Revision as of 12:52, 7 March 2013

Requests for arbitration

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

No cases have recently been closed (view all closed cases).

Temporary desysop of Kevin

Initiated by NE Ent at 02:53, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Involved parties

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

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

The committee is obviously aware of relevant off-wiki discussion; see noticeboard discussion.

Statement by NE Ent

The motion indicate Kevin's desysoping was intended as temporary; the response to my follow up question recommended RFAR as a possible avenue of restoring his access. Applicable procedures state the advanced permissions will normally be reinstated once a satisfactory explanation is provided or the issues are satisfactorily resolved. Given that:

• No further doxing occurred during while the editor was unblocked.
• The policy at the time of the unblocking focused on reversal of the block, not unblocking after user made unblock request with promise not to continue the behavior '.

Desysoping does not benefit the encyclopedia and reinstating the bits is just a better resolution to the dispute.

No endorsement of the unblock is implied. NE Ent 03:11, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

@Kevin The goal of dispute resolution is resolve disputes with as little fuss as possible; the fact the arbcom has done a major fail with their actions doesn't mean the rest of us should follow suit. Please post the following in your section to provide a path to an expeditous resolution: "I will not reverse any block designated as an ArbCom, checkuser, or oversight-based block." NE Ent 15:32, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

@SilkTorkYour statement "the appeal route is through the committee" is not entirely correct -- an appeal route is through the committee; blocking policy lists Unblock Ticket Request System as an option, and appeal clearly states "you may contact other Wikipedians by e-mail".

The vast majority of Misplaced Pages contributors, dispute resolution volunteers / administators / checkusers / oversighters and obviously all the committee have the same goals in mind. We should be a team. It's actually we the non-admin contributors who are the most important front line of Misplaced Pages integrity; simply because there's vastly more of us than any other group. I don't have actual data (or know of any way to get it) but it's my belief most (or at least many) edits that result in admins tools being used are initially brought to advanced permissions editors by the peons.

A key element of teamwork is communication. This idea that somehow we're supposed magically know the committee is on something lacking a simple declarative statement to that effect is ridiculous. Misplaced Pages is too large for any group of fifteen to address more than a tiny fraction of the ongoing activity; the logical assumption is therefore, lacking any notification, is that the committee is not addressing it. You've got seven clerks -- it wouldn't cost very much to ping one of them to post a notification. NE Ent 15:57, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Statement by Penwhale

I read this differently from NE Ent above: the issues are satisfactorily resolved feels more like "when Cla68's appeal is heard and decided", as the outcome of the appeal would clearly tie into this case. - Penwhale | 03:17, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

@B: I'm wary of assuming too much, so I always ask (and re-ask). It's better to be more cautious (and not assume things wrong). - Penwhale | 03:55, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Statement by SirFozzie

I think we have a binary set here. Either Kevin says flat out (either here at the RfArb or an email to the Committee) "Yeah, what I did was wrong, and it won't happen again", and I'd suggest restoring the tools, with the admonition that should anything like this happen again, the tools are gone, period, end of story, or without such assurances, make the removal of terms permanent. I don't think yet another front to argue about the Committee's actions is useful or warranted, but I've been wrong before. SirFozzie (talk) 03:29, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Statement by Ched

How can the Arbitration Committee review a case with themselves as a party? Wouldn't WP:INVOLVED indicate that they all would by necessity be required to recuse? — Ched :  ?  03:44, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

• awaiting further input, but should this move forward then I suggest that once the scope is defined, perhaps other participants should be added to the list of parties. — Ched :  ?  04:08, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
• @Silk Tork regarding ...as the Committee was already in discussion with Cla, Could you please point me to where this was evident (on Misplaced Pages) at the time of my posts? I ask because I did look through various Arb related boards, AN, AN/I, and WT:OS (I'm not aware of a WP:OS/N board). Everything I was able to find, or perhaps the lack of it, indicated that the sticking point was a lack of communication with Cla68. Being aware of the workload that bureaucracy faces, and how a voice can be lost in the noise, it was my intent to assist in resolving the issues. Cla68 was blocked early on Feb. 28th, I posted (by proxy) his response to the multiple questions regarding his willingness to adhere to conditions asked of him very late on March 3rd (22:38 - 23:20 UTC). Once NYB posted his message 23:32, 3 March 2013 (UTC) I posted no further "Cla68 messages". I am fully willing to accept the consequences of my actions, and to respond to anything asked of me; but at this point I'm not sure what exactly I did that was in error. — Ched :  ?  15:12, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Statement by Rschen7754

Everything that SirFozzie said, plus this sounds similar to Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Rodhullandemu. I don't see how the Committee can decline this as a case unless Kevin chooses not to appeal, or unless Kevin provides satisfactory assurance that this will not happen again. --Rschen7754 03:47, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Statement by B

I have no particularly strong opinion about the ultimate outcome of the case. But I do have a very strong opinion that the emergency desysop was inappropriate for several reasons.

1. The emergency desysop violates the preventative nature of the rule. The rule says, "Removal is protective, intended to prevent harm to the encyclopedia while investigations take place ... ." If there is no evidence of imminent harm, then removal is inappropriate.
2. Oversighter Beeblebrox (talk · contribs) said several times that if Cla68 would agree to abide by the outing policy that he could be unblocked. It is not unreasonable for someone to interpret those statements as permission to unblock.
3. By passing judgment that Kevin's actions were (1) wrong and (2) warranted desysopping, the Arbitration Committee has abandoned its role as a neutral arbiter and instead become the prosecutor and executioner.

Respectfully submitted, B (talk) 03:45, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

• (The following was added later, after several others had commented on my statement.) The comment below by SilkTork (talk · contribs) is downright chilling ("Something else to consider in accepting this as a full case is that we might then be looking more closely at the events on the talkpage which led to Kevin taking the action he did, which could mean adding Jehochman and Ched as parties, as it was Jehochman's suggestion that if Cla posted a comment that "he will not discuss editors' real life identities" that he could then be unblocked, so Ched went and proxy posted Cla's comments."). That is presumably in reference to this suggestion by Jehochman. He offers an opinion that if Cla68 were to repent, he should be unblocked. He doesn't say, "by the power vested in me, I decree that I will unblock him" - he simply says that if the conditions arise where there is no longer a reason for the block, he should be unblocked. I would hope that we could all take this as axiomatic as it is the foundation of our blocking policy - blocks are to prevent disruption, not to punish. Incidentally, the blocking oversighter had already said that this was his intention. Your take on this rather non-controversial statement of Jehochman can only have a chilling effect on community involvement and community discussion. You are sending the message, "shut up or you will be punished". --B (talk) 13:44, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

• Second additional comment: In reference to what Beeblebrox said below, I think that a point that's very important to clarify is that Kevin did not merely happen upon a user whose block message said "do not unblock without consulting oversighters", then willy nilly decide to ignore that message and unblock him. Rather, YOU YOURSELF SAID at least three times words to the effect of, if Cla68 would repent of his sins, he could be unblocked. While you may not have intended for that to be interpreted as carte blanche for another admin to, upon seeing Cla68's statement, perform the unblock personally, it is at the very least not an unreasonable interpretation for Kevin to have misinterpreted your intentions and thought that you were consenting to an unblock. This case should not be misconstrued as someone acting in a "cowboy admin" capacity or recklessly and capriciously disregarding an oversight imprimatur. If you don't want someone to unblock Cla any time, then don't say, "Again, Cla can get unblocked anytime they agree to not out anyone ever again, simple as that." --B (talk) 20:48, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

• Third additional comment - @Courcelles, could you clarify your intentions when you say, "Also, a case would require passing a desysop remedy, or the desysop is reversed, passing a resysop motion is somewhat different, and does shift the burden of majority in a potentially not insignificant way"? The burden of majority should be on those who wish to remove Kevin's bit, not on those who with to restore it. The original removal was done under the guise of there being an imminent threat of harm to the project justifying an emergency action. You can't then turn around and say, because we undertook this emergency action, we now require a majority to undo it. That is the very definition of cowboy adminship for which you seek to sanction Kevin. It used to be a common tactic "back in the day" that if a "cowboy admin" (it used to be called rogue admin) wanted something controversial deleted, they would simply delete it with any sort of flimsy justification, knowing that it would now require a consensus to undo their action rather than a consensus to delete. This is exactly what you guys appear to be doing now. --B (talk) 05:00, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Statement by MZMcBride

I agree with everything B wrote in his section. I'd just add a fourth point: removing Kevin's adminship only needlessly aggravated and perpetuated the drama, clearly as an attempt by the Arbitration Committee to scare off other would-be clue-by-four-wielders. --MZMcBride (talk) 03:56, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Statement by Kevin

A case is a foregone conclusion, as Hersfold has noted that permissions will not be reinstated routinely, and Level 2 procedures require the opening of a case. So I would think that there is little point adding more here until the case is opened. Kevin (talk) 04:14, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

@SirFozzie, it would seem that Hersfold has taken that option away. Kevin (talk) 04:14, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

I have already made clear to the Committee that I will not involve myself in Oversight related blocks via email, and I was sure I'd said the same thing on wiki, however some of my edits have been suppressed, and I can't find the diff. If the committee takes that statement at face value then there is no good reason to keep me desysopped. Kevin (talk) 21:31, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Y'all might want to wait while I answer Roger Davies emailed question. Kevin (talk) 22:16, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Roger Davies has asked via email for me to explain my insight into why the Committee felt my actions were innapropriate. I'm sure this is going to go down like a lead balloon. I understand that the Committee feels that I acted without being in possession of all the relevant information regarding Cla68's block, and that I should have taken the block summary as prohibiting any action on my part, and that discussion on Cla68s talk page should have reassured me that the Committee or BASC or the Oversighters were dealing with the issue, and us ordinary admins need not worry. I also believe that I trod on some toes, in taking bold action where it was not expected. That is my understanding, which I disagree with completely.

I wrote a long winded of why I disagree, but I've posted it all elsewhere before, and it does not change my agreement not to interfere again.

Lastly though, the fact that so many admins, Arbitrators and other editors continued talking on Cla68's talk page after he himself had been blocked from responding is an ABSOLUTE DISGRACE. Every admin and Arbitrator on that page could have stopped it, and should have stopped it. But you did nothing other than fan the flames. For that, you should be ashamed of yourselves. Kevin (talk) 22:35, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Statement by Volunteer Marek

Response to Nuclear Warfare: Hell yeah! Volunteer Marek 04:35, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Another quandary: are the Arbs who voted on Kevin's desysop going to vote on whether to accept or decline the case? If yes, and if they mostly vote no, after telling Kevin "you have the option of going to ArbCom", then that instruction will seem like... not sure how to put it nicely, but basically toying with someone's emotions: "you can take it up with ArbCom, but we're the ArbCom and ha ha ha, after forcing you to do it, we laugh in your stupid face!". Hence, if yes, they do vote on acceptance, they will have to vote "accept". But in that case their acceptance is forced by their ... "involvedness" (or whatever you want to call it, and whether or not you want to admit it's stiting right there like a bad pierogi on the table). Hence it's not a real, good faithed vote. So that means that those who voted for the de-sysop should not vote whether to accept the case or not. And... judging by NW's smart action below, those who recused or where inactive or did not vote may not be very inclined to change that. So... where does that leave us?

Someone page Salvio Guiliano and have him decide unilaterally whether or not to accept it? And then decide the whole case all by his lonesome?

You folks managed to get yourself in one helluva mess. Been here almost 8 years and this is the dumbest situation I've seen in awhile, if not ever.Volunteer Marek 05:58, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Another problem: this has stopped being about the actual matters at hand, but rather about "saving face". Not a good background to an opening of a case.Volunteer Marek 18:30, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Demiurge1000 just quit. <redact intemperate comment = Kevin edits Misplaced Pages under his real name. The extent of falsehoods in Demiurge100's comments clearly cross the line into defamation and hence are a violation of WP:BPL, which applies to all pages on Misplaced Pages.>Volunteer Marek 03:30, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

@Courcelles: Re: I do not agree with this committee handing back admin tools, the appeal should be to RFA unless the committee truly screwed up in the facts of the underlying situation. (I might just abstain off that alone though; this is a personal opinion, not ArbCom policy, I just do not, and never have, voted for ArbCom resysops, I don't think they're right, and absent the very extraordinary remedy that forbids an RFA, I think they cut the community out of the process.

I think at this point it's pretty clear that the committee did "truly screw up" - you've got all kinds of people, from all kinds of corners of the project wondering what the hell happened.

Second, if you've never voted for "ArbCom resysops" how do you justify voting for an "ArbCom desysops" in this particular case? Translating that, it's basically another "Respect Mah Authoritah!" pronoucement. If we desysop, that's cool. If the community wants to re-sysop, tough luck, you got to run the insane gauntlet of drama crap - and everyone knows this - that RfA is. At that point it becomes a "I'm gonna use one dysfunctional aspect of this website to facilitate my gaming of another dysfunctional decision". Everyone knows that if Kevin tried RfA again it'd just be more insanity and drama. Why do you want to do this to us? And given the amount of drama that would ensue it's a pretty foregone conclusion that'd be a "no consensus" kind of vote which would probably generate a few more blocks, a helluva lot more bad blood and a lot more embarrassment to you and the others who created this mess.

Your window of opportunity where you can still get out of this SNAFU is probably closing quickly. Volunteer Marek 04:31, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Statement by Beyond My Ken

In no respect is NE Ent an "involved party" (if he is, then every Misplaced Pages editor is as well), and he has no standing to bring this case. If Kevin want to contest his desysopping, he's been clearly told the steps available to him; it's not up to another editor to make the choice for him. I urge that this case request be rejected for those reasons. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:14, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Although Kevin's statement above is somewhat less than satisfying -- I would have liked to see some assurances about ArbCom blocks, CheckUser blocks, and generally thinking things through and not being a bull in a china shop -- I think it is sufficient to warrant re-sysopping. I take Kevin's sincerity on good faith, and note that were he to do something of an equivalent nature in the future, I'm sure the resulting desysopping would be fast and would remain permanent. I urge the committee to vote in favor of the motion offered by Worm. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:01, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Statement by DHeyward

The policy wasn't particular difficult reading. I'm not sure why this would need to be an "arbcom decision" instead of just an exercise in sentence construction. Arbcom is not a party to this dispute any more than judges are listed as parties in an appeal. Advanced permission removal procedures are in place to address situations when such an account appears to be harming the project. This a general statement and doesn't imply any specific temporality. For a level II action, the conduct is discussed among arbitrators, they review the actions and if, in their sole discretion as a body, decide an account is harming the project with the advanced tools, they reach out to the account user for an explanation. If, as a body, they believe the response to be inadequate, they simply remove the advanced permissions of the account. The removal of permissions remains until arbcom is convinced the account would not harm the project. This can either be an adequate statement that Arbcom considers or a request for a review by the user that lost permissions. Normally, one would think that someone entrusted with the Advanced permissions would be able formulate an adequate response and the tools would be reinstated (or not taken away). To date, this appears not to be the case here, so the formal remedies are all that's left. User:Kevin can try again with his response and send email to arbcom. He can file for a full review. He can stand for another RfA. But talking about whether it needed to be done immediately or whether the continued desysop protects the project or whether it's tied to Cla or that arbCom is "involved" is just noise. They are strawman arguments created to be easily torn down but don't address a single issue. Until User:Kevin can demonstrate to ArbCom that the tools should be reinstated or to the community through RfA, no amount of shouting, stomping or wikilawyering should change this action. ArbCom should reject this request and instead direct User:NE_Ent to the RfA process where he can nominate Kevin for adminship. Only Kevin can initiate an ArbCom request to review his de-sysopping. --DHeyward (talk) 07:44, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Statement by Bwilkins

There's no admin in their right mind who would read the words "the is an oversighter block" and then unanimouslyunilaterally unblock. This is the most bizarre element of the entire situation. Regardless of Kevins involvement in that offsite forum, or possible communications with Cla, the process with any oversight-related block is pretty obvious. Oddly enough, Kevin continues to claim his unblock was correct everywhere he posts. Strange that, because before this started, all he had to say somewhere (anywhere) was "oh, my mistake - it will never happen again...shall I undo my reblock?" and he never would have been desysopped. The fact that he did not say most of that in his statement above is pretty odd behaviour, and one of the behaviours that show that he doesn't "get it" (✉→BWilkins←✎) 10:42, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Statement by Staberinde

Major complaint seems to be appropriateness of arbcom's motion to desysop Kevin. So there are 2 options, arbcom motions are always "right" and therefore there is nothing to discuss in this matter. Alternatively, if they can be regarded as "wrong" or "inappropriate" for situation, then who should determine this? Same arbitrators who voted for the original motion themselves?--Staberinde (talk) 11:01, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Overall I agree with regentspark and SB_Johnny's suggestions. No point in keeping this thing rolling even longer as it has already.--Staberinde (talk) 19:44, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Comment by Wehwalt

The motion seems wildly inappropriate and an attempt to use ArbCom hammers, the only tool they seem to have, in a situation where that's a poor idea. I suggest the committee reverse itself. Blocks and unblocks seem to be becoming more and more political than anything else, if you know the right people, the community is simply told to lump it, if not, they lose their bits in an increasingly summary way. Very regrettable. I do not think the problem of administrators undoing these blocks is so serious that it is necessary, in ArbCom, to desysop an administrator from time to time pour encourager les autres. I suggest the committee reverse itself and figure out a way to open this for a case even though most of you have expressed a position on the merits and would have to recuse. Better yet, reverse yourself and simply hope we've forgotten by the next election.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:32, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

@TParis: Concur with the need to end or restrict oversight blocks. I can understand the need to respect checkuser blocks, where there is evidence of malicious socking. However, oversight blocks (note that in our block policy, it is phrased that admins "should" not undo such blocks without consulting oversighters, not "must" not) seem to lend themselves to possible abuse, since ordinary editors who lack such user rights cannot see the evidence on which they are based. It may be wise, at the minimum, for a redacted summary of such evidence to be publicly posted (with others, such as the blocked editor, able to offer competing summaries), with the understanding that the community will thereafter judge per normal procedures, including the "second move advantage". Which ArbCom's motion seems designed specifically to get around. In the meantime, we have a valuable content contributor blocked, who I dare say contributes a great deal more to the project than most arbs, whose article space contributions in many cases is about nil. Is keeping Cla68 blocked in any way conducive to building an encyclopedia? Or is it just defending the authoritah of authoritarians? --Wehwalt (talk) 14:43, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

@Thryduulf: Isn't it fairly clear that all or substantially all the information was out there on this site or on Wikipediocracy, enough anyway to satisfy an admin in good faith that he had he had the meat of the dispute. What info was he missing? No one has said that if Kevin had known x, y, or z additional facts he would have changed his mind. Yes, I know, the specifics are oversighted, but between here and the local scandal sheet, I think we have the material facts. But so did Kevin.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:38, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Comment by Collect

B is correct.

I found, moreover, the suggestion that Kevin must "prove his innocence" on the talk page to be quite remarkable. If this case is not accepted, them Joseph Heller will smile. Collect (talk) 12:45, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Request for motion by TParis

These oversight blocks need to stop right now. User:MZMcBride is now blocked for participating in this case and violating WP:BADSITES. These kind of 'oversight blocks' are clearly controversial and their policy support is dubious at best. This looks a helluva lot like a power grab by the oversighters. I request an immediate halt to 'oversight blocks' until this matter receives an actual honest-to-god discussion of the community and not Arbcom.--v/r - TP 13:45, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

• @WormTT: "Just a little more time would have lead to a much more amicable solution, with less controversy and almost none of this mess." This comment does not acknowledge any mistakes on Arbcom's part. Are you saying that Cla68 and Kevin are the sole propagators of this drama?--v/r - TP 13:53, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
• @AlanScottWalker: As I've said before, your logic 100% supports the original block of Cla68. But it falls short of covering Kevin's desysop or the reblock of Cla68. What was in jeopardy when Kevin unblock Cla68?--v/r - TP 15:20, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Yes, you are addressing blocking policy. So why do you need to refer to the terms of service then? If the policy already exists that Kevin's actions were wrong, where is that policy?--v/r - TP 16:16, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
• @Hersfold: Or option 3: Arbcom takes responsibility for their own mismanagement and reverse their decision. It seems the majority of opinions here is that Arbcom holds as much responsibility as Kevin. I strongly suggest you consider a third option. As a friend, this isn't making any of the Arbs who voted to desysop Kevin look any better than petty. From an outside perspective, it looks to me like your upset that your authority was challenged. Your comment, "Or if you'd prefer, we can go through the long and drama-ridden course of a full case" applies as equally to you as it does Kevin. Your actions have contributed as much as and could prevent as quickly as Kevin's to a full blown case.--v/r - TP 19:25, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Comment by Thryduulf

Regardless of whether the block of cla68 was correct or not, it is clearly the duty of an administrator to fully acquaint themselves with the reasons for a block before undoing it. It is clear that in this case Kevin did not do this and unblocked against a consensus of people who were fully informed. In such circumstances I cannot see how the community can have confidence in all his other administrative actions without being able to judge explicit assurances that it wont happen again and so the desysopping was entirely correct. Personally therefore I do not see any justification for Kevin regaining the administrative tools without community consensus at an RfA. Thryduulf (talk) 14:06, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Comment by Count Iblis

I support the views of B and NE. We also need to consider that, in general, you only use the ArbCom/OS etc. procedures where an Admin can't reasonably use his/her own judgement to reverse (or issue) a block, in exceptional cases. The criterium should be if catastrophic harm to the encyclopedia is a reasonable possibility and ordinary Admin procedures cannot deal with this properly. Otherwise, one ends up undermining the WP:BURO principle, which guards against Misplaced Pages drifting away from fundamentally being an online encyclopedia and becoming more like an online society where the members can enforce any sort of rules whether that helps building the encyclopedia or not. I.m.o. we've already strayed a bit off-course in recent years. Count Iblis (talk) 14:26, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Changes in blocking policy after this incident.

see here. Other such incidents in the past have led to similar changes. The claim that this all represent widespread community consensus is a bit doubtful to me. The dynamics is different, what is going on is that there a group of very active Admins in AE, CU, OS etc. where blocks can't be easily overturned have been able to expand their authority. When they overstep their authority, the conflict that leads to typically becomes an ArbCom matter which then sets a new precedent in favor of legalizing the actions of these Admins. Once the policy page is edited you need a huge consensus to change it back, never mind that the initial change had no consensus (perhaps not even majority support) at all! Count Iblis (talk) 12:19, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Comment by Alanscottwalker

This incident appears in part to be generated with unfamiliarity with privacy policy by some admins and others, and in particular the WP:Terms of use.

These terms prohibit violating the Privacy of Others by: "Infringing the privacy rights of others under the laws of the United States of America or other applicable laws (which may include the laws where you live or where you view or edit content); Soliciting personally identifiable information for purposes of harassment, exploitation, violation of privacy, or any promotional or commercial purpose not explicitly approved by the Wikimedia Foundation; and Soliciting personally identifiable information from anyone under the age of 18 for an illegal purpose or violating any applicable law regarding the health or well-being of minors."

So, if a case is needed to acquaint Users with this then that would seem worthwhile. It is connected with the action by the Admin at hand, because he decided to be "bold" or "foolish" (depending on the outcome) with the fact that there were privacy related circumstances and communications that he, it is alleged, did not make himself aware of prior to his action, and yes leading the Pedia here. Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:12, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Ultraexactzz: My comment did not address "who should be a party to this case." I would not have brought this case and I think it was less than optimal to do so at this time in this manner, and would have let it all lie fallow for a while, but here we are. As to the privacy issues, it seems it would bring good from bad, if we all got on roughly the same page. If that takes a case, it takes a case. Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:38, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

TParis: What was in jeopardy, as we see from the outcome, is the orderly functioning of the administration of the privacy policy which is the raison d'etre of the various oversighter actions and powers. Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:54, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

TParis: Also, I don't think I have addressed the validity of Cla68 block in any forum; my sole understanding of that is that there was an oversighter's block of that User. Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:12, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

TParis: Because it's helpful to have first principals in mind, when actions are taken and when deciding issues. Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:36, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Statement by Ultraexactzz

I concur with B and NE, above. I further note that this is quite possibly the most egregiously awful misuse of the Level II procedures I've seen since we had Level II procedures. If Kevin's conduct was so horrifying, why is it that he could go to RFA tomorrow and have his bit back within the week? Surely some would oppose, but it's possible that he would lock up the anti-arbcom !vote and show a consensus for the tools to be granted. Likely, I dunno - but possible. What then? If Kevin's conduct was so brazen in its violation of the trust of the community, then Kevin should have been barred from RFA for a period of time - certainly not an unprecedented sanction. If the desysop was intended to be permanent, then the members of the committee should have said so in their motion.

Good lord, what if the blocked editor had squeaked in a "Sure I'll comply with policy if unblocked" before the unblock? A clear and unambiguous statement to that effect? Would Kevin still have been desysopped? It's a concern - is this admin being sanctioned for violating a policy that does not yet exist (Oversight blocks), or just because he jumped the gun on an unblock that might have been imminent anyway? Kevin had a rationale for unblocking, and provided it to the committee. If it had said "Fuck Oversight, Fuck BASC, YOLO", desysop away. But he had a reasoned argument in favor of unblocking, one that was (or appeared to be) consistent with policy and the facts available. That does not give the appearance of an admin going off the rails, nor does it appear to make an emergency desysop necessary.

Silktork notes that the editor's likely successful unblock appeal has been delayed by this incident, with the clear implication that the chances of that unblock being approved have been damaged thereby. That's a bit chilling as well, honestly. UltraExactZZ ~ Did 15:19, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

In re Alanscottwalker's Comment, above: The other admins who took part in discussing the potential unblock of that editor on that editor's talk page are not parties to this case - are you suggesting that they should be? I read your last comment about needing a case to explain the policy as "This is what you get when you interfere with privacy issues", and I know that's not what you meant - but chilling all the same. UltraExactZZ ~ Did 15:24, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

In re Hersfolds, below: So Kevin can't have the tools back unless he says "Please, sir?" His position on this matter seems fairly clear, and - more importantly - there seems to be no likelihood that he would continue to unblock Cla68 (or anyone else involved in that incident), nor does he seem likely to go about undoing Oversight blocks willy-nilly. Again, if Kevin with the tools is a threat of further disruption, then re-sysopping would not even be on the table. The fact that it is says that the offense was not severe enough to warrant Level 2 procedures, and thus the action should be overturned by motion. If the committee believes that Kevin will continue to unblock editors without cause, or will otherwise disrupt, then we're wasting our time here. If it does not, then why was he desysopped in the first place? UltraExactZZ ~ Did 19:05, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Statement by RegentsPark

This has been a bad case from the start. The blocking admin added a "not without oversight" note to the block for unknown reasons (I apologize if he has stated them elsewhere but the unfortunate existence of a day job and a life outside Misplaced Pages makes it hard to read all the stuff that's been posted). However, the block was probably valid. Then we had Cla68 persistently posting the "Outed" information on the talk page and, rightly, lost his talk page access. Then we had a discussion where it appeared that the outing was not outing (unless it was). Then we had Cla68 make a sort of "won't do it again" statement. Then we had Kevin accept the sort of "won't do it again" statement. Then we had ArbCom desysop Kevin for unblocking Cla68 for violating the blocking admins initial (unexplained) note. And, finally, we had ArbCom pass a motion to, um, explain its action against Kevin. I don't know about you guys, but I've gotta earn the real paycheck and all this seems a humungous waste of time. My suggestion (doubtless this will be ignored) is that ArbCom unblock Cla68, restore Kevin's bits, put an end to all this, and start a proper discussion as to when oversight approval is required and when it isn't. --regentspark (comment) 15:36, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Even though I'm not sure if ArbCom acted properly here, Jehochman's suggestions below are the best way forward. There is no sense in dragging this out any further and definitely no sense in asking Kevin to come in on his knees with apologies and the like just to make a point. Let Kevin say he won't unblock a "oversight" marked block without clearing it with an oversighter. Let Cla68 state that he won't link a user with some other website (or whatever his offense was). If there is a longer term history re Cla68 that needs to be dealt with, then deal with it separately. We still need some clarity on when a block should be marked "oversight only", but that's probably better discussed elsewhere. --regentspark (comment) 19:32, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Statement by MONGO

An adminstrator with a very low level of participation on Misplaced Pages for at least 2 years, shows up and unilaterally reverses an oversight block. While I initially thought that Kevin shouldn't lose their bit over this matter, I've changed my mind since they have yet to make it clear that they shouldn't have done this. It should be noted that this isn't the first time Kevin has been involved in discussions about the issue of linking to harassment.--MONGO 17:11, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Statement by Hex

I strongly concur with the assessments of the situation by B, MZMcBride, and Volunteer Marek in his closing note about how much of a mess this is. This version of the Committee has badly overstepped the mark. First it inappropriately applied a serious measure; then it compounded the problem, attempting to cover its tracks by modifying policy to retroactively support its action. By doing this, the Committee has brought itself into disrepute. The way it can save face is as follows: firstly, restore Kevin's admin status. Secondly, issue an apology on its noticeboard to Kevin and the community, signed by all members that participated in this disgraceful action, explaining what it did wrong, and what measures it will take in the future to prevent another such occurrence.

If these are not forthcoming, I would recommend that the community investigate what ways it has to take a motion of no confidence in this Committee and force an immediate re-election. — Hex (❝?!❞) hEx| 16:35, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Statement by SB_Johnny

This is a pretty good example of "many wrongs not making any right", as well as "when everyone insists they're right on the internet, big internet drama ensues". A review of the events here:

1. Wikipediocracy put up a blog post that many feel included far more personal information about its subject than was needed to make its point.
2. Cla68 posted a link to the post, apparently thinking it would be within bounds to do so.
3. Beeblebrox oversighted and blocked, then oversighted the unblock request and hardened the block.
4. Cla68 sent a note to Arbcom asking for an overrule, and apparently wasn't hearing much back about it, leaving Beeblebrox (who made the block) as the main functionary representative defending the block (which puts him in a position of involvement, and he did seem to be getting defensive about it).
5. Some remarks were made by various parties noting that if Cla68 simply agreed not to post anything dox-ish again, he could be unblocked (since blocks are preventative, etc.)
6. Kevin saw the statements, considered the need for prevention to be no longer necessary, and unblocked.
7. "Emergency" actions were taken because it was an OS-related block, and so in theory Kevin couldn't have known what the actual issue was... but in this case that wasn't true, because the original post, the unblock request, and even Cla's letter to Arbcom were visible for all to see on Wikipediocracy.

The upshot of all this is that Kevin actually did have all the info he needed to make the decision, and unblocking was the correct action with all of that in mind. Personally I wouldn't have done it (and in fact didn't!), because it was pretty clear that doing so would just rev up the drama (which it did). However, with Arbcom/Functionaries apparently not replying to cla68, with cla68 unable to engage in discussion on his talk, and no apparent forum available for third parties to appeal the block on his behalf, it really did appear that a ball had been dropped somewhere.

I suggest a motion to just ask Cla68 and Kevin to state that they won't do it again, restore things to the pre-drama state, and encourage everyone involved to simply drop the matter. --SB_Johnny | ✌ 16:52, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Statement by Jehochman

Silk Tork, your statement is inappropriate. Are we required to obtain permission from ArbCom before discussing the appropriateness of a block, and what the unblocking conditions should be? The block clearly stated to contact Oversight before unblocking. I said that Cla68 should make an appropriate statement that he understood the rules and would not repeat his mistake under the assumption that once he made such a statement, Oversight would agree to the unblock. I was not suggesting for some cowboy admin to come reverse the block without permission. It did not enter my mind that somebody would do that, and I typed up a rather strong rebuke to Kevin when I saw what he had done, but decided not to post it because it would have only been more fuel on the fire. I am definitely not a party to this matter, and don't appreciate your attempt to drag me into it. Next time you are confused about something I've said, you should ask me for clarification.

Apparently you (the Committee) were secretly discussing this matter. You all could have avoided a lot of trouble if you'd simply posted to User talk:Cla68 promptly a statement to the effect, "We are aware of this block and are actively discussing it. Please, don't anybody do anything until we have a chance to sort things out. Thank you." Your (the Committee's) failure to communicate transparently and promptly was a missed opportunity. Accept responsibility for mismanaging this mess. Vow to do better, and move on.

Is a case needed? If Cla68 provides reasonable assurances not to repeat mistakes, unblock him. If Kevin provides reasonable assurances not to repeat mistakes, re-sysop. The only point I see that is debatable is whether Cla68 is arguably a repeat offender whose assurance might not be good enough.

While I sympathize with the authoritarians who would like to maintain good order and avoid cowboy adminship, the manner in which this matter has been handled was very counterproductive. See Streisand Effect. If the Oversighter had initially taken Cla68 aside and explained the problem without blocking, that might have resolved matters quietly. Even if the links might have been up a while longer, in total, they would have received a lot less attention that way. Everybody knows where to look to find the objectionable material. We at Misplaced Pages are not responsible for policing the entire Internet. Yes, we can prevent doxing on our site. We can even prevent links from our site to doxing elsewhere, to copyright infringement elsewhere, and so on. But the bottom line is that administrators and especially functionaries such as Oversighters and Arbitrators need to do what works best, not what is most emotionally or intellectually gratifying. Oversighters should not block popular users. Doing that will only draw more attention to the content they are seeking to remove. It's counterproductive and stupid. So that was the first mistake. The second mistake was ArbCom removing Kevin's sysop rights on an emergency, non-transparent basis, which added a lot more fuel to the fire. Surely if ArbCom had notified Kevin that he was about to be subject to review and that he should not perform any more sysop actions, that would have been sufficient. If a thoughtful review had occurred in public, rather than hasty actions in secret, the correct result would have been achieved. Either Kevin would have admitted error and agree to behave, or else he would have lost sysop access in way that everybody would have understood to be the correct decision.

Statement by The Devil's Advocate

Seriously, this is silly. We have several Arbs below saying, "Well, we were probably gonna unblock him anyway, but now we can't do that because this person flouted our authoriteh!" Honestly, what the fuck is stopping you? If you basically agree that Cla68 should have been unblocked then there is no point in all this except to flex your muscles and remind everyone who's boss. All you are really doing is complaining that Kevin beat you to the punch. Just undo all the stuff you just did, and give some polite reminders or some shit. Then we move on. You guys screwed up in a monumental fashion, but there's no sense crying over every mistake. You just keep on trying till you run out of cake.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 18:27, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Comment from HJ

Oh for fuck's sake, there is no valid reason to withhold the tools from Kevin (there was no need to remove them under a procedure designed for emergencies, but that's the subject of discussion elsewhere). The only thing that will be accomplished by dragging this out any longer is more drama, more ill will, and more attention being drawn to the very thing that the first action in this absurd chain was trying to hide. So unless you need to make him grovel (which would accomplish nothing except making you feel important), just give him the fucking tools back and put an end to this whole sorry episode.

As aside, the number of highly respected Wikipedians who are so critical of ArbCom's handling of this matter (and the rarity of all those particular Wikipedians all agreeing with each other) would tell a sensible person all they needed to know about whether or not Kevin should get his tools back. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:02, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Statement/clarifications by Beeblebrox

Some errors or misunderstandings seem evident in some of the above statements, so this is not so much a statement about this case as it is an attempt to clarify a few points for the community.

• The "please don't unblock without contacting oversight" is a rarely used but not unknown provision sometimes placed on blocks based solely on suppressed material. At the time I made the block there still seemed a reasonable chance that we could handle this quetly, which is very much the way the OS team prefers to work and obviously how it should work. How binding such a statement is had frankly never crossed my mind before as I had never seen an admin disregard such a request. As there is now a proposal on this point hopefully this ambiguity will be rectified, but obviously I could not and would not state the specific nature of the problem in the block log, that rather defeats the point of trying to suppress the edits.

• Contrary to some of the timelines and other comments presented above, I did not take any further actions as an admin or as an oversighter after the initial suppression and block. I fully support those subsequent actions, but the revocation of talk page access, suppression of Cla's unblock requests, and further suppression actions were all done by others. That's why we call it the "oversight team". As opaque as we are on-wiki about our actions I can assure you all that we discuss such matters quite a bit so as to insure that we are properly following the policies and procedures established by arbcom, the community, and the foundation itself. It's a complicated job that most users know next to nothing about because it is, by neccesity, conducted almost entirely in private.

As to the actual case:

• As a matter of principle I think it is always a bad idea for an admin who doesn't do admin work anymore and has not touched the block button in nearly three years to jump into the most volatile situation around as their way to come back to being a productive admin. Regardless of whether anyone should have unblocked Cla, it should not have been Kevin. I'd like to reiterate that this has nothing to do with reversing a block I originally placed and everything to do with an inactive admin only using their tools at the worst possible moment. If he is able to see what a poor decision that was and how it obviously did not help one bit i don't see why he shouldn't get the tools back, it would be hypocritical of me to suggest otherwise since I was recently in some hot water myself but was let off the hook when I acknowledged my error and pledged not to repeat it. However if he can't see his way clear to taking such action I would suggest he has the "cowboy admin" metality that in most other circumstances the community strongly objects to. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:34, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Statement by Hasteur

The community disproves of cowboy admins, abhors cowboy bureaucrats, and riots at cowboy Arbitrators. The foot has been firmly inserted into the mouth, and at this point the only thing (as far as I can tell) to do is to extract the appropriate "I vow not to undo special blocks" from Kevin and issue the appropriate "Go forth and sin no more" admonisment from ArbCom. Anything less leaves the community with less respect for the penultimate avenue of appeal and increases the dependency on the avenue of final appeal (WP:JIMBO) to resolve issues because the committee has demonstrated their inability to deal with challenges to the vested authority. Hasteur (talk) 20:35, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Statement by dave souza

This was not the first time that Cla68 was involved in questions of external sites attacking or discussing exposing the identity of Misplaced Pages editors. A previous arbitration case involving Cla68 set the principle that admins "must ensure that the edit or action reflects his or her own duly considered view on the proper action to be taken, rather than simply carrying out the views of others outside Misplaced Pages." If Kevin was involved in some way with an offsite forum, care was needed to comply with this.

There was extensive speculative discussion on Cla68's talk page after he was blocked from talk page access. It is not clear to me whether or not this discussion would have been better at AN. In the absence of any indication that Cla68 had contacted Arbcom, messages from him were relayed to his talk page. In retrospect, it would have been better if a formal message from Arbcom had been placed on Cla68's talk page stating that confidential discussions were in progress, discouraging such indirect communication.

Kevin was the first to come to the defence of Cla68, in his first edit for a fortnight. The talk page discussions apparently convinced him that the relayed messages justified unblocking. On 4 March at 05:36 he said he had a mind to unblock, and was given some support, at least for restoring talk page access, by MZMcBride at 5:42. This meant ignoring the obvious involvement of Arbcom, and the block notice comment "malicious WP:OUTING, please do not unblock without consulting the oversight team", and as such was in my view very poor judgment by both admins. Even without these additional requirements, WP:BLOCK#Block reviews is clear that administrators should avoid unblocking users without first attempting to contact the blocking administrator to discuss the matter, or failing that should raise it at AN. Kevin did neither, but unblocked Cla68 at 07:40 and at 07:47 announced it. At 07:51 he notified the blocking admin. I've some sympathy for not remembering all the procedures and rules, but this looks like incompetence at best, and fully justifies temporary desysopping as inconsistent with the level of trust required.

As to whether the tools should be restored, I've not reached a view on this. Kevin has various options to present his case, and should do so directly rather than digging deeper holes. Doing this privately would have brought less drama, but this proposed arbcom case has the advantage of openness in a case of intense interest to several parties.

Statement by Demiurge1000

This is related entirely and solely to this motion listed below; if I have comments about the rest I may or may not make them later.

(removed this as it's been censored with no indication added that anything had been removed - those who need to are almost certainly able to read the whole uncensored version) --Demiurge1000 (talk) 05:36, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

--Demiurge1000 (talk) 23:38, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Statement by Black Kite

I don't think I can really add much to the statements above by HJ Mitchell, B, Devil's Advocate and others. The most ridiculous thing about a whole business is that the injudicious actions of ArbCom (mostly) have led to the name of the alleged outing site being plastered over many pages (indeed, at least two Arbs have mentioned it). There's still an active hyperlink to the actual alleged outing page itself sitting on a high-profile projectspace page, which has been there for the last 22 hours. Stuffing genies back into bottles is a tricky business. Black Kite (talk) 00:02, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Statement by Heim

I am greatly concerned with the committee's current tendency to use motions to strike from nowhere. We have emergency desysoppings for emergency cases; upon the end of that emergency, the tools need to returned or a proper hearing needs to be given. Courcelles and Coren are now saying they can use these methods to desysop someone and then keep desysopped if they think that's a good idea. This is an unacceptable power grab. Not that it surprises me in the least after last year's "We've got someone asking for clarification about Malleus? Maybe we can finally get him banned!" Either implement a proper hearing or return the tools. Failure to do so will constitute an abuse of power. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 09:49, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Comment by Nick-D

This is really a matter only for ArbCom and Kevin at this point, but I have to say that I don't think that Kevin's statement above reflects the kind of attitude expected from admins - while I accept that he won't do this again, the fact that he still argues that something so obviously wrong was justified and "bold" is really concerning given that there are lots of other ways for admins to blunder around with the tools. I don't think that Kevin has any chance of passing a RFA at present (even leaving aside the widely-recognised issues with RFA; a hypothetical civil and positive RFA would likely not be successful), and as such I'd suggest that the motion be rejected. Nick-D (talk) 10:17, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Comment by Snowolf

I would have thought that it would be common courtesy to heed the blocking's admin request to get in touch before unblocking, rather than choosing to deliberately inflame the situation by ignoring it. I've seen people above say that "it's a power grab by oversighters" and I am rather sadden to see such a claim being made. What we do here on the English Misplaced Pages is for the 95% (stat made up on the spot) suppressing private informations of minors. The remaining 5% is the rest, and none of us enjoys dealing with it. The last thing we want to do is to have to block somebody after having also had to suppress something. We would be incredibly happy not to block anybody and not to have to suppress anything. We do so when we feel we have no choice, and it is incredibly rare that we have to say "look, there's some informations here that you don't have access to sadly so please do check in with us before unblocking". The recent motion passed by the committee would not increase the likelihood of use of this extremely rare and extreme measure, which none of us wishes to employ. But, I don't think the actions at the heart of this proposed case have much to do with oversight. I would not unblock if the blocking admins wrote to please contact them before unblocking, and I think that's a reasonable request, and that we should try to show some basic courtesy to each other on this collaborative project. I would suggest that in the specifics of this case, nobody better than the community can establish whether Kevin's recent actions have changed the community's trust in Kevin as an administrator. Snowolf 12:11, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Clerk notes

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

• I have redacted Demiurge1000's statement per Ched and Floquembeam's request, and per our current guidelines regarding unfounded material. Even if it's true, it cannot stick there until it can be proven as such. — ΛΧΣ 02:53, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
  • As requested. The original, non-redacted statement by Demiurge1000 can be accessed here. — ΛΧΣ 03:01, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
• I have redacted Volunteer Marek latest comments to remove personal attacks and bad faith comments pointed at Demiurge1000. — ΛΧΣ 03:31, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Temporary desysop of Kevin: Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter <1/0/2/2>

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

• I recused on the initial motion and will again recuse for this case. NW (Talk) 04:33, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
• Commenting here, to note that I would accept a case if Kevin requests one. I have also just responded to one of the e-mails he sent to the Arbitration Committee mailing list, going into more detail about what I think his options are. My view (to summarise here) is that the desysop is only temporary and if appropriate assurances are given I would be fine with resysopping (though I can't speak for my colleagues). The same applies, as far as I am concerned, with the initial block that started all this (though what really actually started this is another matter). The amount of attention that this matter has gathered at each stage is unfortunate, but was predictable. I'm hoping that everyone can help dial back the drama quotient a bit, regardless of how angry or indignant they might feel about this. Carcharoth (talk) 07:21, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

• Comment: This request is probably premature as, to my mind, the Level II process is not a binary choice and the procedure has yet to run its course. The steps/options for Kevin are as follows:
  1. Lets the matter drop altogether, which effectively accepts the committee's decision and makes the desysop permanent;
  2. Provides assurances to the committee about his future use of the tools if they are restored and asks for reconsideration in the light of the assurances; or;
  3. Asks the committee to open a full case to examine the desysop and make a final binding determination;
  4. Alternatively, Kevin can simply ask the community for the return of the tools at RFA, the eventual outcome of which the committee would obviously respect.
  At this point though, the ball is in Kevin's court,  Roger Davies 07:51, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

• We could accept this and decide it by motion as the facts are already known. We had just reached the point on discussions on the email list where we were about to go to motion anyway, so it's just a matter of where to place the motion. I see this, of course, as an argument for ArbCom discussions taking place openly on Misplaced Pages so people can see what is going on and not create situations which are duplicating what is already happening.

The irony of Kevin's action is that it is delaying the Committee dealing with Cla's appeal, which was progressing, but has stalled since the unblocking took place. Difficult to know how things would have turned out, but Cla might at this point have already been unblocked.

Something else to consider in accepting this as a full case is that we might then be looking more closely at the events on the talkpage which led to Kevin taking the action he did, which could mean adding Jehochman and Ched as parties, as it was Jehochman's suggestion that if Cla posted a comment that "he will not discuss editors' real life identities" that he could then be unblocked, so Ched went and proxy posted Cla's comments. None of this was helpful as the Committee was already in discussion with Cla, and neither of those users checked to see if that was taking place.

It has been mentioned that perhaps a notice should have been placed on Cla's talkpage saying an appeal was taking place. This is not part of procedure, and should not be necessary in a situation where a user has been blocked by an ArbCom appointed functionary with a note saying "do not unblock without consulting the oversight team", and where the talkpage access has been removed so the appropriate appeal route is via the Committee. However, what might be appropriate is when a user's talkpage access is removed, that the talkpage is then fully protected so that only admin's can edit it to make consensus agreed statements or notices. That might prevent this sort of situation occurring again, and might address some of Kevin's concerns regarding how the talkpage was being used to criticise a user who could not reply. SilkTork 11:08, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

• I don't think I've really commented on the whole affair, besides agreeing to the new system and endorsing Brad's summary comments. Here would be as good as anywhere to make my thoughts known. I was not available (primarily due to sleep) for the entire discussion, but I had looked at the situation quickly when Kevin made his unblock. In my personal opinion, Cla68 was on his way towards being unblocked, Kevin shortcircuited the process and deserves a good clip round the ear for doing so. Just a little more time would have lead to a much more amicable solution, with less controversy and almost none of this mess. Having said that, we encourage that behaviour on Misplaced Pages, we encourage bold edits, we encourage ignoring of rules. Why? Because the wiki system is not meant to be built up around bureaucracy. I would have supported neither the re-blocking of Cla68, nor the desysop of Kevin. So, to Kevin specifically - in my head, a case is not a foregone conclusion. If you ask for one, I will certainly support that request. Worm(talk) 13:48, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

  @TParis. No, it's rare that there are "sole propagators" of anything. I don't agree with the committee's decision, but that doesn't mean I don't understand it. I believe all parties, including Cla68, Kevin and the committee as a whole has something to learn here and "more haste" isn't one of the lessons. Worm(talk) 14:06, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

• Recused. Kirill  13:19, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
• I've previously posted my thoughts about the Level II desysopping on the noticeboard talkpage. At this stage, if Kevin posts in his section above (as I believe he is willing to do) that he will not reverse any block designated as an ArbCom, checkuser, or oversight-based block, I will offer a motion to reinstate his adminship. Newyorkbrad (talk) 13:37, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
• Kevin, I have not removed any options from you; you have misinterpreted my comment. Roger's statement above regarding how this matter can proceed is correct. Normal arbitration proceedings, as they're termed in the Level II procedure, do generally mean a full case, which is why I mentioned that. However, the committee is capable of handling a case request by motion if matters are clear. If you choose to take Roger's option #2, that's probably what would happen, and your sysop bits would be restored. Or if you'd prefer, we can go through the long and drama-ridden course of a full case, the outcome of which could go either way. Hersfold non-admin 17:54, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
• Accept per policy, though I don't think a motion is the right way forward, either a case or an RFA is, as Kevin prefers. Courcelles 03:26, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
• I find myself in the same situation I was in yesterday: having a very difficult time blocking out all the noise and focusing on the specific admin actions that have led to Kevin's desysop. I can't help coming to the conclusion that this unblock was an extremely poor administrator action. Kevin's last unblock was in 2010, of a user who misunderstood how to be unblocked to change usernames. His last block was almost 3 years ago. He has barely been active, with his last 200 edits spread over the last 18+ months. There is good reason for anyone to believe that Kevin has not kept abreast of the changes in the blocking policy, or the manner in which blocks and unblocks are handled, since he has not used the tool in such a long time. He does not appear to be aware of the longstanding practice of making a serious effort in discussing the block with the blocking admin prior to unblock. Seeing an extremely unusual block summary, he did not even attempt to follow its guidance. Frankly, the oversight/outing issue is almost peripheral to Kevin's poorly-considered unblock. Then there's the whole issue of whether or not the conditions for unblock, as set out by one of the two initial blocking admins, was actually met when Kevin unblocked. This by itself would have been more than ample for at least a severe admonishment in any circumstances. When I see a mostly inactive admin parachuting into a high-drama issue, I'm always dubious about the motivations; they're often a sign of a "cowboy" admin wanting to go out in a blaze of glory, sort of a suicide by Arbcom. Kevin has conceded that he will not repeat the same actions should he come across another oversight block, but these are vanishingly rare (the last one I could identify that was essentially identifiable as such was before I was an arbitrator). The undoing of checkuser and arbitration-related blocks is already part of the blocking policy, for which any blocking or unblocking administrator is responsible for being familiar before s/he takes any block-related action. I expect Kevin to publicly undertake to refamiliarize himself with the blocking policy and other policies related to administrator tools before he undertakes further admin actions. I'll continue to read comments on this page that are written over the next 18 hours or so before I make my final decision. Risker (talk) 05:39, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Motion to return User:Kevin's administrator rights

Based on his commitment not to reverse any block designated as an oversight-based block , Kevin's administrator privileges are reinstated, effective immediately. He is reminded to abide by all applicable policies governing the conduct of administrators.

For this motion there are 11 active arbitrators, not counting 2 recused. With 0 arbitrators abstaining, 6 support or oppose votes are a majority.

Support

1. Thank you Kevin, that's what I was waiting for. Worm(talk) 21:38, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
2. I do not agree with everything Kevin has said or done in this matter, but in light of the assurance he has now given, I do not believe that he will take this sort of action again. I stand by my earlier comments about this whole situation, on our noticeboard. Beyond that, looking simultaneously at no one and at everyone: Drama flareups and excessive rhetoric from various sides, of the sort we have seen in the past few days, are a serious drain on the harmony and productivity of our community. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:58, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Oppose

1. No, for two reasons. First, I do not agree with this committee handing back admin tools, the appeal should be to RFA unless the committee truly screwed up in the facts of the underlying situation. (I might just abstain off that alone though; this is a personal opinion, not ArbCom policy, I just do not, and never have, voted for ArbCom resysops, I don't think they're right, and absent the very extraordinary remedy that forbids an RFA, I think they cut the community out of the process. Courcelles 04:20, 7 March 2013 (UTC)) Second, because I don't think Kevin gets it. This unblock was proof of unbelievably bad judgment, and anyone displaying judgment this bad should be sent to RFA for a community sanity check to see if the community still trusts them with the tools. (Also, a case would require passing a desysop remedy, or the desysop is reversed, passing a resysop motion is somewhat different, and does shift the burden of majority in a potentially not insignificant way) Courcelles 02:59, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
2. I actually wavered before voting. On the one hand, we have Kevin's assurances that he would not do the same thing again; and I've no doubt that he is sincere. In normal cases, this is the primary requirement for the committee to restore the bit and would probably suffice.

   On the other hand, what he did was no mistake; he did not fail to understand that the unblock would be problematic, he explicitly refused to heed the instructions to not unblock without discussion knowing full well he was supposed to. That he does so as his sole use of the blocking tools in almost three years shows either complete lack of awareness of standards in their use, or complete disregard for them – either way he needs to pass an RfA and convince the community that he now understands them and will abide them before the tools are returned to him. — Coren  04:24, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Abstain

Discussion