Case clerk: Rschen7754 ( Talk) Drafting arbitrator: Salvio giuliano ( Talk)
Wikipedia Arbitration |
---|
![]() |
|
Track related changes |
The purpose of the workshop is for the parties to the case, other interested members of the community, and members of the Arbitration Committee to post proposed components of the final decisions for review and comment. Proposals may include proposed general principles, findings of fact, remedies, and enforcement provisions, which are the four types of proposals that can be included in the final decision. The workshop also includes a section (at the page-bottom) for analysis of the /Evidence, and for general discussion of the case.
Any user may edit this workshop page. Please sign all suggestions and comments. Arbitrators will place proposed items they believe should be part of the final decision on the /Proposed decision page, which only Arbitrators and clerks may edit, for voting, clarification as well as implementation purposes.
1)
2)
3)
1)
2)
3)
4)
1) Per WP:INVOLVED: "In general, editors should not act as administrators in cases in which they have been involved. This is because involved administrators may have, or may be seen as having, a conflict of interest in disputes they have been a party to or have strong feelings about. 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."
Per WP:TOOLMISUSE: "Misusing the administrative tools is considered a serious issue. The administrative tools are provided to trusted users for maintenance and other tasks, and should be used with thought. Serious misuse may result in sanction or even their removal."
Per WP:NOTPERFECT: "Administrators are expected to lead by example and to behave in a respectful, civil manner in their interactions with others. Administrators are expected to follow Wikipedia policies and to perform their duties to the best of their abilities. Occasional mistakes are entirely compatible with adminship; administrators are not expected to be perfect. However, sustained or serious disruption of Wikipedia is incompatible with the status of administrator, and consistently or egregiously poor judgment may result in the removal of administrator status. Administrators should strive to model appropriate standards of courtesy and civility to other editors and to one another. [2] [3] [4] [5]
Administrators should bear in mind that they have hundreds of colleagues. Therefore, if an administrator finds that he or she cannot adhere to site policies and remain civil (even toward users exhibiting problematic behavior) while addressing a given issue, then the administrator should bring the issue to a noticeboard or refer it to another administrator to address, rather than potentially compound the problem by poor conduct. " Beeblebrox ( talk) 20:33, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
1) The evidence presented indicates that Nightscream has misused his authority and access to administrative tools on multiple occasions. Beeblebrox ( talk) 00:07, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
2) Nightscream has demonstrated a pattern of acting as though the edit warring policy does not apply to his actions if he feels it is obvious that other users involved are incorrect, even if their actions are not within the accepted exemptions to the edit warring policy. Beeblebrox ( talk) 00:07, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
3)Nightscream has been confronted about such issues in the past and had indicated that he would abide by the involved admin policy in the future, but has failed to do so. Beeblebrox ( talk) 00:07, 16 December 2013 (UTC) policy.
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.
1) For misuse of administrative tools and other conduct unbecoming an administrator, Nightscream is to be desysopped, effective immediately. He may re-apply for adminship through RFA at any time.
Beeblebrox ( talk) 00:18, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
2) Due to edit warring on multiple occasions Nightscream is to limit himself to reverting a particular edit or series of edits one time only regardless of time frame in between the addition of the edits. If Nightscream sees an edit they have reverted being restored they are to follow other procedures as detailed at WP:AVOIDEDITWAR instead of reverting again. This restriction is to lat one year. Nightscream may appeal the restriction after six months. Failure to abide by this restriction will be met with escalating blocks.
Beeblebrox ( talk) 00:18, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
1) {text of proposed enforcement}
2) {text of proposed enforcement}
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.
2) With few exceptions, editors are expected to not act as administrators in cases where, to a neutral observer, they could reasonably appear involved.
Administrators are usually considered involved if: (i) they have participated in an editorial dispute with the editor or (ii) have had significant personal interaction with the editor or with other editors with whom that editor is in dispute or (iii) in an editorial capacity, they have participated in a content dispute affecting the article or related articles within the broader topic. Previous interaction in a purely administrative capacity does not constitute administrator involvement.
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 they can provide help.
3) Administrators are generally expected to know policy and to keep abreast of its developments.
However, occasionally ignoring the existence of a policy or of an amendment thereto or interpreting either in a way which is incompatible with how the community currently interpret them may be considered a mitigating or exempting factor, provided the administrator in question is acting in good faith and makes credible assurances that he will change his behaviour to conform to community's standards and expectations.
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.
1) Nightscream ( talk · contribs), an administrator and longtime user, has recently used his tools in an inappropriate fashion twice.
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.
2) In the past, Nightscream ( talk · contribs)'s use of the block tool has on three occasions been the subject of noticeboard threads; on each occasion, he was counseled as to the best practices which where followed at the time ( 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).
"Yes, that is my interpretation. You said that already and I conceded the point". Except that you're trying to have it both ways. You say you're "conceding" it in one breath, but in the next you state it as if it's a fact. It isn't. I did not use the words "I have nothing but contempt for the involved admin policy" because, simply put, I don't have contempt for that policy. You don't know me, you don't know what's in my mind, and never bothered asking me, because you operate under the arrogant belief that the one interpretation that serves your little vendetta is the only one exists, and that conceiving of other possibilities is somehow beneath you, and that dogmatically stating that interpretation as fact, as if your the Pope passing a decree, somehow makes it true. It doesn't. It just makes you a liar, and a rather Orwellian one at that. Nightscream ( talk) 18:56, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
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.
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.
1.1) For repeatedly violating the policy on administrator involvement, Nightscream ( talk · contribs)'s administrative privileges are revoked.
1) {text of Proposed principle}
2) {text of Proposed principle}
1) {text of proposed finding of fact}
2) {text of proposed finding of fact}
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.
1) {text of proposed remedy}
2) {text of proposed remedy}
1) {text of proposed enforcement}
2) {text of proposed enforcement}
Place here items of evidence (with diffs) and detailed analysis
Case clerk: Rschen7754 ( Talk) Drafting arbitrator: Salvio giuliano ( Talk)
Wikipedia Arbitration |
---|
![]() |
|
Track related changes |
The purpose of the workshop is for the parties to the case, other interested members of the community, and members of the Arbitration Committee to post proposed components of the final decisions for review and comment. Proposals may include proposed general principles, findings of fact, remedies, and enforcement provisions, which are the four types of proposals that can be included in the final decision. The workshop also includes a section (at the page-bottom) for analysis of the /Evidence, and for general discussion of the case.
Any user may edit this workshop page. Please sign all suggestions and comments. Arbitrators will place proposed items they believe should be part of the final decision on the /Proposed decision page, which only Arbitrators and clerks may edit, for voting, clarification as well as implementation purposes.
1)
2)
3)
1)
2)
3)
4)
1) Per WP:INVOLVED: "In general, editors should not act as administrators in cases in which they have been involved. This is because involved administrators may have, or may be seen as having, a conflict of interest in disputes they have been a party to or have strong feelings about. 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."
Per WP:TOOLMISUSE: "Misusing the administrative tools is considered a serious issue. The administrative tools are provided to trusted users for maintenance and other tasks, and should be used with thought. Serious misuse may result in sanction or even their removal."
Per WP:NOTPERFECT: "Administrators are expected to lead by example and to behave in a respectful, civil manner in their interactions with others. Administrators are expected to follow Wikipedia policies and to perform their duties to the best of their abilities. Occasional mistakes are entirely compatible with adminship; administrators are not expected to be perfect. However, sustained or serious disruption of Wikipedia is incompatible with the status of administrator, and consistently or egregiously poor judgment may result in the removal of administrator status. Administrators should strive to model appropriate standards of courtesy and civility to other editors and to one another. [2] [3] [4] [5]
Administrators should bear in mind that they have hundreds of colleagues. Therefore, if an administrator finds that he or she cannot adhere to site policies and remain civil (even toward users exhibiting problematic behavior) while addressing a given issue, then the administrator should bring the issue to a noticeboard or refer it to another administrator to address, rather than potentially compound the problem by poor conduct. " Beeblebrox ( talk) 20:33, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
1) The evidence presented indicates that Nightscream has misused his authority and access to administrative tools on multiple occasions. Beeblebrox ( talk) 00:07, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
2) Nightscream has demonstrated a pattern of acting as though the edit warring policy does not apply to his actions if he feels it is obvious that other users involved are incorrect, even if their actions are not within the accepted exemptions to the edit warring policy. Beeblebrox ( talk) 00:07, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
3)Nightscream has been confronted about such issues in the past and had indicated that he would abide by the involved admin policy in the future, but has failed to do so. Beeblebrox ( talk) 00:07, 16 December 2013 (UTC) policy.
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.
1) For misuse of administrative tools and other conduct unbecoming an administrator, Nightscream is to be desysopped, effective immediately. He may re-apply for adminship through RFA at any time.
Beeblebrox ( talk) 00:18, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
2) Due to edit warring on multiple occasions Nightscream is to limit himself to reverting a particular edit or series of edits one time only regardless of time frame in between the addition of the edits. If Nightscream sees an edit they have reverted being restored they are to follow other procedures as detailed at WP:AVOIDEDITWAR instead of reverting again. This restriction is to lat one year. Nightscream may appeal the restriction after six months. Failure to abide by this restriction will be met with escalating blocks.
Beeblebrox ( talk) 00:18, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
1) {text of proposed enforcement}
2) {text of proposed enforcement}
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.
2) With few exceptions, editors are expected to not act as administrators in cases where, to a neutral observer, they could reasonably appear involved.
Administrators are usually considered involved if: (i) they have participated in an editorial dispute with the editor or (ii) have had significant personal interaction with the editor or with other editors with whom that editor is in dispute or (iii) in an editorial capacity, they have participated in a content dispute affecting the article or related articles within the broader topic. Previous interaction in a purely administrative capacity does not constitute administrator involvement.
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 they can provide help.
3) Administrators are generally expected to know policy and to keep abreast of its developments.
However, occasionally ignoring the existence of a policy or of an amendment thereto or interpreting either in a way which is incompatible with how the community currently interpret them may be considered a mitigating or exempting factor, provided the administrator in question is acting in good faith and makes credible assurances that he will change his behaviour to conform to community's standards and expectations.
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.
1) Nightscream ( talk · contribs), an administrator and longtime user, has recently used his tools in an inappropriate fashion twice.
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.
2) In the past, Nightscream ( talk · contribs)'s use of the block tool has on three occasions been the subject of noticeboard threads; on each occasion, he was counseled as to the best practices which where followed at the time ( 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).
"Yes, that is my interpretation. You said that already and I conceded the point". Except that you're trying to have it both ways. You say you're "conceding" it in one breath, but in the next you state it as if it's a fact. It isn't. I did not use the words "I have nothing but contempt for the involved admin policy" because, simply put, I don't have contempt for that policy. You don't know me, you don't know what's in my mind, and never bothered asking me, because you operate under the arrogant belief that the one interpretation that serves your little vendetta is the only one exists, and that conceiving of other possibilities is somehow beneath you, and that dogmatically stating that interpretation as fact, as if your the Pope passing a decree, somehow makes it true. It doesn't. It just makes you a liar, and a rather Orwellian one at that. Nightscream ( talk) 18:56, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
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.
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.
1.1) For repeatedly violating the policy on administrator involvement, Nightscream ( talk · contribs)'s administrative privileges are revoked.
1) {text of Proposed principle}
2) {text of Proposed principle}
1) {text of proposed finding of fact}
2) {text of proposed finding of fact}
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.
1) {text of proposed remedy}
2) {text of proposed remedy}
1) {text of proposed enforcement}
2) {text of proposed enforcement}
Place here items of evidence (with diffs) and detailed analysis