This is an old revision of this page, as edited by NE Ent (talk | contribs) at 03:35, 21 February 2014 (→Statement by NE Ent: not him). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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.

Toddst1

Initiated by NE Ent at 15:04, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Involved parties

• NE Ent (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), filing party
• Toddst1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

Statement by NE Ent

Background: Toddst1 has a pattern of aggressive actions, which has been criticized by the community as documented on the following ANI threads. None warrant arbcom sanctions, but are presented to show a pattern. (Note I commented in some of these under prior username Nobody Ent.)

July 2012: Disputed block, inappropriate removal of rollback

Nov 2012: Inappropriate removal of rollback

Jan 2014: disputed edit warring block. Note especially Toddst1's refusal to acknowledge community consensus in this subsection. Subsequent to this event, Toddst1 proposed Edit warring policy wording to their interpretation, but dropped the issue after finding no community support.

Involved actions and failure to be accountable

February 2014: As fully documented on ANI thread Toddst1 made an editorial statement "As the admin who stopped the edit war, I recommend you consider making the the source for the contended material more explicit using <ref> tags.", to which the editor courtesy replied and waited 12 days for a reply, during which time Toddst1 was clearly on-wiki. Hearing no reply editor subsequently made the edit and was summarily blocked by Toddst1. In the context of the unblock request which followed, Toddst1 continued to argue content "as the blocking admin" .

The editor was subsequently unblocked by ErrantX who described the action as a "heavy handed block with very little justification." Toddst1 was subsequently requested to respond to the ANI thread.

Administrator accountability requires "Administrators are expected to respond promptly and civilly to queries about their Misplaced Pages-related conduct and administrator actions and to justify them when needed." Rather than do so, Toddst1 has indicated via setting on the wikibreak enforcer script they intend to lay low for 11 months, which is, of course, one month short of the year of inactivity which results in removal of tools.

Reply to initial NYB, Flo, Beeblebrox comments: hopefully it's clear the Aprock block -- an attempt to direct content -- was bogus. While I respect the inclination not to take action with regard to an absent editor, I don't think Toddst1 should be able to duck out on very legitimate criticism, especially as his parting remark seems to indicate he hopes things will have changed in a year so he can continue as before. Not good. My concrete suggestion is:

1. Accept case
2. By motion, temporary injunction on using admin tools pending resolution of case. (But no desysop -- too much stigma with that)
3. Suspend case until Toddst1 returns

If he returns in a year with assurances he'll clearly distinguish the editorial and admin functions, and respond civilly to legit questions about his actions, a quick dismissal of the case would be entirely appropriate.

In other words, I guess I'm requesting this incident be transferred from unreliable "Ent" et. al. memory to institutional memory. NE Ent 19:53, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Reply to query

Carcharoth It's my understanding its generally left up to the bureaucrat community to discuss / determine whether a resignation of tools was "under a cloud." NE Ent 02:57, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Motion wording

@Beeblebrox: "asked" is too WP:WEASEL for an arbcom motion. "Directed" is preferred; this is Misplaced Pages, if Toddst1 cames back and if they use admin tools prior to case resolution -- especially if something innocuous -- it'll be something to argue about. NE Ent 23:07, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Statement by ErrantX

So, randomly spotted this reading the case request below... It was me that unblocked Aprock earlier this month. NE Ent summarises that situation quite well; Toddst1 was very heavy handed in that block and it left a poor taste in mouth (in terms of how an admin should treat other editors). Hence the unblock and my words to Toddst1.

Afterwards Toddst1 went on a lengthy wikibreak (ostensibly) with somewhat dramatic words. I have to say, I don't really have much respect for such stuff - it's fine to be upset or possibly cross when criticised. But to, in colloquial British, have a hissy fit is tedious and not worth our time responding to.

That said; there are things to look at here, possibly. This isn't the first time I've seen a Toddst1 block that looked heavy handed, irresponsible or out-of-policy - and I agree with NE Ent that the crux of the matter is less those actions and more the fact there seems no introspection or acceptance of criticism on show.

However, Toddst1 is now on an 11 month break and we can't really have a case in his absence. Perhaps a temporary de-sysop (if the committee feels it is warranted) and a suspended case for when Toddst1 returns? Or perhaps the committee could exam these problems in a wider context with a remit to clarify policy? --Errant 15:38, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Statement by Ubikwit

Well, it's a relief to see somebody reporting Toddst1, as I was subjected to what I consider to be a "drive-by block" by him in User_talk:Ubikwit#December_2013.

Aside from that thread, I sent a somewhat detailed account of the events in a request to unblock using the ticket system on December 20, to which I received a response from @Fluffernutter: on the 23rd. I don't know if I have a copy of the text of that request, so please go through the log for that date. Here is the AN/I thread Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive821#Another_SPA_POV-pushing_and_edit_warring_at_Bukharan_Jews.2C_WP.

In short, however, there was an IP editing in a manner against several policies and he had been warned, it appeared that the IP then opened an account to continue edit warring in neglect of the warning. I described this as a loophole for gaming the system in a followup to Fluffernutter, but received no response--that issue had not seemed to be of interest to Toddst1, neither before nor after the block, even though it potentially represents a (minor) systematic lapse.

I've located the report I submitted with the unblock request through the ticket system, so I'll provide a few links to threads and expand a little. I'll post the text of that if a case is opened.
As can be seen from the following links, I had put a substantial amount of effort into dispute resolution regarding the case at AN/I. That effort had included a previous AN/I thread against the IP that appears to have subsequently registered user ID Coolforschool in order to circumvent the warnings he'd been given. That, however, remains an unexamined matter to this day.
The crux of the matter is that when editors expend significant time and effort on Misplaced Pages to engage the dispute resolution process, that has to be respected by admins and substantive due process afforded in order to evaluate a complex situation before any administrative action is taken.
Clearly admins such as Toddst1 pose a threat to editor retention on Misplaced Pages. I would support the "in absentia" mode for this case, because it should be resolved while fresh on peoples minds, and represents is another in a string of recent cases relating to admin conduct.

1. Archived previous AN/I thread
2. Archived RS/N thread
3. Request article be unprotected based on result of RS/N
4. Article unprotected by admin that had placed it under indefinite full protection

At any rate, my take on the scenario was that Toddst1 didn't look at the specifics of the interaction at all, and blocked me basically because he determined that I was technically in violation of the edit warring policy.

He didn't respond to my requests on my talk page or participate in the AN/I discussion at all before issuing the block. An since at least one other administrator had already commented and taken an intermediary action, I can't see the justification for the non-communicative enforcer type action taken by the individual in question.

I banned him from my talk page, and then he reverted one of my edits and issued a warning in relation to an article on which he had absolutely no editing history. I suspected he was stalking me and told him so. that edit related to the current "Gun control" case, incidentally, and the distinction that should be made between "gun control" and "arms control"--Ubikwit_{見学/迷惑} 17:54, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Statement by Leaky Caldron

An action of some sort is essential. Failure to establish a basis for proceeding now, reserving for the future or some other formal course of action simply allows any Admin. facing a case to disappear for a long enough period of time that the case against them is effectively negated. There is a "cloud" here that needs to be clarified by an Arbcom. decision. Leaky Caldron 19:41, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Statement and proposed motion by Hasteur

Assuming good faith on the actions of Toddst1, and recalling the wording of Admin Accountability, it only seems right that Toddst1 should give an accounting of their actions. Their actions were already of concern (and under scrutiny by established editors) prior to the wikibreak being enforced therefor there is reasonable perception of clouds having formed. Therefore I propose

An Arbitration case be opened and suspended for up to 1 year regarding the actions prior to Toddst1's wikibreak.

Toddst1 is provisionally desysopped pending the outcome of the case. Should the case not be opened prior to the expiry of the suspension, Toddst1's provisional desysop is to be treated as a ArbCom authorized desysop.

Toddst1 may apply for Admin privileges again by passing a new RfA candidacy should the provisional desysop become permanant

This gives Toddst1 the opportunity to account for the actions and gives a definite end point for the issue being resolved. Hasteur (talk) 21:56, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

With respect to Salvio's "dislike" of my solution, I would note that prior to going on wikibreak Toddst1's actions had been discussed at AN*, so there was cause for considering sanctions. Unless you're intending to give carte blanche that any administrator can stonewall discussions of questioning of their actions by going on wikibreak until people have forgotten about it. There is a presumption of guilt, but the actions (both implicit and explicit) of Toddst1 raise a reasonable suspicion that the break is designed to avoid responding to the questioning. For that reason the committee could authorize a injunction, but injunctions have little force beyond a "gentelman's agreement" that requires a significant amount of effort more to undo should the admin go off the rails. (effort required in monitoring + (Chance for off the rails action * Effort to clean up)) > (Effort to desysop and potentially resysop later). Preventing future harm to the encyclopedia at large is much more important than the hurt feelings of a previous sysop. Hasteur (talk) 15:44, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Statement by Johnuniq

I was shocked at Toddst1's "You were right, I was wrong" post at ANI. One such totally bizarre incident could be overlooked, but the pattern evident in NE Ent's links shows a trend that must be corrected.

Hasteur's suggestion looks good. For whatever reason, Toddst1 is not available to respond to this case, yet the underlying problem is severe since it is likely that good editors have been lost due to Toddst1's approach. It would be totally unacceptable for an administrator to be able to evade accountability by taking an extended break, then return to retain their admin tools—the same tools which NE Ent's links show have been repeatedly abused.

Toddst1's last edit (3 February 2014) was to set the 11-month wikibreak, and that edit is the most problematic in the case because the summary was "hopefully the community will have come to terms with the double standard that seems to have become superior to policy by then". The "double standard" link is to an essay created and largely maintained by Toddst1. The essay contains several insights and helpful observations, however, the linked section shows that in Toddst1's view, the only problem with their block was that the target was a "Vested Contributor" with "buddies".

Arbcom must take action to ensure that proper accountability applies. We all know that the 11-month break can be shortcircuited, and Toddst1 could resume admin work at any time without any response (other than the above edit summary) to the last incident raised at ANI. Johnuniq (talk) 10:48, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Statement by Binksternet

I was blocked unfairly in August 2010 by Toddst1 after a few days of discussion that I started at Talk:Memorex#Parody_in_film with an insistent dynamic IP editor from London. There was no consensus for adding trivia—it was just me and IP person talking back and forth—yet the editor re-added the trivia five times over two days. Toddst1 suddenly appeared to block me after I reverted the IP twice in one day, this coming after I reverted the IP twice on another day, with one intervening day. It was a petty block.

When Toddst1 unfairly blocked MrX in January 2014, a discussion was raised at ANI by Black Kite. In that discussion I pointed out that the obvious and best action taken in the situation should have been Toddst1 full-protecting the article against the three editors who were content-warring. Other observers such as Adjwilley, Black Kite, MastCell, Sportsguy17, Alanyst, Gamaliel, MONGO, Georgewilliamherbert, Dougweller and Drmies agreed that the article should have been protected rather than MrX blocked. The result was that MrX was unblocked by Fram, but a lot of editors expressed dissatisfaction with Toddst1 actions as an administrator. The bad block discouraged MrX, who had been a very constructive encyclopedia builder for four years, from further participation here.

Because of the current complaint and all the past complaints against him, I propose that Toddst1 be desysopped with the requirement that he undergo RFA to regain the tools. Binksternet (talk) 18:01, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Regarding the issue of Toddst1's absence because of his self-imposed 11-month break, I see no reason why a determination cannot be made here without Toddst1's involvement. His self-defense explanations in the past have never addressed the problem, and they have not led to a correction of the problem. Why would we expect that his self-defense going forward will be any different? It seems to me that Toddst1 can be discussed in absentia, and can just as well be desysopped in absentia, if the committee sees fit. If he comes back from his break to find his tools have been taken away, it will be less trouble and less drama for him than to come back and argue his case for a couple of weeks, then lose his tools. Binksternet (talk) 20:10, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Clerk notes

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

Toddst1: Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter <0/0/0/8>-Toddst1-2014-02-18T18:15:00.000Z">

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

• Awaiting statements, which should discuss (in addition to any other issues) whether and how Toddst1's declared 11-month wikibreak bears upon the situation. (Please note that I have changed the casename from "Involvement and accountability" to "Toddst1". I appreciate the filing party's desire to avoid the potentially confrontational tone of a case named after a specific editor, but the alternative name is too vague and generic to be useful in identifying the case.) Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:15, 18 February 2014 (UTC)"> ">
• I, too, would be interested in hearing comments about how the 11-month wikibreak factors into this. On first blush, I'm not seeing any way to handle the case request in light of the break that doesn't have a significant downside. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:24, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
  • If Toddst1 were active, I would support opening a case. I can't support a case in absentia, and it would be a waste of time if he decides to never return. I'm also unwilling to decline and completely drop the issue for 11 months. But I don't consider being a few weeks into an 11 month wikibreak as "refusing to participate" in the ArbCom case; he's not likely to be monitoring his talk page if he's on a long break. I prefer a suspended case until his return, at which time he can choose to participate in a case, or give up his adminship. I prefer NE Ent's suggestion, but could live with Hasteur's suggestion, about what to do in the interim: whether we pass a motion simply instructing him not to use his tools until resolution of the case, or a motion that actually temporarily desysops him pending resolution of the case. (inserted later) Actually, if the case is accepted then suspended until his return or 12 months, I'm not sure either suggestion is necessary, so I could live with that too. (end insert) Either way, a permanent desysop should occur if this is not resolved in a year. I would support a motion opening and then suspending a case for up to a year if it looks like several of my colleagues feel similarly. --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:32, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
• Echoing the above. While I do see some cause for concern in what is presented here, at this time I don't think I see a good way forward. There doesn't seem to be a "smoking gun" that would merit a sumarry desysop, and we don't really do cases in abstentia. It looks like Todd's wikibreak is for real, so regardless of the merits of the concerns I don't see what we can or should do about it while he is on a nearly year-long break. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:23, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

I would be willing to consider a motion for some sort of suspended case, but I would not support any sort of provisional or temporary desysop. Revocation of admin status is generally something we do at the end of a case, not the beginning. Leaving the project in the face of an Arbcom case is by no means a new or unique event, but simply taking a break is not a free pass to avoid scrutiny or sanctions. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:09, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

• For some time I've shared NE Ent's concerns about this administrator, and agree that a reckoning is needed here. If more arbitrators agree, I would propose H.'s motion suspending this case until Toddst1's return or a year (whichever comes first, though I suspect the former will). Such a suspension would not require the rigmarole of opening empty case pages: I'd merely have us confirm we'll look into this at Todd's return. AGK 11:10, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

• I have drafted a motion off-wiki, but will not present it until Toddst has had the opportunity to respond by e-mail or proxy. (I've just emailed him.) AGK 12:44, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

• Editors should be given the chance to participate in ArbCom cases concerning their conduct; however, their refusal to do so should not prevent us from doing the needful. That said, I don't particularly like Hasteur's solution, in that it assumes guilt; I'd rather we heard a case in absentia, evaluating all the available evidence and deciding whether it warrants the imposition of a remedy. Salvio 13:29, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
• I would also support the motion to suspend the case to be immediately resumed on Toddst1's return, and instructing Toddst1 not to use the tools until the case had been addressed. I don't see any need for an actual desysop at this point as I don't see any reason to believe Toddst1 would not heed those instructions. If and when Toddst1 returns, we can take the time and consideration of a full case to determine how to proceed from there. Seraphimblade 21:02, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
• I agree that a motion to accept and suspend a case pending Toddst1's return is the best way to proceed here (this has been done in the past before, with varying conditions attached). Per Seraphimblade, no automatic desysop needed now or in the future. I think the tools would be removed for inactivity at some point anyway - re-examine at that point to ascertain whether such removal is under a cloud or not. On a related note, if an admin hands in their tools before going on such a break, would we have to determine whether they can ask for them back as usual at the bureaucrat's noticeboard? Carcharoth (talk) 23:35, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
• OK with a motion to accept and suspend a case, and to instruct Toddst1 not to use the tools until the case has been addressed. I don't see a need for temporary desysop right now. T. Canens (talk) 08:22, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Motion 1

The "Toddst1" request for arbitration is accepted, but a formal case will not be opened unless and until Toddst1 returns to active status as an administrator. If Toddst1 resigns his administrative tools or is desysopped for inactivity the case will be closed with no further action. Toddst1 is instructed not to use his admin tools in any way while the case is pending; doing so will be grounds for summary desysopping.

Support

1. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:00, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

   Regarding the previous wording: I deliberately chose "asked" as we have not actually decided that there is any need to sanction at all and if Todd were to return his compliance with this request would have been a good barometer of his overall attitude toward these concerns, but I understand the concern that it will just give people something to fight about if he should come back and do even a simple, uncontroversial admin action, so I'll leave it as worded now. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:30, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Waiting for Toddst1 to signal his intentions (as I've said all over the place today!). AGK 23:07, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

   Copyedits: changed "asked" to "instructed" and added "; doing so will be grounds for summary desysopping". Revert if you disagree. AGK 23:08, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Abstain

Kevin Gorman—Eric Corbett

Initiated by Giano (talk · contribs · email) at 19.16 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Involved parties

• Kevin Gorman (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
• Eric Corbett (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Giano (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) filing party

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

• Notification of Kevin Gorman
• Notification of Eric Corbett

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

• Administrator Kevin Gorman; ANI, 10 Feb 2014
• Attacks on Kevin Gorman, ANI, 11 Feb 2014

Statement by Giano

On 9 Feb 2014 an anon posted on J Wales's talk beginning a thread "A day of kindness, fairness and understanding." Its apparent purpose was to infer that a nameless editor who had committed suicide had been let down by Misplaced Pages, and that the community should show greater understanding to those with mental health problems. Other editors, feeling they knew the editor being referred to, treated the thread as a tribute: But given that the thread was ostensibly to discuss the treatment and problem of potentially suicidal editors, it was inevitable that editors would share their own experiences.

• Cullen328 was first to do so, mentioning his own experiences.

• Later, Eric Corbett made his first comment. Corbett also disclosed personal circumstances supporting his view.

• Cullen328 responded civilly:

• Corbett replied, expanding on his circumstances.

• At this point, Kevin Gorman first interjected. Misunderstanding the thread, he claimed "Inappropriate posts are unacceptable", but there was nothing "inappropriate."

• Following Gorman's comment, the debate continued.

• Gorman interjected again, using Corbett's former user name..

• Gorman then posted a template on Corbett's talk page, (05:58, 9 February 2014) accusing him of violating BLP and threatening to block him, despite no deceased Wikipedian having been mentioned.

• A heated but not offensive debate continued on J Wales' talk.

• Gorman collapsed the thread, and threatened Corbett with an Arbcom Enforcement BLP ban.

• Gorman is reverted by Corbett, and a brief edit war followed.

At no time during the thread did Corbett make any disrespectful comment regarding any deceased Wikipedian; neither was any deceased Wikipedian referred to by name.

• Following Gorman's initial templating regarding BLP and threats of a block, unsurprising a heated debate followed on Corbett's talk, during which Gorman alleged that Corbett was gravedancing and lacked "common decency", a charge he subsequently repeated. These allegations are completely unacceptable and false.

• Gorman further claimed Corbett was mocking the deceased.

• Gorman also insulted Corbett, displaying how badly he had misunderstood the thread.

Gorman has been asked repeatedly to retract and apologise but has not only refused, he has compounded the insults by launching into a smear campaign on Corbett's reputation to save his own:

• "it's a bit hilarious that anyone thinks an apology to Eric is warranted"

• "...given his conduct any apology...would be insincere. I think his behavior is significantly problematic."

• continuing to falsely threaten Corbett against policy.

• Gorman attempted to save face and justify his behaviour by claiming a long block of Corbett would be justified, and that he could produce 50 diffs none of which, even if found, would have had any bearing on the matter in hand.

• Gorman's next post suggests a hidden agenda, and that he was more interested in blocking Corbett for perceived past misdemeanours.

Gorman has made particularly nasty insults and threats to sanction against policy, refused to back down until pushed, and an overdue apology to Corbett is clearly not forthcoming because he feels Corbett has erred previously: This is unacceptable behaviour in an admin, for which he should be officially admonished or de-adminned.  Giano  21:02, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Responding to points made below

Justice cannot be denied because sections of society feel the subject matter is distasteful; and it's ridiculous to suggest that the improvement of safety aspects can't be discussed because there have already been casualties. This case is one of the simplest the Arbcom can be asked to decide upon and rests upon 7 easy questions.

• 1: Did Corbett begin the thread?
• 2: Did Corbett have a right to comment in that thread?
• 3: Did Corbett mention any late Wikipedian by name or inference?
• 4: Were his comments and shared experiences pertinent to the discussion on changing Misplaced Pages's views on mental health?
• 5: Did Gorman fully understand the intention of the thread?
• 6: Was Corbett deliberately dancing on the grave on a deceased Wikipedian , mocking the dead and is he lacking common decency ?
• 7: Can fairness and justice be denied because an editor may have erred in the past?

Question No 7 is obviously the most crucial. If guilty as alleged, the Arbcom should impose the severest retribution on Corbett. If he's innocent, then the unrepentant Admin concerned needs to be very severely reprimanded. This is not something that can be swept away. These allegations are there in black and white and are extremely serious and damaging to an editor's reputation here and in real life. They need to be addressed. It is also vital that it does not appear that former employees and those connected with WMF receive special consideration and immunity from the civility policy and rules governing others; especially, when claiming to have "secret evidence" to justify their possible slanders and libels. Eric Corbett is as entitled to the protection of Misplaced Pages's laws and policies as anyone else; allowing outlaws to be attacked by the privileged is an antiquated, obsolete concept. Fairness demands that this case be accepted to either clear Corbett's name or condemn him.  Giano  14:52, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Statement by Tryptofish

I gave evidence in the last ArbCom case that dealt with some of this (the Civility case), and I'm inclined to think that you should decline the request this time. As for Kevin, he appeared to believe in good faith that he was acting to treat a recently deceased editor with respect, and his subsequent statements indicate a very low likelihood that he will violate our policies for administrators. As for Eric, he made some comments about his own personal history that I would argue give him reason to deserve a lot of leeway with respect to his statements here. There will doubtless be opportunities for ArbCom to better define overstepping by administrators, and there will doubtless be opportunities for ArbCom to try again to figure out where the community stands on civility, but this case will prove to be too muddled to accomplish either of those goals. If there is any lesson to be learned from the loss of that editor, it's that life is short, and we all have better things to do than to get bogged down in the complaints raised here. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:57, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Statement by Leaky Caldron

There was a WP:BDP violation, but it was not Eric's contribution. The attempt to disguise the identity of the dead Wikipedian was fatuous. It took me no more than 2 minutes using readily available resources to locate his user page. From that point on the soul searching screed was immediately an infringement of WP:BDP requiring BLP policy to be extended where material is "contentious or questionable material about the dead that has implications for their living relatives and friends, such as in the case of a possible suicide..." Eric's blunt response was almost word for word my reaction when I first read it. Eric was honest enough to put in writing. Why do I think it was questionable? Just over 4 years ago I lost a close family member in tragic and unexpected circumstances. He was not, thank God, a contributor here. Had he been, and if I had stumbled across some half-baked eulogy from an editor unwilling to identify themselves, using my family's grief as a means of advancing a pet cause on the founder's page, I would be absolutely horrified. The thread should have been removed as soon as the oblique references to "John" left it open to anyone to reach into history and identify the user, his family details and the tragic circumstances of his struggles though life.

As for Eric, he reacted to the traducement by Kevin and others with typical vigour.

As for Kevin, his was a mistake of omission. He should have recognised the OP as the problem, not Eric's post. However, I am extremely concerned about the subsequent attempt to introduce mystery and imagination into his subsequent explanations using various references to WMF and Arbcom. This has the appearance of subterfuge and requires urgent clarification.

As for the founder's page, he really needs to get a grip. His open door policy is allowing editors to rack up hundreds of edits on subjects which should rightfully be discussed in more appropriate venues such as WP:ANI, WP:CENT, WP:BLP/N, WP:VPT and WP:VPPOL to name a few. Not one meaningful initiative or policy directive has emerged from there and it looks more and more like a place where a handful of regulars can grandstand.

Finally, for 2014 Arbcom. Judging by the Fp@SR case below, you are clearly uninterested in addressing Admin. civility issues, so please do not hound Eric on that score.

@Northern Antarctica. So despite not studying the full circumstances, you conclude that Eric had a legitimate point and that Kevin's handling of the situation was not ideal. But then, also, "that this situation further demonstrates Eric's failure to respectfully tolerate dissenting positions and that maybe the committee should consider whether it wants to take decisive action now or wind up here again at some point down the road." So despite this case being brought for alleged Admin. behaviour, you want to turn this around onto the editor? Bad news, this Arbcom. doesn't appear to be the slightest bit interested in civility issues. Antipathy toward civility was even made clear in at least one of the AC Election candidate's statements and is fully reflected in their handling of the FS@SR case, below, where so many blind eyes have been turned it makes one wonder if the case has actually been studied beyond a cursory glance. Eric made a blunt and completely accurate comment about a thread that should have been removed for precisely the same reason that, it was alleged, Eric had breached, namely WP:BDP. Seeking to turn this into another Eric witch hunt is highly dubious. Leaky Caldron 11:05, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Statement by Andy Dingley

In the initial comment, I don't know which was more offensive: Eric's comments on the suicide, or his implication that having had a suicide in his own family gave him carte blanche to act in that way. Either way, I considered it way out of line, even for Eric. In that context, Kevin Gorman's actions were entirely reasonable and per policy. Hindsight might change just what Kevin might have done in detail, but the principle stays the same: Eric's actions were offensive enough to justify this level of admin intervention – There is thus simply no case to answer.

As a side issue, I don't know what Giano's behaviour since has achieved other than to make him look ridiculous. At least Eric has had thee sense to stay mostly quiet afterwards. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:15, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Statement by Kevin Gorman

I do not see much point in accepting a case here; I see very little good that would come out of it for anyone involved. I took action that was not perfectly thought out to remove a thread that needed to be removed, I've explicitly acknowledged that I could have handled the situation in a significantly better fashion and made significant mistakes in handling it, and have already stated that in similar circumstances in the future I would just directly email arbcom, the office, or more likely both, rather than trying to address it myself. Eric's behavior was problematic but nothing would come out of an arbcom case about it here. Giano's behavior has been problematic but nothing would come out of an arbcom case about it here. As a tangential comment: I have referred to Eric as Malleus in conversations because, frankly, I think Malleus is a really neat sounding name, and because it eliminates the possibility of confusion given the number of other Wikimedia movement people named Eric - if he asked me not to do so, I would of course not do so. Kevin Gorman (talk) 22:47, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

@Salvio: I think that the number of people, including a number of arbs and former arbs, who have said pretty directly 'don't do that again' serves as an admonishment. Misplaced Pages is occasionally accused of having a short institutional memory, but I would be pretty surprised if this situation isn't remembered in any discussion that comes up involving my handling of similar issues in the future. I realized quite some time ago that I handled this situation poorly, and certainly would not handle it in the same way in the future. Some of the comments I've gotten, both publicly and privately, will have a more significant impact on how I handle future situations than a form admonishment would. I'm not trying to say I shouldn't necessarily receive one - rather that I already have received (more than) one. If there's desire for the formality of one carried out via motion, I would suggest per NYB that there are good reasons to handle it expeditiously given the nature of the case. Kevin Gorman (talk) 22:33, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Since it's been brought up in multiple places, I feel like I should point out that I'm not a former WMF employee. Also: my internal wifi adapter on my main laptop has died, so any replies from me here or edits elsewhere will be either pre-typed and posted when my wifi adapter is momentarily less cranky, or when I'm on another machine. Kevin Gorman (talk) 22:33, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

@HJ and similar: I've expressed in multiple places that I see what was wrong with my actions here, would not repeat them, and in a similar situation would send it directly to arbcom, emergency, or both. I may have only been an admin here for a month, but I've been around for quite a bit longer than that. Some of your comments seem to suggest that I'm somehow incapable of learning, at least without formal arbcom action. I feel like I'm pretty decent at learning from past mistakes, have demonstrated this in the past, and also don't entirely understand why anyone would think that a formal admonishment from arbcom would have a greater effect at changing my behavior in similar situations in the past than the number of people I greatly respect (including multiple arbitrators) pointing out in the last week that I severely mishandled the situation. As I said previously, if arbcom ends up formally admonishing me, well then arbcom ends up formally admonishing me. What will effect my behavior the most in the future won't be that: it will have been the flood of comments I've received, both on and offwiki, from people I respect pointing out a good number of the flaws in my actions. I'd also point out to HJ in particular that if you examine my past record I've never tried to be the 'civility police.' Even here, I haven't even suggested sanctions against the abusive messages I've received, because sanctioning any of them would be (a)silly, (b) ineffective, and (c) unnecessary. As a sidenote, still only able to post on-wiki when I'm not on my primary machine. Kevin Gorman (talk) 00:09, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

• @IHTS: I don't have the time to dig for diffs currently (like I said, I'm not able to use my main machine currently,) but conversations with Snowolf, Drmies, Floquenbeam, Writkeeper, Dennis Brown, and a whole host of other people (some of whom I am disinclined to name given the attacks off-wiki conversations appear to result in) have certainly left quite an impact on me. And yes, some of these conversations have occurred on-wiki, some off-wiki, and some both. Regarding my previous statement about arbcom: I would still be very surprised if arbcom told me that the material I sent them was appropriate to discuss on-wiki. Beyond that, I've already said in multiple places that I'd direct a similar situation in the future to arbcom or the office, and I've already apologized for the way I handled the situation. As a metanote: this is likely my last comment here unless this somehow gets accepted as a full case - going to unwatchlist the page, since I assume I'll be notified of a case or motion. I also find it remarkable how for an arbcom case that is supposed to be focused on the behavior of at least three people, people seem to be awfully eager to cherrypick diffs of my behavior. Kevin Gorman (talk) 02:09, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Statement by Cube Lurker

"I find laughable the idea that anyone should apologize to Eric over a perceived personal attack."

It's frankly disgusting that someone could make a statement like this and retain advanced permissions.--Cube lurker (talk) 01:13, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Statement by Volunteer Marek

This all started with the fact that a person killed himself. Some people said some stuff. Some other people replied. Some of the things said were pretty stupid. Some of the replies were also dumb. And now this turned into a situation where people... I can't say this without sounding callous... are turning the occurrence of this person's death into a hook to hang their wiki-politics on. Taking a step back, who really cares? All of you, everyone who's a party to this, really just needs to shut the fuck up and walk away and think about the fact that there's some way more important things in life than fighting out petty Misplaced Pages grudges. And using - in whatever way! - a tragedy to pursue these is particularly disgusting.

It does not escape me that just by commenting here I somehow become a part of this... twisted circus. Why does the Misplaced Pages environment cause you to end up in seriously fucked up situations like that? If you don't say anything, you're implicitly acquiescing and condoning this insanity. If you say something, you become part of it.

Close it. Blank it. I'd say something like "trout'em" but that would trivialize the situation. I dunno, give everyone who posted here and who was involved in this sorry fracas a month long "decency block", and you can include me in that, just for commenting on it. Volunteer Marek (talk) 01:39, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Statement by AndyTheGrump

Misplaced Pages is an online encyclopaedia, not a social club. This has f-all to do with article content. People said things they shouldn't? Get over it, and get back to things that matter. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:47, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Statement by Beyond My Ken

There's no case here. Eric Corbett's brutally blunt comments were wildly inappropriate for the thread they appeared in, he should have kept his mouth shut. Kevin Gorman admits he mishandled his response, but his actions were not so bad that Eric Corbett is due an apology. Gorman's comment "I find laughable the idea that anyone should apologize to Eric over a perceived personal attack." is precisely correct, given Corbett's general mode of behavior, although it would have been better if Gorman had not said what most everyone knows anyway. And Giano is just mixing things up, as usual, and has no standing to file this request - Eric Corbett is smart enough and bold enough to request a case if he wants one.

Much ado about nothing, and no basis for an ArbCom case. Trouts and minnows are all that's required here. I urge the committee to reject the request. BMK (talk) 02:01, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Also, Giano's chosen title for the request is misleading and grammatically incorrect. "Attacking" means an ongoing activity, which is not the case. It should have been past tense "Kevin Gorman attack on Eric Corbett". Giano's no idiot, so I assume this was a deliberate choice. BMK (talk) 02:18, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

The case name has been changed to be more neutral, so, assuming it holds, my comment above is not longer relevant. BMK (talk) 23:07, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

@Ihardlythinkso: I hardly think so. BMK (talk) 18:35, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Statement by Montanabw

I would suggest the committee consider authorizing the oversighting/ permanentl removal of the entire thread at Jimbo's page that gave rise to this kerfuffle, then do the same for all references in Gorman's talk page and Corbett's talk page to the same. Possibly add all diffs by anyone regarding this incident, including the diffs posted by Giano above. Someone died, let's just show some respect and clean up this mess. Montanabw 06:38, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Statement by Ihardlythinkso

Eric added a much-needed counter-view to the thread topic that developed on Jimbo's Talk. Backed up by his own life example, he contended that WP is not the place to advertise serious personal RL issues and expect community support. And that the idea developing in that thread that tacitly supported templated advertising of same, and encouraging community involvement and support for editors who've indicated they have mental health issues, is a misguided direction for WP to take. Eric contended that serious personal issues like mental health s/b left to RL medical professionals, and to expect or encourage WP editors to extend personal support in view of same is a bad idea. For expressing his view Eric was subjected to a series of aggressive and baseless admonishments, accusations, insults, warnings, threats, and personal attacks by Kevin Gorman.

(I'll stop here. I have much more text detailing specific behaviors and my objections to them. But aren't those obvious?) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 08:14, 18 February 2014 (UTC) For consideration. Gorman, a new admin, tells publicly what he thinks of a fundamental Misplaced Pages pillar :

even if it were an inappropriate description of his behavior , I find laughable the idea that anyone should apologize to Eric over a perceived personal attack. Kevin Gorman (talk) 21:02, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

(This goes without even admonishment? Personal attacks are now just fine against selected WP editors?! What does the future hold for this newbie admin, who right out of the box flaunts fundamental WP pillar with public and utter arrogance?!) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 23:51, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

This is evidence "Kevin has learned something"?!:

• Kevin hasn't backed off his claim Eric was grave dancing the suicide victim (stating he "doesn't have enough information to know" whether Eric gravedanced or not).
• Kevin doesn't understand the personal offense his "grave dancing" allegation is, calling it an "inflammatory word choice", and challenging another editor's value system who Kevin feels should understand that being called "fucking idiot" is a way more serious personal attack.
• Kevin still misunderstands the original IP thread (final statement says "it needed to be killed").
• Kevin admits to no wrong: he says he "fucked up" but hasn't specifically identified how; he crossed out his BLP warning template text, but never specified why he felt he was in error on policy; he says he'd "do things differently next time" then lists two communications he'd send that have no bearing on what he sees as emergency need to "kill the thread".
• Kevin has alluded numerous times to "secret information" he will reveal only to admins and "editors he trusts" that justifies or explains his decisions and actions. Then nothing.
• Kevin keeps congratulatory barnstars concerning his actions in this incident on his User talk, having deleted or archived anything contrary.

Ihardlythinkso (talk) 22:41, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Compare Kevin's statement below that it is pointless for Arbcom to issue admonishment over his actions, to his statement here :

shutting down the thread at the point that I did was absolutely appropriate, and if arbcom publicly disagrees with me once I shoot them a more comprehensive summary, I would be more than willing to apologize and not repeat similar actions in the future. That said, they sure as fuck won't. Kevin Gorman (talk) 16:47, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Ihardlythinkso (talk) 01:48, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

@Drmargi: "His comments were unnecessary, contributing nothing to the discussion, but precipitating everything that followed." Oh really? Eric added an important counter-view with reason for conviction. He advocated what he did to keep WP more sensible and safer (editors who've indicated mental health issues should seek medical help; it's not a time or place for WP editors to "get involved"). Kevin chose the actions and statements he did; your attempt to attribute responsibility for Kevin's followups to Eric is absurd. (Kevin is an adult, right!? An RfA-vetted admin. He's not a 5-yr. old and unaccountable for his decisions and statements.) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 10:58, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

@Northern Antartica: "it could be argued that this situation further demonstrates Eric's failure to respectfully tolerate dissenting positions. I have my doubts on if his retirement will last, and maybe the committee should consider whether it wants to take decisive action now or wind up here again at some point down the road." How is it that Eric showed "intolerance for dissenting positions"? When questioned in that thread he elaborated and clarified. (I think you are making that up.) Your last sentence is ... what? (Suggesting this case filed by Giano against Kevin Gorman's conduct, should result in some sort of serious sanction against Eric Corbett!? Oh that's rich! Can you pass that joint?) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 11:16, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

@BMK: "Gorman's comment 'I find laughable the idea that anyone should apologize to Eric over a perceived personal attack.' is precisely correct, given Corbett's general mode of behavior, although it would have been better if Gorman had not said what most everyone knows anyway." Why don't you speak for your fucking self, Ken!? (Are you trying to win "most insulting uncivil EP editor 2014" award!? You win.) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 11:22, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

@Resolute: "this was ultimately a minor fracas that escalated because Eric dishes it out a hell of a lot better than he takes it." More blame-the-victim stuff?! Eric is not permitted to offer his gut view on the Jimbo Talk-thread topic that developed, without receiving this kind of false blame?! (And you say Giano is appealing to manipulative argument?!) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 11:32, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

@Resolute: I read it. Gorman was the aggressor, Eric was responding defensively. Gorman made all kinds of unwarranted admonishments, insults, threats and demands. To accuse Eric of vulgarity when facing that onslaught including an untrue and vile accusation of "grave dancing", is blaming the victim (blaming the bear after poking). At one point Eric tried to reason and explain to Kevin: "You have completely missed the point Kevin. I found the tenor of that thread to be deeply offensive, but for a different reason than your shallow interpretation of events. What I took objection to was the notion that the suicide of a Wikipedian was in some way considered to be more important than the suicides of non-Wikipedians, and that as a result we all needed to be trained as psychiatric nurses." Giano was hiding nothing by not quoting the back-and-forths from that lengthy thread. The "grave dancing" allegation by Kevin was apparently the last straw and Eric took it to ANI. To characterize that as "escalating" or "sheer hypocrisy" is pure bollucks. You want to blame Eric if he breathes air. And blame him for polluting the environment when he exhales CO2. Not buying it. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 04:33, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

@AndyTheGrump: "This has f-all to do with article content." You're right, Andy. And neither do CIV and NPA policies, do they? (Hey here's a thought -- scrap them both. Kevin stated it was "weird" when he noted that he agreed with Eric on one thing: that policy must apply to all editors equally. It was an important cognition. By scrapping CIV and NPA, there can no longer be uneven enforcement. And that is the basis of Eric's complaint, and this case. The formerly contentious, unending debate ends. What say you!?) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 11:41, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

@Kevin Gorman: "What will effect my behavior the most in the future will have been the flood of comments I've received, both on and offwiki, from people I respect pointing out a good number of the flaws in my actions." Since you say there are a "flood" of comments onwiki from "people you respect" that have pointed out your fawed actions, it s/b very easy for you to produce diffs as examples of that. Let's see you do that. (Oh, did you delete or archive them? Or were those from "people didn't respect"?) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 00:41, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Statement by Georgewilliamherbert

This is an extremely painful case on several levels. I believe that, despite sanity having somewhat restored itself, Arbcom should accept.

Reason one for acceptance is apparent consequence - though I have not contacted Eric offwiki, it appears that this caused his retirement. Even if we accept purest of motives and sincerest of regret by the admin in question, driving a high profile editor away from the site for anything less than obvious glaring violations of policy deserves scrutiny. Though there is some dispute, there is significant challenge to the idea that there was in fact any violation of policy or community trust on Eric's behalf.

Reason two is that civility matters. It is somewhat jarring that a case of this nature ultimately surfaces with Eric the victim rather than the other way around, but here we are. We here have an excellent case demonstrating that failure to treat other editors in a coegial fashion and respect their different backgrounds and ways of contributing materially damaged the discussion and editors' participation. This is exactly and precisely why civility matters. This is not a case about bad words or bad links; an editor assumed absolutely the worst about anothers participation and reacted abusively.

I am sympathetic that the admin in question understands they erred and are remorseful. I do not want to add insult to injury and drive them into retirement or exile. But this goes beyond expressions of remorse, a trout, or even a minor adminoshment by motion. This was a big one, we all screwed it up. It needs tobe taken seriously.

Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 10:16, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Statement by Jehochman

Editor squabbles that don't involve damage to articles are not a priority for arbitration, in general. It's easy enough to just tell the editors involved to leave each other be, or else you'll issue bans with a summary motion. The concerning issue in this case is abuse by an admin. If it is a one time thing brought on by heated emotions, it can be admonished and forgiven. If there is a pattern of past incidents of a similar nature, that would be worrisome. Giano, can you bring forth evidence of past issues with the admin in question? Jehochman 13:35, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Statement by NE Ent

I too, am disturbed by folks using a real-life (i.e. important) death as a coattrack for Eric and Misplaced Pages's civility policy (lack thereof), round 42. If the Wales talk page squabble was all there was, I'd concur with let's move on. The fly in the ointment is:

• Rfa passed 18 Jan 2014
• Repeated references to Malleus instead of user's real name and current username.
• The comment "here's an absolutely strong argument to be made that blocking him for a years long pattern of personal attacks and incivility is thus preventative." 11 Feb 2014

For a newbie admin to jump headlong into a chronic problem arbcom 2012 wasn't able to put a dent in (Civility enforcement) indicates either a serious lack of judgement or that they were looking for an excuse to go after Eric. NE Ent 15:24, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Re "too few in the community are prepared to make allowances for his being a neophyte administrator,": editors should figure out how Misplaced Pages works before Rfa, not after. NE Ent 10:09, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Kevin Gorman what possibly makes you think this is "supposed to be about three people"? From the initial filing the primary focus of this case has been your poor use of admin tools, apparent subterfuge, and failure to accept criticism for them in a civil and timely manner. Even in "accepting" criticism KG continues to attempt to divert attention from his behavior to others -- admins don't accept that WP:NOTTHEM from blocked users, why should the community accept it from admins, who are supposed to be held to a higher standard of conduct? NE Ent 03:35, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Comment by Resolute

With respect to Georgewilliamherbert's views, this was ultimately a minor fracas that escalated because Eric dishes it out a hell of a lot better than he takes it. There is no great need to delve deep into what was, at worst, a good-faith overreaction by both Eric and Kevin. Eric's decision to leave in a huff was his own, and I have little doubt that he will be back. Giano's attempts to frame this around false dichotomies and appeals to emotion are uncompelling to me. I recommend the committee decline this. Resolute 17:25, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

@Ihardlythinkso - There is a difference between blaming the victim, and playing the victim. Looking at Eric's behaviour on his own talk page in the 'heated debate' that Giano mentions above shows that Eric was freely dishing out vulgar attacks. (Unsurprisingly, Giano chose not to post those, or even make mention in his case request because an honest presentation of Eric's behaviour would have undermined his WP:POINT.) Eric could have simply told Kevin that Kevin's interpretation was wrong and left it at that. Instead, Eric went on the attack - like he always does when people don't kowtow to him. For Eric to then run to ANI and demand a block for personal attacks after that was sheer hypocrisy. Resolute 23:31, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Comment by Hahc21

I originally intended to not comment about this, but I think I should express my views. First, this request should be declined for several reasons:

1. There is nothing to be done about it. Kevin has not done anything allarming enough to warrant a desysop. We all know that nothing good can come out from a heated situation involving Eric Corbett, and we all know that Eric is not going to get banned for what he did, and it will be useless to hand out admonishments that won't work (I'm sorry but that's the truth).
2. Accepting a case, as brad says, would only give unnecessary heat to a situation that should have never reached its current level in the first place. There is nothing valuable to come out from a case regarding what happened.
3. Kevin already recognized that he made some mistakes in how he handled the situation, and that should be enough.

I admit that I am, in principle, aligned with what Kevin though and acted upon. Such situations are extremely delicate, and one must think three times what one is writing before hitting the save button. As somebody said somewhere, real life experiences do not give you leeway to make such comments on delicate matters on Misplaced Pages and walk away with it. I fully agree with such a statement. — ΛΧΣ 18:41, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Comment by Carrite

New administrator pokes badger with stick, badger responds as badgers will do. People yell at new administrator for poking badger, Society For Prevention of Badgers cheers him. Badger shambles off into the bushes, new administrator is smug. Bad feelings all around. Did new administrator learn anything valuable? Doubtful. Is there an ArbCom case here? No. Decline this. Carrite (talk) 19:58, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Comment by DeCausa

Per Resolute and Carrite. Usual Misplaced Pages fare of poking, abrasiveness, petty squabble, poor/rash judgment and huffs ... signifying nothing. Except to the hangers on. The fact that an admin and a prolific editor behave (in either case) arguably badly is one thing. But what is really reprehensible, and what really sours Misplaced Pages is the way others (both sides) stoke up what is a minor incident. That's what really needs to be fixed here. Raising this to an Arbcom issue is a case in point. DeCausa (talk) 21:24, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Comment by Northern Antarctica

While I haven't fully studied the circumstances of this specific case (and don't intend to), I think Eric had a legitimate point in his original comment that Kevin took exception to. I certainly don't think that Kevin's handling of the situation was ideal, but he has admitted as much. Therefore, I don't see a need to further hammer him over it. On the other hand, it could be argued that this situation further demonstrates Eric's failure to respectfully tolerate dissenting positions. I have my doubts on if his retirement will last, and maybe the committee should consider whether it wants to take decisive action now or wind up here again at some point down the road. Northern Antarctica (talk) 00:29, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Re Ihardlythinkso: Eric was named as one of the parties to this case, so I don't see why there is any problem with the notion that he could face scrutiny. It gets tiresome watching you erupt at those who dare to speak out against Eric. Northern Antarctica (talk) 15:34, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Re Leaky caldron: Turning the scrutiny on Eric does not make this a witch hunt. He's one of the parties in this proposed case. Ir's not like he's being dragged into something he wasn't involved in. Northern Antarctica (talk) 15:34, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Re Writegeist: Nobody took Eric down. He voluntarily chose to retire. Northern Antarctica (talk) 21:10, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Re Writegeist: You said: "His methods are corrupt: for the rotten cop, the ends (taking your man down) justify the means (anything goes). That’s the behaviour we’ve seen from Kevin Gorman." So, what does that mean if it doesn't mean that Kevin Gorman took Eric Corbett down? Oh, by the way, it's interesting that you want to take this one incident and make broad generalizations about Kevin, yet you are unhappy with the people who are looking at Eric's established track record. Northern Antarctica (talk) 21:39, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Comment by Drmargi

This is a disgraceful situation all around. Was Kevin heavy-handed in his handling of this? Of course he was, which he has acknowledged, repeatedly. Has Kevin learned from this? I think so. Sadly, too few in the community are prepared to make allowances for his being a neophyte administrator, and are quick to judge, but slow to forgive. More to the point, what was Eric's excuse? This is yet another example of his penchant for firing with no concern for the consequences of his actions, then refusing to accept responsibility for what he says or does. His comments were unnecessary, contributing nothing to the discussion, but precipitating everything that followed. Moreover, the diva exit is the latest of many; he'll be back. We all know that. This needs to be declined with all haste; let's not continue to let Giano et.al stir the pot needlessly, creating more unnecessary strife. --Drmargi (talk) 01:19, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

@Johnuniq, with all due respect, nothing in my comments require correction. Perhaps the tools include a special set of glasses for reading subtext and editor intentions that I lack, but I simply don't see the intentionality you attribute to Kevin. Moreover, I find your "I am right and you are wrong" stance troubling, particularly coming from an admin, from whom I would expect at least an attempt at being objective as well as open to the opinions of others. I'd suggested that your level of involvement with Eric has colored your perspectives to the point you can't view Kevin's actions without bias. On the other hand, I have no skin in this game. I have had no involvement with any of the three major players here (Giano being #3), and can view this situation more objectively as a result. There is plenty of blame to go around in this sad situation and two editors who both made mistakes. The difference is in how they handled them: Kevin recognized his errors, and Eric laid down an ultimatum, then flounced off for the umpteenth time, followed by the usual round of frenzied activity designed to lure him back. Ultimata always end badly, and he made the choice to issue one in full knowledge of what the consequences would likely be. As for Kevin, he needs support and mentorship, not all this sound and fury signifying nothing, designed to avenge Eric. Finding a better approach is how you keep things like this from happening again, not exacting a pound of flesh. --Drmargi (talk) 18:35, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Comment by Johnuniq

I had intended keeping out of this, but the comment from Drmargi needs correction. Being "slow to forgive" has nothing to do with it because Kevin has not shown any acknowledgment of being in error—Kevin's "I could have handled the situation in a significantly better fashion" is a string of weasel words to say the minimum required to make the fuss go away. That non-acknowledgment is likely to mean that next time Kevin would employ different tactics to achieve his objective, but that's not the point. What about some consideration (per WP:ADMINACCT) of the underlying issue?

Kevin has used careful wording that carries the message that he was right and Eric and Giano were wrong (for example, see "Giano's behavior has been problematic" in Kevin's statement above—I suppose that refers to Giano strongly questioning Kevin's answers to questions on his talk). Even if Giano had been problematic, mentioning that here is just a deflection from the issue which concerns admin accountability.

Anyone can make a mistake, and someone not used to having their authority questioned may stick to their mistake for longer than necessary. That's all fine. My concern, however, is that Kevin has not acknowledged the central issue—does an administrator have a special authority that allows their judgment to overrule ordinary editors? For emergencies such as enforcing WP:BLP, the answer is yes. But nothing that Eric wrote constituted an emergency that required Eric to be threatened with a gigantic box stating unequivocally that Eric had violated BLP, and would be blocked if a repeat occurred (diff). Kevin followed that up with gratuitous insults: "Show some common decency ... Don't gravedance" (diff). That would be fine if Kevin's model of how Misplaced Pages operates were correct, namely that wisdom and authority flows from admins down. I have yet to see Kevin either retract those personal attacks or offer a plausible argument to support them.

Perhaps Kevin was in possession of secret knowledge concerning the recently deceased editor, and that may have justified removing the section from Jimbo's talk (I would have supported its removal due to the trolling nature of the original post). However, an admin needs to patiently and politely explain their actions without relying on "my stick is bigger than yours" to silence their critics. Johnuniq (talk) 10:01, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Comment by Gerda Arendt

Assume good faith. I have nothing more to say.

Eric's integrity does not rely on arbcom. He did not gravedance. (I like the analysis of Drmies.) If I had said so I would apologize. Next time I would ask first: this looks like gravedancing to me, did you mean that?

See also:

WP:NOJUSTICE

COI: I know the contributor of the post to the Jimbo Wales page (but didn't like the post). I am not Eric's maid (see Giano's talk) but perhaps a confidante (see Kevin's talk).

I think Giano worded the sequence of events well.

I learned the term grave dancing in 2012, - that taught me to avoid it, unless in mocking ;)

Assume good faith, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:06, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

@Kevin: You say "I've expressed in multiple places that I see what was wrong with my actions". I have not seen you apologize to Eric. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 00:25, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Comment by J3Mrs

Kevin Gorman completely misread a situation blaming Eric Corbett for something he didn't do and instead of diffusing the situation with an apology Kevin Gorman dug a deeper hole and promised to explain why everything was so secret and conducted off wiki. A satisfactory explanation has yet to appear and Kevin Gorman obviously still thinks Eric Corbett and Giano were problematic, as am I who he banned from his talkpage. Thank you to Giano for raising this, to Georgewilliamherbert who despite his preconceptions has been fair in his summary and Johnuniq. It's been said Eric drives editors away, that's untrue, it's the likes of Kevin Gorman. Are some arbitrators saying admins now have the power to say whatever they like? Seems like it to me. PS I am a "friend", without Eric my contributions would have been so much the poorer. J3Mrs (talk) 17:59, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Comment by Writegeist

The Wales TP thread that began with the IP’s mawkish, guilt-trippy trolling should have been shut down for the reasons Leaky Cauldron states. Instead administrator Gorman seized on it as an opportunity to pillory, threaten, harass and obstruct Corbett when he bluntly exposed the IP's thesis as a crock. Further, Gorman obdurately misrepresented Corbett (and I note Dingley still does) as insulting the dead, a repellent calumny which I’d have thought even a halfwit reading Corbett’s actual words would see as false; also as causing emotional harm to the living.

Gorman’s incompetence is manifest in his misunderstandings, misapplications of policy, and threats of retribution etc. His entrenched battleground mindset, with its brazen, oikish vindictiveness towards Corbett, is also on vivid display. Administrators should be held to higher standards. (They’re not, of course, as we’re seeing here.) Apparently this particular ex-WMF intern doesn't "see much point" in the arbs accepting this case. True. Nice if they opened this eyes for him, but we've all known from the outset that pigs will fly first.

As for the diversionary contributions that leach the toxic narrative of Corbett-as-villain into this page (e.g. Antarctica's "maybe the committee should consider whether it wants to take decisive action now . . ." and Drmargi's assertion that Corbett is responsible for “precipitating” Gorman's abusive shenanigans, not to mention his follow-up that any of us proles—I count myself among those sniffily dismissed in that "et al."—who voice concerns about abusive admin behaviour are mere troublemakers), they’re every bit as creepy and Mintrue-worthy as Dingly peddling Gorman's grave-dancing propaganda.

Oh and I'm not buying Gorman's faux-naïve explanation for addressing his target as Malleus—that little trick fits right into the pattern of vindictiveness: "Look everyone, it's him again! That scum with the rapsheet of a bazillion busts! Watch me pin this one on the bastard!"

Sure, Gorman’s a rookie cop. He’s also clearly, on the evidence, a rotten cop. His methods are corrupt: for the rotten cop, the ends (taking your man down) justify the means (anything goes). That’s the behaviour we’ve seen from Kevin Gorman. And the arbs are washing their hands? Gosh well there’s a surprise. Writegeist (talk) 18:37, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

@ N Antarctica: I didn't say they did. Writegeist (talk) 21:25, 19 February 2014 (UTC) @ N Antarctica (again): Think. Please. A modus operandi is no less a modus operandi for being unsuccessful. And in this instance, as I thought I'd made clear, but apparently not to you, Gorman's odious (and bungled) methods were deployed to bring about numerous self-evident objectives, namely to impugn Corbett's integrity, humanity and probity, to denigrate his character, to smear, belittle, and outlaw him, and to pin trumped-up charges on him. That is, to bring him down. Writegeist (talk)

Comment by semi-retired Dennis Brown

Salvio is about as spot on in his assessment as you could be. Kevin would serve himself and Misplaced Pages best by sincerely apologizing, as he is held to a higher standard and the mistakes he made were pretty basic ones. Humble pie is good for the soul, and often it is best to ignore the flaws of another when your own mistakes are much greater. Then a formal admonishment would be unnecessary, in my opinion. Eric's actions weren't perfect, but the gist of what he said was pretty much on target. Considering the totality of the circumstances, I didn't see Eric's reactions as unusual as some might think. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 16:25, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Comment by Sagaciousphil

I am appalled that it looks as if this is about to be swept under the carpet with no action or admonishment directed towards Kevin Gorman. He deliberately set out to goad Eric Corbett at the first opportunity he found. The initial comment made by Eric in response to the IP was neither inaccurate nor uncivil. Kevin then attempted to justify his actions by claiming to have all sorts of “secret” information at the same time continuing to exacerbate the situation. I note that he still proudly displays his congratulatory barnstars yet he has concealed everything else regarding this deplorable situation in the archives. This includes his “final statement” in which his considered wording says: “ … my belief that that thread needed killed …” - hardly appropriate well thought out wording when making a statement about a thread started about suicide. He also accused Eric of “driving editors away” - again Kevin is totally inaccurate in this. I have always found Eric a pleasure and delight to work with. On the other hand, Kevin’s actions and attitude comes across as heavy handed, vindictive and, in this instance wholly wrong - especially from an Admin. At the very least he should be severely admonished while also hoping that Eric would be willing to accept the most fulsome of apologies from him. SagaciousPhil - Chat 17:29, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Comment by Writ Keeper

While I'm glad that Kevin has admitted at least some problems with his own actions (and probably am too late to the party in any event), the two things that really trouble me are this: one, Kevin said that he had consulted with other, more experienced admins before acting; that's generally a good thing, but here, it disturbs me that none of those he consulted came up with a better idea. Indeed, it kind of sounds like these advisors put him up to this. But that's just my speculation, and as we don't know who they were, Arbcom is probably not equipped to handle that. The second thing, which is one that I really do wish Arbcom would take on, is the fact that Kevin invoked BLP, and particularly the AE sanctions around BLP, to make his sanctions on Eric "stick". For my part, I can't see any plausible way that Eric's original comments are in any way a BLP violation, as he said nothing about the subject of the thread. The (mis)use of BLP and AE sanctions to make one admin's actions stick and exempt them from the usual processes of review is cynical, misguided, and (to me) deeply arrogant, and I think that, if nothing else, it alone warrants some kind of response from Arbcom. Admin authority is enough as it is; apparently calculated maneuvers to further increase one admin's authority without cause needs something. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 17:50, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Comment by Harry Mitchell

Arbs, are you really going to let an admin get away with what is the single most absurd interpretation of one of your rulings (and that title has plenty of competition) I've ever seen? This is squarely within your remit as it concerns BLP special enforcement and the idiotic conduct of an admin—precisely the kind of conduct for which the admin corps as a whole takes so much stick. If Kevin's action is allowed to pass without so much as a bat of an eyelid from ArbCom, then he will probably never realise why his actions were so problematic, and no doubt I'll be receiving a template soon for my use of the word "idiotic". To do nothing would be to completely renounce your responsibility as the only body capable of enforcing the policy on admin accountability. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:52, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Comment by JzG

I believe the appropriate sanction here is a vigorous trout-slapping. Rules be damned, that was dickish, from both parties. I've had the death of my sister exploited by another user in retaliation for stopping a POV-push, that kind of thing can make you feel physically sick.

Addendum: as it happens, Kevin is involve din something else where an OTRS ticket came in. He could not have been more helpful. So I don't think he's evil, and I am sure that Eric isn't. Maybe WP:TEA instead of WP:TROUT. Who knows. Guy (Help!) 00:32, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Comment by Robofish

I just have to observe the irony here that the various comments by users above contain stronger personal attacks than were made by either of the parties in this dispute. If they deserve blocking/admonishing, then most of those commenting above deserve blocking/admonishing as well. Urge ArbCom to recognise this as a fuss about nothing and reject it. Robofish (talk) 00:02, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Comment by DangerousPanda

Here's my motion:

1. Kevin is admonished for reading too quickly, and taking an unfortunate amount of time recognizing that
2. Eric is admonished for issuing ultimatae
3. Everyone who was suckered into this dramathread is admonished simply for being suckered in (and we all deserve it)
4. I'm admonished for pointing out the obvious.

DP 00:20, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Clerk notes

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

• Recuse. I just made a minor edit to correct an obvious typo. Otherwise no more.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:15, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
• Recuse. --Rschen7754 21:17, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
• Recuse I feel strongly about this matter. — ΛΧΣ 23:03, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
• Just noting that I will not be recusing and that with the three arbitrator recusals and two inactives five votes to accept or decline are a majority. Ks0stm 16:06, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Confirming Ks0stm's note above. This request is now mathematically impossible to accept. As it has been open for more than 48 hours, it can be archived as declined by the next available clerk. Carcharoth (talk) 00:49, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Kevin Gorman—Eric Corbett: Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter <0/5/3/0>

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

• recuse Beeblebrox (talk) 23:47, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
• Recuse I've interacted significantly with Kevin regarding WikiPR, to a degree where I feel I should recuse. NativeForeigner 02:27, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
• Recuse, as I've promised to do in all things related to Eric Corbett. However, I will note that I'm not recusing because of anything to do with Kevin Gorman, so if something like this ever happens again, not involving Eric, I will very likely vote to accept. --Floquenbeam (talk) 04:23, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
• Decline. A trout-slapping all around is in order, especially to Kevin—there's value in knowing when your actions are only going to exacerbate the issue, especially if your claim is per BLP. No statements bring up a serious pattern of problematic behavior outside of this incident, so opening a case seems premature. I would hope that Kevin does learn from this kerfluffle. In response to Georgewilliamherbet's statement, Eric leaves Misplaced Pages all the time; other editors storm off around arb cases all the time. That shouldn't have any bearing on accepting the case. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs 13:48, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
• Decline expeditiously. Every aspect of this situation is unfortunate, but it is undesirable to publicize it further, and there is little value we can add. (Also, as a reminder, casenames should be neutral and non-argumentative.) Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:18, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
• Decline per David Fuchs and Newyorkbrad. No-one will forget what happened here in a hurry, but it is not something that should be escalated. The actions of several here (including Kevin) were not ideal in such a charged situation, but I'm not prepared to go further than that. It would be better for people to move on as I would hope we all have better things to be doing. Carcharoth (talk) 09:08, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
• Both parties are at fault, here, in my opinion.

  Now, while I agree with the gist of Eric's remark (a person feeling depressed should always seek professional help), I think the way he phrased it was highly unfortunate and I do understand why Kevin felt he needed to act; his actions were ill-advised, yes, but had the best possible intentions. The most problematic part of this kerfuffle, for me, is what happened afterwards: Kevin made a personal attack on Eric and, when this was pointed out to him, he not only refused to apologise but actually doubled down on the attacks. Now, everyone has, at one time or another, put his foot in his mouth; that's not a big deal. What's important, however, is to acknowledge that and apologise. Saying I find laughable the idea that anyone should apologize to Eric over a perceived personal attack is unacceptably arrogant and is not the kind of behaviour I'd like to see in an admin.

  Then again, Eric is hardly blameless in all this: in addition to his inappropriate remark, he needlessly inflamed this dispute and his "I'll retire unless Kevin's blocked" is just sad.

  On balance, however, I find Kevin's conduct more problematic, in that we was acting as an administrator. That said, I don't believe a case would be helpful and so my vote is to decline this request, though I do support a motion admonishing Kevin for conduct unbecoming. Salvio 13:52, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

• I largely agree with Salvio, but believe we should take care of the motion prior to declining the case. Kevin's behavior in this instance served to inflame the situation, and is not in line with what we should expect from an administrator. I hope it can be chalked up to inexperience, but we should be clear it can't happen again. Seraphimblade 20:58, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
• Decline per my colleagues, particularly David Fuchs, Newyorkbrad, and Carcharoth. I agree with Salvio's analysis of this situation, but do not see a motion as particularly necessary. T. Canens (talk) 08:15, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Future Perfect at Sunrise - Involved and AdminAcct

Initiated by Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) at 11:22, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Involved parties

• Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), filing party
• Future Perfect at Sunrise (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

• WP:ANI
• User talk:Furure Perfect at Sunrise

Statement by Anthonyhcole

An IP editor added a comment, supported by diffs, critical of the candidate to Misplaced Pages talk:Requests for adminship/Piotrus 3. The comment was not off-topic, vandalism or a personal attack - discussion of a user's conduct or history, with diffs, is not a personal attack when done in the appropriate forum - so I can see no justification per WP:TPG or WP:NPA for the comment's removal. The IP may have a valid reason for not identifying their account, if they have one. But reasonable people may and do disagree on the comment's appropriateness.

A succession of editors removed and restored the comment over the next two days (four different editors removing and seven restoring). A request for intervention was lodged at ANI. User:Future Perfect at Sunrise removed the comment and fully protected the talk page.

I have asked FPaS in the ANI thread and on his talk page to explain how reverting the page to his preferred version and then protecting it is not a breach of WP:INVOLVED and he has declined to discuss it and banned me from his talk page.

I have no prior history with FPAS or the RfA candidate that I am aware of. I'm just concerned that an admin used his tool while involved and will do so again if he's not given appropriate guidance. Perhaps I'm wrong; if so, I'd appreciate guidance. And I'm concerned that FPAS hasn't answered my repeated requests for an explanation, per WP:ADMINACCT. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 17:36, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Floquenbeam's and Tarc's comments have persuaded me. The IP is highly probably a ban-evading sock and in that charged setting, and given the irrelevance of its contribution to the final outcome of the RfA, there was no point in extending the benefit of any slim doubt to the IP. I'm sorry it took so long for me to see that and for wasting everybody's time and adding to the candidate's and FPaS's stress. I shall now slink away and self-flagellate for a while. Do with this RFAR what you will. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 19:39, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Just to be clear: there is no doubt FPaS acted while involved. None. But in this case the removal of that comment from that talk page was so obviously the right thing to do that WP:IAR was appropriate. That "obvious rightness" is clear to me now - but a few hours ago, until Floq's vandalism analogy and Tarc's "bring order to a tension-filled RfA", it was not. And it is still not clear to other reasonable, good-faith, unbiased editors here and at ANI.

Unlike Vercrumba, who has a picture of Stalin on his user page, I and many others opposing FPaS's action were not motivated by partisan sentiment, but by concern for the very poor behaviour and low competence of too many of our admins, and by FPaS's apparent disregard for consensus and contemptuous treatment of his fellow editors who disagreed with him.

When an admin acts while involved, against the express view of a majority of involved editors in good standing, in a highly charged situation, they need to be polite. If those he is overruling do not immediately get why IAR is appropriate, the admin should be patient. During this affair, FPaS has been appalling in his dealings with others. If this behaviour is part of a general pattern in his treatment of others with whom he disagrees, we still have a problem admin. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 01:42, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

NE Ent, before Mike Godwin, Louis Brandeis said, "If there be time to expose through discussion the falsehood and fallacies, to avert the evil by the processes of education, the remedy to be applied is more speech, not enforced silence." There was no time to expose through discussion any falsehood or fallacies in the IP's case (and by the time FPaS turned up the RfA outcome was inevitable). Removal was the right thing to do, under the circumstances. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 02:16, 14 February 2014 (UTC) Added parenthesis 15:49, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Statement by Future Perfect at Sunrise

This is getting stupid. I came to that page as an entirely uninvolved administrator, having seen a request at ANI to stop an edit war. Unlike virtually everybody else in the edit-war I had no dog in the fight over that RfA (if anything, I am well known to have been historically critical of the RfA candidate in question, and would personally have agreed with much of what the sock IP was saying). I saw the edit-war and resolved to protect the page, regularly, on the version I found it in at that moment – which was the one with the sock posting removed. While I was preparing to press the protect button, I noticed that somebody had put in yet another revert, beating me to it by seconds. I therefore resolved to use my admin discretion and do what I had originally – and without any doubt legitimately – meant to do, i.e. protect the version I had been meaning to protect. To do that, I made another revert before protecting. Per the protection policy, since "protecting the most current version sometimes rewards edit warring by establishing a contentious revision, administrators may also revert to an old version of the page predating the edit war if such a clear point exists". This is exactly what I did – the version before the edit-war being the version from before the sock IP posted its rant.

This version also happened to be the version I was convinced was the one that is in line with policy. There cannot be any reasonable doubt that the IP's posting was made in breach of either WP:BAN or WP:SCRUTINY, and in that preceding edit-war I had seen no rational, policy-based argumentation being brought forward against this obvious point. In that sense there was no "disagreement between users in good standing" to be taken seriously – those who kept reinstating the post did so not out of any policy-based consideration, but either because they simply liked the message or out of some vague impulse of "not censored". Anthonyhcole and some others have been repeating ad nauseam that the IP "may have a valid reason for not identifying their account". This is in direct, obvious contradiction to WP:SOCK, but these editors have doggedly refused to listen whenever this has been explained to them, to an extent that crosses the line into disruptive WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT behaviour.

Obviously, I did explain my actions immediately upon them becoming the object of discussion . Anthonyhcole's complaints over WP:ADMINACCT are thus bogus. "Accountability" doesn't mean I'm obliged to respond to perpetual badgering and to requests for repeats of explanations ad infinitum simply because somebody doesn't like the explanations I gave. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:50, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Statement by Leaky Caldron

In addition to WP:INVOLVED I request that Arbcom. consider the Admin's interpretation of policy WP:SOCK / WP:ILLEGIT and their general interactions WP:ADMINACCT / WP:CIVILITY.

I was involved in the RfA and subsequent ANI discussion concerning the submission of a lengthy argument by an IP against the candidate. I had already !voted when the material was added, I was not aware of the EEML saga and took the contribution at face value. It was well written, formatted and fully supported by diffs. It is policy that IPs can edit except for documented exceptions such as RfA voting. RfA Talk IS NOT an exception. I reinstated it with the edit summary "(....you do not have permission, the editor has identified and per WP:TPO I object to it being removed without discussion)". Although I was later proved incorrect about the contributor having identified, I would make the same reversion again in the same circumstances given the lack of discussion with the poster and the obvious objections to it being removed. WP:TPO seems clear on this point. The Admin. has claimed policy support for his decision to delete the material in WP:SOCK, specifically WP:ILLEGIT "Editing project space": "Undisclosed alternative accounts should not edit policies, guidelines, or their talk pages; comment in Arbitration proceedings; or vote in requests for adminship, deletion debates, or elections". The Admin claims that "Obviuosly that also goes for editors choosing to edit logged-out without disclosing their link to their prior edit history (whether that prior edit history be itself through IPs or an account)." This exchange can be seen in the diffs towards the bottom of this link .

I cannot find any basis in policy for the interpretation and justification given by the Admin. Unless clear and incontrovertible evidence shows a posting to be from a banned or blocked user we cannot just delete stuff we disagree with. Unsubstantiated edit summaries such as "(rv, obviously a statement by some banned troll sock)", while comically blunt, are guaranteed to provoke an adverse reaction from editor's who prefer evidence rather than rhetoric. Accuracy, effective communication and evidence is a minimum requirement for Admins. making controversial edits.

WP:ILLEGIT does not preclude IPs editing the Talk Page at RfA in the list of prohibited areas. It expressly lists voting at RfA, but not adding to the RfA Talk Page and I believe that there is good reason for that. The Admin. with the following edit dismissed that argument thus: "Sigh. I didn't expect anybody would sink so low into wikilawyering. With this, you have finally lost any claim to being taken seriously here. Learn this: on Misplaced Pages, we read policy texts for their intent, not for their letter. Now go away, I'm no longer interested in having any discussion with you." Edit summary: "end of discussion". This brings me immediately to another issue that the Admin. should be held accountable for, namely the blatant lack of civility in their dismissive, derogatory response. Civility is an absolute stated requirement of WP:ADMINACCT. In this and other examples throughout this discussion the Admin. has demonstrated a single minded and off-hand style of dealing with any challenges made to their decision. In my opinion it has gone beyond acceptable levels of cut and thrust argument and he has descended into aggressive and hostile defence of his position including undisguised personal attacks on an editor simply pointing out documented policy and requesting clarification.

@ ThemFromSpace This isn't about retrospective "I told you so". It's about various Admin. actions at the time. There is no reason to believe that the IP has or should have been scrutinised as part of some fishing expedition to prove that the guesswork used at the time was correct or not. Against policy to do so I imagine. Leaky Caldron 19:47, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Statement from MONGO

Concur that reasonable people might disagree as to the merits of the IP posting at the Rfa in question. My impression is that since making what could easily be construed as a wise admin decision, Future Perfect at Sunrise has been subjected to harassment, inquisition style questioning and badgering which indicates that those engaged in such behavior must either have other deeper reasons for this behavior or they are simply bored and this is how they get their kicks. The amusing part about it to me is that not only did they see no problem with aiding and abetting a throw away IP account that could easily be argued was simply trying to misuse the Rfa process to settle a score, but that when an administrator tried to make that Rfa less acrimonious, these same enablers proceed to hound and harass the admin. That is as clear a definition of cyberbullying as can be found.--MONGO 18:53, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Statement by Tarc

It is rather obvious that the IP user we're talking about is not a legitimately "new" user, that they are clearly falling under the "avoid scrutiny" part of WP:ILLEGIT, so the removal was perfectly valid. I read not a lick of what was actually posted, and have never had a thing to do with the EEML situation, the problem here is simply that we shouldn't be allowing scrutiny-avoiding criticism to be entered into an RfA. As a person stands for adminship, they should have the right to rebut criticism and to know exactly who it is coming from. FPaS acted to bring order to a tension-filled RfA, nothing more.

Statement by NE Ent

I'll note I don't share other's divination powers to know whether the disputed content was from a banned editor, a so called anonymous coward, or long term ip editor. Regardless, it was a well crafted political statement -- rather than a rant it appeared to be a well-sourced manifesto intended to scuttle the Rfa, which did in fact not succeed. Since correlation is not causation, assigning causality would be going too far, but its at least plausible FPaS's heavy handed intervention Streisanded the statement into greater prominence; as Mike Godwin said, "The best answer for bad speech is more speech." Had the statement been allowed to remain the candidate could have attempted to address the concerns listed, rather than appearing to be metaphorically hiding between the skirts of the editors repeatedly removing the content and eventually the admin who removed it and temporarily protected the page.

Nonetheless, although the admin action was counterproductive, it in itself is not sufficient grounds for ArbCom scrutiny -- but what came after is.

I don't see FPaS's statements as adequate because they're not coherently cogent. In paragraph one they claim no editorial involvement -- they say they were simply going to protect the wrong version but add some convoluted I didn't inhale defense saying they "had no dog in the fight" but their revert to a preferred version doesn't really count because that's the first version they saw; describing the statement as "rant" indicates a strong editorial position. Then in paragraph two they say removing the content was in line with policy, which contradicts the whole convoluted paragraph one.

Personally, I would expect a tool using administrator not merely to "do what is right," but to have a logically coherent reason in line with policy for the doing, and to be able to succinctly and civilly explain those reasons.

Uncle Ben famously said With great power comes great responsibility, and the current written WP:Administrators policy claims "Administrators should strive to model appropriate standards of courtesy and civility to other editors." This is backed by prior ArbCom statements:

• Misplaced Pages editors are expected to behave reasonably, calmly, and courteously in their interactions with other users; to approach even difficult situations in a dignified fashion and with a constructive and collaborative outlook (AC 2008)
• In general, Misplaced Pages's administrators are held to a higher standard of behavior than other users, particularly with regard to principles such as assume good faith and no personal attacks. Administrators are expected to keep their cool and should not use administrator-specific capabilities casually or without thought. They should lead by example and serve as a model of the proper editing behavior to which other users should aspire. (AC 2007)
• Administrators are expected to lead by example and set a standard of engagement for others to follow. (AC 2007)
• All editors deserve to be treated with the utmost of respect by administrators.(AC 2007)

So this case provides AC 2014 with an opportunity to let the community know whether those seven year old statements indicate current policy, or whether Tim Simonite was correct when he wrote in Technology Review "The loose collective running the site today, estimated to be 90 percent male, operates a crushing bureaucracy with an often abrasive atmosphere that deters newcomers who might increase participation in Misplaced Pages and broaden its coverage." NE Ent 20:20, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Vecrumba When you say "this is a waste of time and energy and is symptomatic of the kind of sniping that has caused us to lose more than 30% of active editors ..." what is the antecedent of (what do you mean by) "this"? Who should have acted differently? NE Ent 22:27, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Statement by Vecrumba

It's fair to say that FPaS and I don't always see eye to eye. That said, this is a waste of time and energy and is symptomatic of the kind of sniping that has caused us to lose more than 30% of active editors since our peak in 2007. An ounce of restraint is worth an infinite quantity of mea culpa post-self-flagellation. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 21:42, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

@NE Ent, Anthonyhcole should have inquired rather than accused and then escalated. It's symptomatic of:

• accuse—not inquire,
• presume guilt—not innocence,
• escalate (i.e, "this") on the accused's failure to admit said guilt—not desist when their folly is pointed out.

Anthonyhcole can self-flagellate until the cows come home, the incremental damage is done. WP is an encyclopedia, not a self-deputizing police state. Really, accusations of "censorship" for deleting anonymous IP diatribe? VєсrumЬа ►TALK 23:19, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Statement by Lukeno94

I'm rather disappointed to see that ArbCom are also immediately jumping to the "banned sock" viewpoint, when there is categorically no evidence this is a banned user. None whatsoever. Now, whether this user is violating WP:ILLEGIT is another argument, and one that can be made without jumping to unfounded conclusions; but Floquenbeam, you have unfortunately jumped to said conclusion. It's pretty clear to me that FPaS did violate WP:INVOLVED, but it's better to leave this sorry case in the past, rather than trying to drag it up again - it's clear no one is going to get sanctioned from this. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 23:18, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

General observation by Resolute

I don't know if FPaS specifically cited a belief that the IP was a banned editor, but if he was operating under that premise, then removing the content before protecting would effectively be one administrative action and not a violation of involved. One might instead question, as Likeno94 does, whether that would have been a good assumption in this case, but it would still moot the original question of INVOLVED. Also, given I am not lashing out at FPaS, and since I am also an admin, I am obviously just part of the cabal as certain agitators involved in this dispute intent on poisoning the well will no doubt argue. Resolute 03:15, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Statement by Andy Dingley

I've taken no part in the RfA and make no comment on that. However in just the immediate section beneath that ANI, we have this: WP:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive828#Betacommand-related_drama.3F, an issue that I didn't raise there, but I've been involved in for some time. Future Perfect is behaving in just the same way, stonewalling a discussion amongst a number of GF editors by the instant blanket deletion and blocking of another editor who is posting material relevant to an SPI, but doing so by socking (Given the harassment and attacks that follow any involvement in that SPI, I can understand why an editor might choose to do so).

The issue here is Betacommand's return by socking. Future Perfect, long a supporter of Betacommand, is acting in a way to prevent discussion of this. He is acting against the direct wishes of multiple editors (two of us make it very clear in that ANI post). Future Perfect is using admin tools, including threats of immediate blocks against long-established GF editors, to strong-arm a discussion against other editors. This is precisely the sort of behaviour admins should not follow.

As noted by Luke above, this editor is almost certainly a sock but there is zero evidence presented to indicate that they're a banned editor, despite being regularly described as such. The circular logic is also applied that they must be a sock because they're blocked, and that they're now blocked because they're a sock.

I see these two issues, and why these two issues matter at ANI, why they matter here, and why they're still not made moot by a closed RfA, as being about Future Perfect and their use of admin powers, not about the RfA or the SPI specifically. Andy Dingley (talk) 03:21, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks to Carcharoth for their comments. I'm familiar with WP:EVADE. What I would like to do here is to "take ownership" of the contended comments, so that I can raise diffs at a Betacommand SPI (an SPI I've already raised myself) where there is otherwise no chance of me finding the time to search out these diffs.

See:

• User_talk:Andy_Dingley#Can_we_get_a_few_things_straight.3F
• User_talk:Andy_Dingley#Final_warning
• User_talk:Andy_Dingley#Note

Future Perfect evidently doesn't support that part of WP:EVADE. He threatens to block me on sight for even trying it. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:01, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Statement by Trevj

I agree that this has probably escalated too far, and I've neither read the posted material nor had time to investigate and take part in the actual RfA itself. However, the fact remains that the administrative actions have been questioned. Fut.Perf.'s statement (noting the "agree with much of what the sock IP was saying") seems basically fine. What appears (slightly) problematic to me is the combined reversion, protection and deletion. WP:PREFER refers to "a clear point" in the edit history, although this policy seems to refer specifically to content disputes in mainspace. An analysis of the page history (which could not be undertaken quickly in such detail during the actual warring) shows ambiguity regarding a "clear point", as depicted in a graph showing page size vs. time. The splitting out to a separate page seemed to be a reasonable compromise during the discussion, and I still fail to fully understand how WP:SOCK justifies deletion of Misplaced Pages talk:Requests for adminship/Piotrus 3/Statement by 153.19.58.76 (edit | project page | history | links | watch | logs), being within Project talk space. WP:SCRUTINY refers to confusion/deception (rather than inappropriate comments) but and there are potentially legitimate privacy issues to also consider. While Fut.Perf. probably wasn't actually involved, the question is whether a reasonable observer could perceive involvement. I hope there aren't too many hard feelings generated by this statement, and would like to reiterate that I think this has probably escalated too far. -- Trevj (talk · contribs) 15:26, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Statement by Themfromspace

The IP has been scrutinized by checkusers, yes? This is likely a sock and a confirmation should put the matter to rest. Also noting that the IP comes from Poland, which is evidence that this is probably somebody who knows Piotrus from Eastern European articles. ThemFromSpace 19:39, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Statement by Cla68

If you all could use some information on Future Perfect at Sunrise's (FPaS) history in, perhaps, similar situations, here is a link to some, but not all, evidence of some past issues. FPaS was (briefly) desysopped in the past because of some concerns over his actions as an administrator in a dispute. I have had some negative interactions with FPaS in the past, which are documented here. Cla68 (talk) 11:34, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Clerk notes

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

• With two of fourteen arbitrators currently inactive, and with six declines, this request is now mathematically impossible to accept. As it has been open for more than 48 hours, it can be archived as declined by the next available clerk. Carcharoth (talk) 00:42, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Future Perfect at Sunrise - Involved and AdminAcct: Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter <1/6/0/1>

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

• Decline. I don't need to wait for further statements, this is clear cut. The ridiculous edit warring on that page is depressing, though not surprising, and "trouts all around" wouldn't be taken onboard by anyone, and "blocks all around" would perhaps be overkill, so I'll not suggest either one. Re: INVOLVED: This isn't what INVOLVED refers to, any more than an admin reverting vandalism and then protecting the page would. This is an obvious banned sock, stirring up trouble. Re: ADMINACCT: FP@S explained his actions pretty clearly, I believe meeting the requirements of ADMINACCT. Perhaps more patience with people questioning him is in order, but I know that's easier said than done. Look, if we're going to let obvious banned editors avoid scrutiny and post 58k of accusations against an old enemy on the talk page of an already contentious RFA, then we might as well throw WP:SOCK out the window. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:44, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
• Decline Per Floq and the fact that it is basically moot at this point. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:07, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
• Am unlikely to accept a case as framed, but am not comfortable with an immediate decline either as some of the issues around WP:SOCK and WP:ILLEGIT need airing. Andy Dingley is correct to point out a similar issue. That sock has left messages on my talk page and I've been uncomfortable with the reversions being made there (I have a section on my talk page where I intend to note the reversions for the record, along with an earlier set of reversions). There was also a recent case where an editor started a WP:ARCA request, and was then blocked as a sock and the WP:ARCA request reverted. What can help in these cases is for extra checks and balances. For those reverting the socks to ask for a second opinion if the reversion is questioned. What can also help is if an editor in good standing looks at the edits made and is willing and able to 'take over' the argument, though only if that can be done within policy (i.e. leave out personal attacks and leave out casting of aspersions without diffs). If the socks make valid points, then the risk is that those reverting them will end up looking silly at best, and implicit in a cover-up at worst. By all means revert and block the socks, but don't ignore valid arguments if those are being made. As far as this incident goes, more patience from admins with those asking for accountability may have been needed, but equally those asking for admin accountability need to not escalate needlessly. Carcharoth (talk) 07:50, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Salvio, rather than opening a case to look at possible evidence, why not suggest (or even direct) that an RfC/U or admin review page be opened? I think you are right that some of these matters need looking at, but why skip straight to a case? I am going to provisionally decline in favour of those with concerns expressing them together at a appropriate conduct review page. Carcharoth (talk) 23:43, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
• Decline. Doesn't appear to be an ADMINACCT issue here, and the questions of where SOCK and ILLEGIT cross, and more generalized than an admin's conduct. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs 16:52, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
• Comment I'm not nearly so quick to jump to the viewpoint that no case is required. At the very least this is highly suboptimal. It's a case where many issues have intersected. I'll look at it more in the next day or two, but I at the very least agree with Carcharoth, and I am somewhat bothered by the flexibility of involved/uninvolved in this case. NativeForeigner 02:33, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
• FPaS' conduct during Piotrus' RFA and when questioned afterwards does not, in my opinion, warrant a case: as far as I'm concerned, his actions were reasonable (it's quite evident that the person behind the IP was either evading scrutiny or evading a block – also, while I haven't reviewed the CU logs to see if the IP was checkusered, I'd like to point out that doing so would not have been fishing: when it's evident an account or IP is a sock, running a check on it to see who's the master is perfectly fine) and his explanation satisfied WP:ADMINACCT. Nonetheless, in light of what has been submitted during this case request, I believe that a more in-depth review of FPaS' general attitude to others seems appropriate. Now, it's quite possible there is nothing there worthy of notice and, if that's the case, this case will be summarily dismissed after the evidence phase closes, but, as I said, in my opinion, a review of FPaS' general conduct is appropriate. Therefore, I vote to accept. Salvio 10:35, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
• Decline. I do not see how turning this one-day's wonder into a month-long arbitration case would benefit anyone. As a general observation, I wonder whether it would make sense for disputes concerning what should or shouldn't remain on an RfA page to be resolved by the bureaucrats. Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:30, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
• Decline, with nothing really to add to the above. Seraphimblade 05:38, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
• Decline. T. Canens (talk) 08:23, 20 February 2014 (UTC)