abstain	Status	Support needed	Notes
1	Nightscream admonished	9	4	0		-1	[1]
1.1	Nightscream desysopped	12	1	0		-4
Proposed Enforcement Provisions
Number	Proposal Name	Support	Oppose	Abstain	Status	Support needed	Notes
0	Standard enforcement	0	0	0		8	[2]

Notes

Vote

Important: Please ask the case clerk to author the implementation notes before initiating a motion to close, so that the final decision is clear.

Four net "support" votes needed to close case (each "oppose" vote subtracts a "support"). 24 hours from the first motion is normally the fastest a case will close. The Clerks will close the case either immediately, or 24 hours after the fourth net support vote has been cast, depending on whether the arbitrators have voted unanimously on the entirety of the case's proposed decision or not.

Support

1. Move to close. The outcome of the case is clear. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 20:31, 16 January 2014 (UTC) reply
2. Second. Courcelles 21:21, 16 January 2014 (UTC) reply
3. L Faraone 22:24, 16 January 2014 (UTC) reply
4. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 00:07, 17 January 2014 (UTC) reply
5. Carcharoth ( talk) 02:26, 17 January 2014 (UTC) reply
6. T. Canens ( talk) 04:05, 17 January 2014 (UTC) reply
7. Worm^TT( talk) 08:28, 17 January 2014 (UTC) reply

Oppose

Comments