Revision as of 04:12, 12 March 2018

• WP:ARC

Requests for arbitration

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

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

Currently, no requests for clarification or amendment are open.

New Jersey-related AfDs

Initiated by power~enwiki (π, ν) at 17:26, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

Involved parties

• Power~enwiki (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), filing party
• Rusf10 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Alansohn (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

• Rusf10
• Alansohn

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

Statement by Power~enwiki

Alansohn is an editor who has made a large number of edits to articles on New Jersey-related topics. Rusf10 has been active in the Misplaced Pages namespace since November 2017. He has nominated a significant number of New Jersey-related articles for deletion; the community consensus is generally that these nominations are not frivolous in nature.

However, Rusf10's AfD nominations have generated an enormous amount of hostility from several of the users in this area, in particular at the recent discussion at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/County executives of Atlantic County, New Jersey. The current discussion at ANI (linked above) does not appear likely to reach any conclusion, and the specific outing allegations are difficult to discuss on an open forum. Neither party seems satisfied by the results so far, and the ANI discussion appears to be repeating itself at this point with no consensus from the community for any actions. The most recent AfD discussion Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Governorship of Phil Murphy appears to still be causing similar issues.

Other users, in particular Unscintillating, Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ), and Djflem, may need to be added as parties. In particular, Unscintillating was topic-banned from AfD partially due to their responses to Rusf10's nominations, including a variety of "outing" related claims .

@Jayron32: I proposed the TBAN on Rusf10 at AfD, although after seeing the full discussion I agree it was too harsh as a stand-alone proposal and no longer endorse it. power~enwiki (π, ν) 19:07, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

Statement by Rusf10

I don't want to repeat everything I already said. As pointed out below there are two other relevant ANIs at and the current one as well . @Smmurphy:Although I do not agree 100% with Smmurphy, I think he/she gave a fair analysis of the situation and I want to take the opportunity to apologize to them for the sockpuppet investigation because I was wrong.
I really don't know the solution to this problem here and not taking a position on whether arbcom should take it up or not. The problem is really the behavior of Alansohn. As I said before he takes ownership of all New Jersey-related articles. It is important to point out, I only nominated a small handful of articles that he created. While he keeps claiming that I am harassing him, he has blasted me at several AfDs where not only did he not create the article, but he didn't even edit it once. For Example . I could go on, there's more, but I'll stop there. He never even edited those articles, not even once, yet he viciously attacked me. This show unquestionably that his claims that I am victimizing him are false.
I also pointed out in the recent ANI that he has attacked other users that vote delete just as viciously and if anyone wants to dig through old ANIs, you will see a pattern of uncivil and ownership behavior spanning many years. What needs to happen is someone has to make it clear to Alansohn his behavior will no longer be tolerated.--Rusf10 (talk) 08:43, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

@Alansohn:Reading your statement below, makes a great case why should be outright banned. After all this you can't even admit the slightest wrongdoing on your part. Even here, you continue to personally attack me and outright lie. The most offensive part of your statement being where you compare me to a terrorist. That is a new low, even for you. You're obviously stalking my talk page, but why not post the whole conversation? "Even when asked to find ways to de-escalate, Rusf10 has been obstinate in refusing to find ways to work with other editors (see here for one of many such examples)." That is an outright lie. How about posting this diff, where I agree to @Legacypac:'s suggestion Now what good-faith effort are you going to make to deescalate? Nothing, because you refuse to take responsibility for your behavior.--Rusf10 (talk) 17:57, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

Statement by Alansohn

Blame it on Bill Zanker. I thought that the article provided a strong claim of notability backed by reliable and verifiable source. By contrast, Rusf10 jumped to the conclusion that the only possible reason I could have wanted to retain the article was that "I think what is making you upset here is a conflict of interest WP:COI. I have now noticed that both you and the subject of the article live in the same town. And to be honest with you, the article List of people from Teaneck, New Jersey should not exist and neither should about half the articles on that list. Believe it or not, every mayor of Teaneck does not qualify for an article." (see here). Following up on that threat in early December 2017, Rusf10 immediately began a series of AfDs directly targeted at that threat with Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Mayors of Teaneck, New Jersey (a list of mayors of Teaneck; withdrawn as an inappropriate bulk nomination), followed quickly by Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Lizette Parker (a mayor of Teaneck; no consensus, default to keep), Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Eleanor Kieliszek (a mayor of Teaneck; keep), Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Frank W. Burr (mayor of Teaneck; delete), Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/William W. Bennett (a mayor of Teaneck; keep), Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Mayors of Teaneck, New Jersey (2nd nomination) (a list of mayors of Teaneck; keep), Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Steven Weil (a rabbi from Teaneck; delete), Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Howard Jachter (another rabbi from Teaneck; keep) among many others too lengthy to list. Despite overwhelming failure in this attack, Rusf10 has persisted with a laser focus on deletion of articles, keeping his aim at me and the articles I've edited even while tossing in a few other articles as a beard to disguise his intentions.

Rusf10's inherent goal of wreaking revenge and obtaining his pound of flesh has turned many of these AfDs into a WP:Battleground. Deletion is the only option. With remarkably limited exceptions, Rusf10 does not comply with WP:BEFORE or Misplaced Pages:Deletion_policy#Alternatives_to_deletion, and has never identified and added sources to articles to address concerns about notability, nor been willing to accept any sources added by me or other editors as acceptable to address concerns legitimate or otherwise. Rusf10 has stubbornly refused to find any compromise, refused to withdraw nominations where consensus is clearly opposed to his efforts and has made persistent accusations of bad faith against those trying to fix the problems he has identified, as at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/County executives of Atlantic County, New Jersey, where the claim was that the article had been created "to circumvent" his deletion efforts and which closed as keep, despite Rusf10's persistent efforts to refuse to accept a thoroughly sourced article I created or extensive added sourcing by Djflem. Even when asked to find ways to de-escalate, Rusf10 has been obstinate in refusing to find ways to work with other editors (see here for one of many such examples).

Creating encyclopedic content is hard work. Finding sources, editing content and creating a web of interconnections requires a tremendous amount of time and effort. I spend 99% of my time editing and improving articles, as do thousands upon thousands of other editors working to build an encyclopedia with content that goes far beyond any one state. At the exact opposite side of the continuum, Rusf10 devotes 99.9% exclusively to deletion, with a rather sharp focus on my edits and those related to my work on Misplaced Pages. We have created tools and utilities that allow editors to nominate for deletion with a single click. It can take seconds for a malicious editor to start the process to destroy content created in good faith with hours, days and weeks of effort. The asymmetric nature of Rusf10's battle means that it is far too easy for a bad faith editor to destroy content than for dozens or even hundreds of editors to create it. Thousands of workers might build a bridge across a river with years of labor, but one terrorist with a few sticks of dynamite in a well-chosen spot can destroy it in seconds.

Misplaced Pages is not a suicide pact. In the battle Rusf10 has created, where articles are being systematically attacked simply because of a geographical connection in one obscure AfD, it's not me that loses, or New Jersey; it's Misplaced Pages. The imposition of a topic ban or a significant throttling of the number of nominations (as proposed by RAN) might help solve the Rusf10 problem. Alansohn (talk) 16:12, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

Statement by Kurtis

Seeing as this would involve private evidence, it might actually be a good idea for ArbCom to look into it. I know that other venues have yet to be exhausted, but I'm not sure if anything other than a full case will bring this to a resolution. The ANI thread alone shows how messy of a situation it is. Kurtis 17:53, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

Statement by Prince of Thieves

My username is Prince of Thieves and I am making a statement as the person who initiated the latest WP:AN/I thread. (Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Issue at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Doreen McAndrew DiDomenico requires attention). I started the ANI thread to gain clarification on procedure for an AfD discussion which becoming a trainwreck due to incessant debate over whether a particular article should have been bundled with other similar (but not identical) articles by Rusf10. The articles were about political figures from New Jersey, USA, and had been largely written by Alansohn. I won't go into unnecessary details, but it is explained by me at this diff. The AfD was later closed as "delete all", without changing the bundle.

My understanding is that Alansohn and Rusf10 have been engaged in hostile back and forth over a number of pages for some time. But I only noticed that after the ANI thread became rather heated. Eventually it became a back and forth debate with both Alansohn and Rusf10 accusing each other of various behaviours not conducive to a productive collaborative environment.

I have no opinion on whether an arbitration case should be opened or not, but this hostile situation was very unhelpful for resolving the AfD issues. What should have been a simple resolution of a procedural issue (which itself ought never have needed resolution), was converted into a long argument which included a IBAN proposal, a TBAN proposal, and then back and forth accusations of harassment by Alansohn and Rusf10. It would appear that there have been other occasions where this has happened, but I am not involved in those other incidents, and won't comment on them beyond that.

Prince of Thieves (talk) 18:29, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

Statement by Jayron32

I attempted to mediate the dispute by proposing an IBAN at ANI in the thread cited above. The proposal had some support, but not enough for full consensus to enact. There was also a proposal by someone else for a TBAN against one of the parties; that was also not enacted. However, following the closure of those two proposed remedies, the parties in question continued to create problems at ANI and elsewhere. Despite evidence of widespread objections to their behavior, they did not take it as a sign to back off, but instead have doubled down on their disruptive dispute, and the whole thing has become a HUGE time sink at ANI; the two sides in the dispute have become intractable, and this has clearly grown outside of the ability of the community to mediate. This seems like the sort of case for ArbCom to be necessary. We've tried options, they haven't worked, and now it is spinning out of control, with no end in sight. --Jayron32 19:03, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

@Power~enwiki: Thanks for clarifying. My main point is that the responses to the two different remedies should have indicated to the parties involved that the community clearly thinks that their dispute was growing out of control, and given them reasons to self-regulate. They seem to be disinclined to do so, given that the dispute has escalated since then. That's why I urge ArbCom to act at this point. --Jayron32 19:11, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

Statement by Smmurphy

Rusf10 does not seem like a overly disruptive editor, but their contributions to AfD are clearly upsetting other editors and I am not entirely clear why. I have an impression that the reason is that Rusf10 baits editors into anger because they often use "you" statements rather than "I" statements - an issue on both sides here. I have a strong preference that the editors listed who are disputing with Rusf10 continue to be active at AfD, as they are among those who are using AfD as an opportunity to improve existing articles when the subject is encyclopedic in spite of significant problems which brought them to AfD. I also prefer that Rusf10 continue to be active at AfD as a recognize the value in submitting articles to AfD, as they frequently do. I am not truly uninvolved or unbiased as I often work to improve articles on dead politicians and see (and !vote keep) some such figures as suitable for inclusion which Rusf10 has submitted for discussion. I have not been impressed by the discussions that sometimes occur in AfDs where Rusf10 is involved, but fault for that does not lie entirely with them and occasionally some of the fault may even lie with me; although reviewing some AfDs where we disagreed, I don't see any problematic disputes (here is a representative New Jersey-related example).

I have found Rusf10 to be a sometimes frustrating editor to work with, mostly on the basis of their efforts to ensure articles submitted for discussion be deleted in cases of interest to them. My evidence is that I count four submissions of articles to deletion review since December - I was only involved in the first of these. Three of the four are New Jersey related. . They also initiated a sockpuppet investigation against me (Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Smmurphy/Archive) after an IP agreed with me on four AfDs, one of which had a New Jersey connection, and another against User:Bernice McCullers (Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Bernice McCullers/Archive) which was related to a non-New Jersey AfD and was justified.

I sincerely wish the best for all the users involved and am submitting this only to provide a bit more context about Rusf10's behavior in these types of spaces where Alansohn, Unscintillating, Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ), and Djflem are not involved. I see Rusf10's behavior as more litigious than I would prefer but individually, the examples I have given above do not seem to me to be outside the realm of acceptable conduct. In my opinion, one of the underlying causes of the disruption is a feeling that Rusf10 submits articles to AfD with incomplete consideration of BEFORE and ATD. I don't know if that feeling is justified, Rusf10's nominations are deleted just over 60% of the time . I think that rate is a little below average but is not by itself alarming.

Also, since I don't see these already linked, Rusf10 also has created at least two other discussions at ANI which do relate to one or more of those five users; I find both here (both closed with no action); in addition to the one here which led to the aforementioned TBAN against Unscintillating. Smmurphy 20:52, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

@Rusf10: Thanks for your acknowledgement - of course I have no hard feelings. I ommitted to say this in my statement, but I have only followed a small-ish sample of the brewing conflict and I have made no effort to discover all sides of the issues. Smmurphy 18:19, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

Statement by TonyBallioni

I’d encourage the committee to decline this case. It is fundamentally a content dispute (whether or not we should delete certain articles), and the community has not formed a consensus for any sanctions in this area. If there is actual evidence of outing, that can be forwarded to the committee without a case. The core dispute, however, falls well short of an ArbCom matter IMO, and the committee would likely have a difficult task ahead treading the line between conduct issues and the content dispute. TonyBallioni (talk) 21:05, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

Statement by Richard Arthur Norton

At least ban from using PROD and no more than one AFD nomination per week, I see no evidence of him doing the extensive research required BEFORE using PROD on an article. The four articles I worked on went from PROD to being saved. That work should have been done prior to nomination by the nominator themself. If I had not noticed them they would have been automatically deleted. No one can do all the needed research when there are a dozen nominations at once. There were so many deletions bundled together last week that I just gave up, despite one of the new nominations having an obituary in the New York Times. --RAN (talk) 13:53, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

Statement by TheGracefulSlick

Per this, it appears one side of the table has taken some steps required to resolve this issue. If anyone is to do anything, it would be for Alansohn to stop making baseless claims of outing, and following Rus around as much as he believes Rus is following him. The AFDs, while upsetting for Alan, are largely productive in removing unnotable subjects.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 14:24, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

Statement by Mendaliv

From all appearances this should be declined. There is a conduct dispute here, but the way the case request is framed, I don't believe it satisfies the ripeness or exhaustion of remedies doctrines the Committee generally imposes. While I cannot say whether a case about any of the named parties specifically (with regard to their general conduct up to and including this dispute) would be appropriate, such a case request would be more appropriate than what's before the Committee at this moment.

This would be a good time to remind the community that the Committee's jurisdiction is highly discretionary, and that a compelling showing that the community cannot resolve the dispute must be made. That the community is unwilling to resolve a dispute, has not resolved a dispute satisfactorily as to all parties, or merely that no consensus has been reached as to a way to resolve the dispute are not enough under the current arbitration policy. Sometimes disputes shouldn't be resolved by outside involvement, and while I am not saying this is one of those disputes, there needs to be a principled way to distinguish between cases where the community has not acted because action is not merited, and cases where the community has not acted because of a complete failure of community procedures to produce any reasonable result. —/Mendaliv//_Δ's/ 15:08, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

Statement by Robert McClenon

This request is unlike the recent case of Joefromrandb in that it hasn't been going on for years. There are content and conduct issues that need to be dealt with. The community has not yet succeeded in dealing with the issue of tendentious editing about New Jersey, but the community needs more time to deal with the issues. I would urge the ArbCom, when it declines this case, which I urge the ArbCom to do, nonetheless to caution the parties and to remind the community that it has a responsibility to deal with the issues. There probably is a need for topic bans, but the community should be allowed to impose them.

There is no obvious reason why there should be battleground editing in the area of New Jersey. Battleground editing is typically a problem in areas that have been real battlegrounds in historical memory, either actual memory, or memory kept alive so that the past not only isn't dead, but isn't even past. The last battles in New Jersey were about 240 years ago, and, unlike the American Civil War, Americans do not refight the American Revolutionary War even if they re-enact it. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:16, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

I have been told that all of the articles being fought over have to do with politicians. In that case, discretionary sanctions are already doubly available for American politics and biographies of living persons. I suggest that the case be declined and the disruption dealt with by the usual effective and draconian means of arbitration enforcement. Either the community or the administrators can apply the topic-bans, and this case is not likely to come back in six months after the community does not solve it. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:40, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

Statement by Doncram

The ANI thread provides clear and convincing evidence of wp:HARASSMENT by Rusf10 against Alansohn. Rusf10 is clearly stalking. This is unacceptable. I support permanent ban of Rusf10 from Misplaced Pages entirely. --Doncram (talk) 05:59, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

Statement by User:Reyk

I urge the arbitration committee not to take up this case. The issues involved go beyond just Alansohn and Rusf10's squabbling and I think we need a more general discussion on those issues, but this more specific dispute is probably not a good way to go about it. If someone has edited hugely in a subject area of their interest, to what extent does repeated, persistent, and annoying involvement by other editors constitute harassment? To what extent does opposing those new editors amount to WP:OWN? In any event, the outing accusations are incorrect; you don't get to cry "outing" if your user name is your real name and somebody refers to you by it.

Statement by {non-party}

Other editors are free to make relevant comments on this request as necessary. Comments here should address why or why not the Committee should accept the case request or provide additional information.

New Jersey-related AfDs: Clerk notes

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

New Jersey-related AfDs: Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter <0/1/0>-New_Jersey-related_AfDs-2018-03-08T18:58:00.000Z">

Vote key: (Accept/decline/recuse)

• @Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ), Djflem, and Unscintillating: Please be advised you have been mentioned in a statement by the filing party. The way WP:PING works requires a signature in order for a notification to be sent, so I am notifying you separately. Mkdw 18:58, 8 March 2018 (UTC)"> ">
• Awaiting statements. This seems like it should be resolvable by the parties, but the ANI thread so far suggests otherwise. I would like to hope that WP:ARBNJ can remain a redlink, but we shall see. Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:14, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
  • I'm not ignoring this, but waiting a bit before voting in the hope that the parties can de-escalate the situation, and following the discussion on ANI. The calls for site-bans seem excessive, so some other resolution does need to be reached, whether voluntarily or on the moticeboard or if necessary by us. Newyorkbrad (talk) 10:00, 11 March 2018 (UTC)
• Decline because it seems the community is taking steps forward here. In particular, the topic ban on Unscintillating was action that helped to resolve aspects of the dispute. All potential restrictions here could be enacted by the community, and most haven't been tested at ANI yet. The extreme steps of an IBAN and complete topic ban failed, but that doesn't mean more minor restrictions (throttles on nominations, etc) would fail. Start that discussion if the problem is ongoing. ~ Rob₁₃ 16:26, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
• Accept The community has not resolved the matter and is unlikely. The situation involves personal behavior as well as the content question at AfD, and we have taken cases involving such interactions at AfD. It was suggested we have no jurisdiction if the community is unwilling to resolve a dispute, in contrast to not resolving resolve the dispute; I consider the community being unwilling and the dispute persisting to be one of the manners in which the community is not resolving a dispute. DGG ( talk ) 00:21, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

Admin abuse

Initiated by Saboteurest (talk) at 00:30, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

Involved parties

• Saboteurest (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), filing party
• Canterbury Tail (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

• https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:Canterbury_Tail&diff=prev&oldid=825818167
• https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:Canterbury_Tail&diff=prev&oldid=825747936

Statement by Saboteurest

I would like to report User:Canterbury Tail for conduct unbecoming of an administrator. After this admin incorrectly read a reference provided and reverted an edit, I pointed out their misstep and reverted the revert. Apparently this must have damaged their fragile ego. The admin then began to appear on articles which I had recently edited of which they zero edit history. This user admitted to following me on their own talk page after I warned them that I would report them if it continued. I provided numerous references for the infortmation in question. This editor then continued to troll me and began making erroneous claims, counterproductive edits/reverts, and adding unnecessary tags. Then this editor without notice, without following any procedures, and without involving a 3rd party, blocked me from editing for 1 week. I believe this editor blocked me from editing so that I could not report him for WP:FOLLOWING me which I was in the process of doing. This is not only an unjust block but a complete conflict of interest. This editor clearly lacks the judgment expected from an admin. Therefor their admin privileges should be reviewed, suspended, and/or stripped completely.

Also, the comments below by User:Swarm are completely unacceptable. I understand that Swarm and Canterbury Trail collaborate on wikipedia and may even be friends. But that kind of personal attack has no place on Misplaced Pages. Saboteurest (talk) 02:12, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

Statement by Canterbury Tail

This user first came to my attention via the ANI notice here that lead to their first block. As any admin would do I checked out their edits to see if there was an issue, and noticed some worrying trends in their edits (as others obviously thought due to the block.) As a result on and off I did take a peak at their edits, like most admins would do, to see if they had learned from the initial experience or if they were still a problematic editor. Some of their edits were quite worrying, such as this one that reverted the edit of another editor who was only setting the article to match the source, and marking it as vandalism. I reverted that edit pointing out that the source didn't support the 40 acres, only 18. Unfortunately their interactions in this area didn't do anything to make me think they could be completely ignored, and they stayed in the back of my mind as possibly someone who as an admin I should keep an eye on their edits.

Several more times I noticed them revert other people's edits against what the references stated and calling them vandalism. Any admin would continue to look at such edits. The Ottawa Public Library interaction is the one that is most telling. From the history it's clear what is happening. I looked at their initial edit and it was fine, I only requested that a reference be found. Also the act of tagging it put it in my contribs list as I noticed that there were severe problems with the article. At that point Saboteurest decided to start calling me a troll and removing valid maintenance tags.

Now this section of my talk page shows the interactions that led to the block. Accusations of trolling, stalking, and being a banned user (curious as I actually have suspicions the other way that they are a sock of UrbanNerd, which is a primary driver for why I was keeping a little bit of an eye on them.) They then made retaliatory edits to remove maintenance tags I'd added to the article previously mentioned that needed work. They were given plenty of opportunity to recant the accusations and stop with the retaliatory edits, but kept doubling down. As many admins have stated, a block for them was inevitable.

The only real question here is should I have blocked them. I leave that to others to determine, however I believe it was fine. Reason being 1)the block was inevitable 2) it saved a lot of community time (though apparently that didn't work out) 3) accusations were being delivered right to my face about being a banned editor.

If the community determines this was a bad block then I will no longer interact on an admin level with such editors, instead reaching out to others to do so, however I think that may cause more problems as admins have to keep chasing admins for blocks as by that reasoning it's very easy for an admin to be involved. Canterbury Tail talk 12:57, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

Regarding the statement by Govindaharihari, I'd like to see those diffs as well please. As far as I'm aware my only interaction with Govindaharihari was when (only last week) I disagreed with him on the talk page of Talk:Jamie Dornan, and I locked down the article due to an edit war over his nationality which was throwing around some very incorrect information. To my knowledge I've never had a block overturned due to being involved. In fact I am only aware of a single block I've ever issued being overturned, and that was by myself. Anything else I'm unaware of and would also like to see those diffs. Canterbury Tail talk 17:56, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

Comment by GoodDay

This Arbcom request seems pre-mature, IMHO. GoodDay (talk) 03:23, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

Comment by Beyond My Ken

The complaint has presented neither a pattern of un-adminlike behavior on the part of Canterbury Fair, nor a single incident of such a magnitude that desysopping should be under consideration. If desysopping is off the table -- which it definitely should be -- the community is perfectly capable of dealing with the complaint on the noticeboards, considering that it has the authority to sanction admins to any degree below removing the bit. Whether any sanction is warranted is for the community to decide. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:53, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

Statement by Cas Liber

If admin behaviour is being called into question, the case needs to be taken (i.e. not solely about dispute resolution as such). BU Rob13 is correct. I have not looked at Canterbury Tails' edits so have no opinion on it. Sorry Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 08:42, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

In reply to those below me, if it turns out that the complainant is at fault, then a boomerang remedy may be in order. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:55, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

Statement by Legacypac

Given the serious allegations and requested remedy this is the only forum that can make a definitive ruling. It is hard for regular editors when an Admin pulls out the block hammer, given the automatic assumption the Admin is right. Legacypac (talk) 09:00, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

@User:Hawkeye7 has it exactly right. Cases that require WP:ADMINACCT are quickly closed at AN/ANi and users referred to ArbComm. I'll add at ArbComm there is a line up to decline the case because the "community can deal with it" These is therefore no place to address a grievance. Legacypac (talk) 19:03, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

Statement by Mz7

I disagree with Cas Liber's statement that if an administrator's behavior is being called into question, then the committee must accept a request for arbitration. The community can still examine the behavior and issue advice or perhaps sanctions that are weaker than a desysop, or possibly conclude on its own that the issue needs arbitration. While it's true that there are some issues that are so egregious that they can warrant ArbCom review immediately, not every case rises to that level. I don't believe this does.

I suppose I'll summarize what I wrote at ANI. In this case, there are credible concerns surrounding Saboteurest's behavior, such as mislabelling edits as vandalism and calling others trolls. Given this pattern of hostility, I think it was reasonable for Canterbury Tail to check Saboteurest's other edits for similar issues; I don't feel that there was any malicious intent behind this. Regarding WP:INVOLVED, I do feel that this skirts close to the line. Since Canterbury Tail was confronted by Saboteurest about the following issue prior to their block, I feel that Canterbury could have been more careful and brought the issue to another administrator to review rather than issue the block themselves. However, on balance, I'm not sure whether their edits were significant enough to prevent administrator action. The edits from Canterbury Tail that were disputed by Saboteurest prior to the block include removing content that wasn't sourced properly, adding "citation needed" tags, and adding a "clarify" tag.

At ANI, I have suggested that the thread be closed with no further action. I think we should remind Saboteurest about their behavior and also Canterbury Tail about being more careful with WP:INVOLVED, but I don't see the need to escalate this any further than that. Mz7 (talk) 10:01, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

Statement by The Rambling Man

Reject. This should be the last resort not the first option. If the community as a whole reach a clear conclusion that some kind of desysop is in order, then it can defer to Arbcom to do the rest of the job. In the meantime, this "kitchen sink" approach is most unwelcome. There are numerous places to deal with this before attempting to invoke this "ultimate solution". The Rambling Man (talk) 10:15, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

Statement by Black Kite

Reject. As this is representative of Saboreurest's editing - removing a perfectly good citation needed tag with an abusive edit-summary - and they've done it more than once. On that article Canterbury Tail was trying to ensure the accuraacy of the article and merely got abuse for it. Saboteurest has done this to others as well. Ideally the block would have come from another admin, but there was nothing wrong with the block itself. Black Kite (talk) 11:23, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

Statement by Hawkeye7

BU Rob13 is correct and Newyorkbrad is wrong. Any attempt to deal with admin behaviour through the noticeboards is peremptorily and immediately shut down on the grounds that "Arbcom is thataway". eg Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive978#Request_for_desysop_of_Fram Arbcom have asserted that the notice boards are not permitted to handle such complaints. It is therefore incumbent on Arbcom to take them on. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 11:34, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

@KrakatoaKatie and RickinBaltimore: I got desysopped for one bad block. Care to void that decision? Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:54, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

Statement by Ritchie333

Just a procedural note, I have closed the thread on ANI, primarily because it was going off-topic thanks to Legacypac's suggestion that Saboteurest come here. It is true that CanterburyTail may be considered WP:INVOLVED in this one instance; however the block was reviewed and declined twice, followed by removal of talk page access, so I would consider the block to have been endorsed by the community (unless anyone wants to take Huon and JamesBWatson to ANI for "admin abuse" as well). I don't see a convincing case in the interaction analyser; all that shows me is we have two editors who live in Ottawa (which has a population of around 1.3 million) and both like editing Misplaced Pages. I could use the same tool to "prove" I'm being "stalked" by Redrose64, when the simple explanation is we both have a shared interest in the same topics.

Unless BU Rob 13 has got a corpus of diffs showing clear and sustained misuse of the tools over a lengthy period to multiple users, or egregious conduct (eg: unblocking an arbcom banned user) I don't think this case should be accepted. Ritchie333 12:19, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

@BU Rob13: "I think blocking an editor you're in the middle of content disputes with is bright-line enough for desysopping to at least be on the table." I reviewed CT's block log this afternoon and the only other possibly questionable one is the recent indef block of Sport and politics (talk · contribs) (except that appears to have been done with the backing of three other admins off a final warning). Again, I reiterate that the block of Saboteurest was reviewed and endorsed. While I think Canterbury Tail should have gone to ANI to get another admin to do the block, I think suggesting a desysop for a one-off mistake is complete overkill. Ritchie333 23:26, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

Statement by Mr rnddude

While I understand the reasoning behind the opposing viewpoint, I'm generally in agreement with Hawkeye7. There isn't much of a point in having an AN or ANI discussion as those can only be resolved where the person with the issue is boomeranged, and not where the admin is a problem. Whether or not the request warrants a case is an issue for you alone to determine. Mr rnddude (talk) 12:29, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

Statement by Govindaharihari

I totally agree with Rob. "straight-up administrative abuse involving the tools, and it warrants a look at desysopping as a potential bright-line action. An admin simply can't stalk another editor, get in repeated content disputes with them, and then block them" someone should look back at his blocking log to see if he has involved blocked other users. I've seen him do the same thing again and had his block overturned because of wp:involved. Govindaharihari (talk) 15:26, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

Statement by Swarm

I'm noticing that both here and at ANI these complaints are being dismissed for largely procedural reasons, so I'd just like to address the complaint itself directly. Frankly, I'm very disappointed in the users who are actually humoring this complaint so strongly. I get that it kind of looks like an involved block if you don't actually read into it, or if you take Saboteur at his word, but nobody should be taking him at his word. Actual HOUNDING, as we all know, is malicious harassment. Saboteurest is a very manipulative problem user who is not in good standing and who I've observed to lie through his teeth, and it's simply not believable that Canterbury Tail was doing this with any intent other than to provide genuine oversight to questionable edits by a user who was already on his administrative radar. For this commendable work in service to the project, he was subjected to Saboteurest's trademark abusive behaviors, over which he decided to block, as any reasonable person would have for directly continuing the malicious behavior that had just recently led to a block. This is not an INVOLVED issue. It's not a HOUNDING issue. It's a behavioral issue from a user who is very quickly running out of ROPE. The "continued discussion" is not going to be about CT. It's going to be about the impending indef for Saboteurest. Swarm ♠ 15:36, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

Whoa! Care to retract your blatant personal attack? You've seen me lie through my teeth??? Nobody should be taking him at his word??? Wow, I've never seen such an open attack of another editor on a public forum. Saboteurest (talk) 00:18, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

Statement by NeilN

@Govindaharihari: Diffs for your last statement please. The sooner, the better. --NeilN 15:43, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

Statement by Robert McClenon

This is a case of an editor who yells "Administrator Abuse". There really is such a thing as administrator abuse, but it is far more common for difficult editors to yell "Administrator Abuse" when the real problem is their own behavior. I see that the filing party, on coming off block, cleaned up their own talk page of the evidence; while an editor is allowed to remove posts from their talk page, it is more often done to present an inaccurate picture or to (poorly) hide the record of their own clashes than really to be neat and tidy. There are a number of common "yells" by difficult editors that should be treated as indications that the editor is difficult, and they include dealing with content disputes by yelling "Vandalism", with content disputes by yelling "Censorship", and with conduct disputes by yelling "Administrator Abuse". Real cases of administrator abuse don't start off by a blocked editor yelling "Administrator Abuse".

The first real question is whether the ArbCom should accept this case, knowing that they will have to divert the boomerang back to the filing party, or whether the ArbCom should decline this case with a warning and let the community deal with this editor. The second real question is whether the filing party should be indefinitely blocked as a disruptive flamer. This does not appear to be a case that the community has repeatedly failed to solve. To reverse that, there is still reason to think that the community can solve this. So the ArbCom can reasonably decline this case, and the community should be advised that it is their job (our job) to try to deal with disruptive flamers.

Robert McClenon (talk) 19:12, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

Questions/Outside view by Dax Bane

Invariably, in any online community you're going to have users with access to additional tools, and users without. Inevitably, those with the tools using them for the overall benefit of the community is going to have accusations flung at them of being abusive with those tools - that just comes with the territory.
As framed, the timeframe is basically: edits have been made by Saboteurist (S) and another (CT) has questioned those edits (with simple maintenance tags), S removes the tags claiming they're vandalism (to claim that something is vandalism is, honestly, equally claiming the editor putting those edits there are vandals - something could be read as violating NPA, by the by). Adding salt to that wound, S also labels CT a troll in the process - certainly a violation of NPA. CT later blocks S, and the accusation is that of CT abusing their tools - others have questioned the impartiality of the block

The question I have, however, is: Would any administrator other than CT have reached the same conclusion regarding the necessity and duration of a block as CT had? Depending on the answer to that question, I can see a few outcomes:

Dax Bane 02:02, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

Statement by power~enwiki (AA)

Due to a lack of diffs, I feel I need to make a statement here summarizing the evidence I have found.

• 2018-01-08: At J Church and Light rail in North America, the only interaction appears to be reverts as a result of an ANI thread.
• 2018-01-17: At The Works (restaurant) and List of Canadian restaurant chains, CT modified the name of the restaurant, which seems harmless.
• 2018-02-03 to 2018-02-15: At Lansdowne Park, there does appear to be a bona fide content dispute between the two parties, though Saboteurest's edit summary of "Revert useless tag by trouble causing troll" to refer to CT (here and elsewhere) is inviting trouble on his part.
• 2018-02-15: At Ottawa Public Library, I see a bunch of bickering (largely over maintenance tags), which was presumably motivated by the existing feud.
• from February 15 was in the middle of the interactions at the last two pages; while there's nothing on the interaction analyzer CT edited the talk page of List of cities with the most skyscrapers after Saboteurest edited the article. The message is deliberately inflammatory and somewhat inaccurate.
• Other interactions, at pages like Canada and Ontario, are to be expected and aren't relevant to this case.
• (re: the discussion sparked by Govindaharihari's comment) at Jamie Dornan CT semi-protected the page due to a non-autoconfirmed editor (also editing as an IP) describing an actress as a "bad actress" instead of a nationality. There's no concern of INVOLVED here, as the action was clearly preventing vandalism and unrelated to any content dispute.

Neither editor is fully blameless here, but I think a warning at ANI would have sufficed. power~enwiki (π, ν) 03:04, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

Statement by Lankiveil

I would like to make the point that I do not think it is the common understanding that being the recipient of personal abuse from another user makes an administrator involved with respect to that user. I do not see anything substantially wrong with CT's actions here, and Saboteurest's recounting of events seems selective, to say the least.

That being said, since it seems clear that this is going to be declined at this point, I wonder if Arbcom would issue some clarification of the amount of prior dispute resolution that they expect to see in cases of alleged administrator misconduct. I understand that this is a place of last resort, but at the same time a discussion at AN or ANI cannot itself result in binding consequences for an administrator, and given the amount of heat that such discussions create it is not surprising that some feel that they are a waste of time and best avoided. Some guidance on the type of community discussion that arbs would like to see in such a situation would likely be helpful for the community. Lankiveil 04:12, 12 March 2018 (UTC).

Statement by {non-party}

Other editors are free to make relevant comments on this request as necessary. Comments here should address why or why not the Committee should accept the case request or provide additional information.

Admin abuse: Clerk notes

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

Admin abuse: Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter <1/8/0>-Admin_abuse-2018-03-11T01:12:00.000Z">

Vote key: (Accept/decline/recuse)

• Decline. Insufficient prior attempts at resolution. The suggestion in the ANI thread that this be brought straight to arbitration was premature. It is true that only ArbCom can desysop an administrator, but that does not mean we are the first stop when an editor disagrees with an admin action. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:12, 11 March 2018 (UTC)"> ">
  • Reaffirm my decline vote after reading Canterbury Tail's statement. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:43, 11 March 2018 (UTC)
• Decline. Per Newyorkbrad. Alex Shih (talk) 05:18, 11 March 2018 (UTC)
• Decline per NYB. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 05:47, 11 March 2018 (UTC)
• Decline I am sorry you received some misguided advice at ANI. Arbitration is the final step of dispute resolution and only available under very specific circumstances. Much of this is outlined at WP:ARBGUIDE which is linked in the instructions. WP:ADMINABUSE also provide clear directions. Mkdw 06:06, 11 March 2018 (UTC)
• Decline as above. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 06:59, 11 March 2018 (UTC)
• DeclineAs above. The advice to bring it here should have not been given. Doug Weller talk 07:11, 11 March 2018 (UTC)
• Accept. I'm going to have to go against the grain here, and I encourage the arbitrators who have already voted to decline to read this and reconsider. The interaction analyzer very clearly demonstrates that Canterbury Tail has followed around the filer to many articles, reverting their edits. This may be disruptive, but would not warrant arbitration before other dispute resolution had been tried, as perhaps an IBAN or other sanction could halt the behavior. Following that up with a clearly involved block on Saboteurest is straight-up administrative abuse involving the tools, and it warrants a look at desysopping as a potential bright-line action. An admin simply can't stalk another editor, get in repeated content disputes with them, and then block them. I view that as something worth a look by those who can desysop (if warranted), and right now, that has to be us. ~ Rob₁₃ 08:11, 11 March 2018 (UTC)
  • I understand your thoughts, but it still seems to me that allowing for more than a few hours of noticeboard discussion would be helpful. In any event, I would rarely vote to accept any case before the proposed subject of it had a chance to respond and make a statement. It also may be relevant that Canterbury Tail has been an admin for a long time with no prior controversy that I can recall, and that uninvolved administrators reviewed and declined Sabateurest's unblock request. That does not necessarily mean that it was a good block, but it does suggest we should at least await the other side of the story if we are going to reach the merits at this stage. Newyorkbrad (talk) 09:48, 11 March 2018 (UTC)
    • I generally agree with waiting for statements, but we do not apply the same cautiousness to declining a possibly legitimate case. I felt at least one accept !vote was needed here to make sure we don't decline this with no real consideration. ~ Rob₁₃ 18:16, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) Given that the filer has asked us to look at a specific incident (as you've described), rather than a pattern, the question I ask myself is: is the incident which has been presented sufficient for me to support a desysop by motion? If the answer is no, then I'd vote to decline the case request. If the answer is yes, then I'd propose or support a desysop motion. If the answer is maybe, I'd ask for more information and possibly vote to accept. So, if we're asked to look at a specific incident, my consideration is whether the incident by itself justifies a desysop. If editors can show a pattern of behaviour, I'd likely change my vote but as is I don't believe what we have here is enough to jump straight to a desysop, therefore the community is in a position to resolve this through lesser sanctions (an IBAN for example) as required. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 09:50, 11 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Hounding is a pattern by definition, but in any event, I think blocking an editor you're in the middle of content disputes with is bright-line enough for desysopping to at least be on the table. That's the threshold I'm using to decide whether we should take a case. ~ Rob₁₃ 18:16, 11 March 2018 (UTC)
• I just want to reiterate my accept vote, especially in light of CT's statement. He notes that he got into a content dispute with Govindaharihari and then protected the article on his preferred version – another involved administrative action. The fact that he doesn't seem to see the problem with this further worries me. The line on involved is fairly simple. If you are part of a discussion about content, you cannot be the administrator taking action regarding that content or the editors you're in conflict with. ~ Rob₁₃ 01:29, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

• Rob, CT's statement is actually somewhat misleading; I honestly wonder if he's misremembering. If you look at the history of the Jamie Dornan article, the semi-protection came after a series of disruptive edits where someone was saying Dornan had divorced his wife, with no source. CT's involvement in the dispute over Dornan's nationality came after that, when he reverted a fairly POINTy edit by Mr Strong Guy and then started commenting in an existing dispute between Govindaharihari and Comnenus on the talk page. He has no recent edits to the page prior to reverting the disruptive edits, and he did not increase the protection level to full, so it's a little unfair to assert he has a "preferred version" that he's protecting. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 01:59, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

• I based my comment on his statement. Looking at the protection log now, I do note protection occurred after he had already substantively engaged with the issue on the talk page under the Nationality heading, but the rationale for protecting was very different from what CL's statement says, which does change things. (Though I remain worried that an admin would misremember themselves as having made an involved action and not see a problem with that...) ~ Rob₁₃ 03:22, 12 March 2018 (UTC)'

• Responding to those saying "the block was upheld, ergo there are no issues here", that simply doesn't follow. There are many good admin actions that specific admins may not take because they are involved. Involvement can turn a reasonable action into a bad action, depending on the context. ~ Rob₁₃ 03:24, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

• Decline My thoughts are like Callanecc's. One questionable block is not a pattern of admin abuse. Let the community work on this some more before coming back here. Katie 17:51, 11 March 2018 (UTC)
• Decline This does not appear to be hounding by CT, but what could be a poor decision to make one block. I don't see a pattern of abuse enough to warrant a desysop action. RickinBaltimore (talk) 23:39, 11 March 2018 (UTC)