Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Nightscream/Workshop

The purpose of the workshop is for the parties to the case, other interested members of the community, and members of the Arbitration Committee to post proposed components of the final decisions for review and comment. Proposals may include proposed general principles, findings of fact, remedies, and enforcement provisions, which are the four types of proposals that can be included in the final decision. The workshop also includes a section (at the page-bottom) for analysis of the /Evidence, and for general discussion of the case.

Any user may edit this workshop page. Please sign all suggestions and comments. Arbitrators will place proposed items they believe should be part of the final decision on the /Proposed decision page, which only Arbitrators and clerks may edit, for voting, clarification as well as implementation purposes.

Template
1)


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

2)


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
3)


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
1)


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
2)


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
3)


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
4)


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Questions to the parties

 * Arbitrators may ask questions of the parties in this section.

=Proposed final decision=

Proposed principles
1) Per WP:INVOLVED: "In general, editors should not act as administrators in cases in which they have been involved. This is because involved administrators may have, or may be seen as having, a conflict of interest in disputes they have been a party to or have strong feelings about. Involvement is generally construed very broadly by the community, to include current or past conflicts with an editor (or editors), and disputes on topics, regardless of the nature, age, or outcome of the dispute."

Per WP:TOOLMISUSE: "Misusing the administrative tools is considered a serious issue. The administrative tools are provided to trusted users for maintenance and other tasks, and should be used with thought. Serious misuse may result in sanction or even their removal." Per WP:NOTPERFECT: ''"Administrators are expected to lead by example and to behave in a respectful, civil manner in their interactions with others. Administrators are expected to follow Wikipedia policies and to perform their duties to the best of their abilities. Occasional mistakes are entirely compatible with adminship; administrators are not expected to be perfect. However, sustained or serious disruption of Wikipedia is incompatible with the status of administrator, and consistently or egregiously poor judgment may result in the removal of administrator status. Administrators should strive to model appropriate standards of courtesy and civility to other editors and to one another.[2][3][4][5]

''Administrators should bear in mind that they have hundreds of colleagues. Therefore, if an administrator finds that he or she cannot adhere to site policies and remain civil (even toward users exhibiting problematic behavior) while addressing a given issue, then the administrator should bring the issue to a noticeboard or refer it to another administrator to address, rather than potentially compound the problem by poor conduct. ''" Beeblebrox (talk) 20:33, 15 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * These three principles are not the only ones NS has not acted in accordance with, but are the most important. Admins who use their tools as weapons in a dispute they are participating in as a content editor are doing it wrong. Beeblebrox (talk) Beeblebrox (talk) 20:33, 15 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:

Misuse of administrative tools and authority
1) The evidence presented indicates that Nightscream has misused his authority and access to administrative tools on multiple occasions. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:07, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * Even NS has acknowledged the older incidents presented were examples of such. Pretty much everyone else who commented saw the recent incidents as a continuation of this pattern. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:07, 16 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:

Edit warring
2) Nightscream has demonstrated a pattern of acting as though the edit warring policy does not apply to his actions if he feels it is obvious that other users involved are incorrect, even if their actions are not within the accepted exemptions to the edit warring policy. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:07, 16 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Awareness of these issues
3)Nightscream has been confronted about such issues in the past and had indicated that he would abide by the involved admin policy in the future, but has failed to do so. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:07, 16 December 2013 (UTC) policy.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

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

Nightscream desysopped
1) For misuse of administrative tools and other conduct unbecoming an administrator, Nightscream is to be desysopped, effective immediately. He may re-apply for adminship through RFA at any time.

Beeblebrox (talk) 00:18, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:
 * This might be necessary, unfortunately. And when I say that, I mean not to imply that Nightscream has anything short of the best intentions for the project. I've been aware for quite some time that he has had issues with edit-warring and misinterpreting the widely accepted threshold for appropriate use of tools, but I also felt that as an administrator, he was willing to acknowledge his mistakes and generally performed well. As I was reading through his full statement, I couldn't help but get the very strong impression that Nightscream is out of touch with present-day standards on Wikipedia. For example, he asserts that simply being an active editor on a specific article does not make somebody "involved" in a dispute with another regular contributor to the same page, and therefore has no bearing on the appropriateness of sysop actions pertaining to them; that may have been a passable explanation in the Wikipedia of 2007, when administrators were held to a much lower standard than they are today, but this is the Wikipedia of 2013 (almost 2014). I'm also dismayed that he thinks a unilateral two-week block of Rtkat3 one whole month after the fact, regardless of the history, is a reasonable reaction to the addition of unsourced content. A better approach would have been the initiation of a community discussion relating to their editing practices (see the dispute resolution project page). I think Nightscream needs to become reaquainted with Wikipedia and recognize how it has evolved in recent times before I can feel comfortable with him continuing to retain the tools. Kurtis (talk) 13:22, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

1RR restriction
2) Due to edit warring on multiple occasions Nightscream is to limit himself to reverting a particular edit or series of edits one time only regardless of time frame in between the addition of the edits. If Nightscream sees an edit they have reverted being restored they are to follow other procedures as detailed at WP:AVOIDEDITWAR instead of reverting again.  This restriction is to lat one year. Nightscream may appeal the restriction after six months. Failure to abide by this restriction will be met with escalating blocks.

Beeblebrox (talk) 00:18, 16 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * I'm not sure I nailed the wording here but I think the intent is clear enough. As some of these issues involved longer periods of time I do not think one revert per 24 hours or even a week is a sufficient remedy. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:18, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
 * While Nightscream has problems with edit warring, they lie more with his ability to discern when he's involved in an edit war than with straight-up 3RR violations; I'm not sure both 1RR and desysopping would be helpful; one or the other would prevent the issues where Nightscream abuses admnisitrative tools in the context of editorial edit wars, because they'd remove either the "admin tools" or "edit warring" from the equation altogether. ☺ ·  Salvidrim!   ·  &#9993;  23:22, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
 * If we're picking one or the other, the misuse of admin tools is a much more serious issue. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:18, 25 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * Given the concerns over Nightscream's failing to properly judge when his actions do or don't fall under the accepted exemptions to edit warring, it might be better here to decide that Nightscream is simply not to claim any exemptions to the EW/3RR rules, and that if he believes another editor is engaging in vandalism, BLP violations, or some other situation that might in principle justify reverting without regard to EW/3RR, he is to report any such problem on a suitable noticeboard rather than try to deal with it himself. Such a remedy could be applied either with or without desysopping.  —  Rich wales (no relation to Jimbo) 05:21, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I think that you're right that that would be more effective than 1RR. I don't think the issue is so much of not being able to count to 3. It's that he apparently isn't able (or at least willing) to discern when exceptions (IAR) are appropriate in practice. If this were a few isolated events or minor occurrences, that would be one thing, admins are human after all, and even may sometimes need to implement policy even when it may appear be unpopular (broader consensus vs local consensus), but NS doesn't seem to understand the various distinctions. - jc37 19:13, 13 January 2014 (UTC)


 * I think the edit warring (seeming dismissal of WP:EW and/or [WP:3RR]] by NS), and the use of tools while involved (seeming dismissal of WP:INVOLVED, not to mention several other things at WP:ADMIN), are both semi-related in practice. NS would seem to take a unilateral approach to WP:IAR. If in his estimation what he is doing is "correct", then everything else falls by the wayside. At times this can include use of tools while involved (blocking and protecting, in particular), edit warring, and even civility in discussion, all of which, I think it is fair to say, at the very least fall under disruptive editing. So besides the remedy of de-sysop, I think something curtailing this a bit would likely be a benefit to the encyclopedia. Even if it's merely an admonishment that IAR isn't carte blanche, and which can lead to NS being blocked for WP:DE. - jc37 18:58, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Template
1) {text of proposed enforcement}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
2) {text of proposed enforcement}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Office of administrator
1) Administrators are trusted members of the community who, after being vetted by the community, have been granted access to a certain set of tools, including the ability to effect blocks and unblocks and to protect and unprotect pages from being edited. Within the boundaries set by policy, administrators are allowed to exercise their discretion in using said tools for the purpose of maintaining the encyclopaedia and protecting its integrity; however, abuse of tools or their repeated misuse may lead to sanctions, up to and including a desysop.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Administrator involvement
2) With few exceptions, editors are expected to not act as administrators in cases where, to a neutral observer, they could reasonably appear involved. Administrators are usually considered involved if: (i) they have participated in an editorial dispute with the editor or (ii) have had significant personal interaction with the editor or with other editors with whom that editor is in dispute or (iii) in an editorial capacity, they have participated in a content dispute affecting the article or related articles within the broader topic. Previous interaction in a purely administrative capacity does not constitute administrator involvement. While there will always be borderline cases, best practices suggest that, whenever in doubt, an administrator should draw the situation to the attention of fellow sysops, such as by posting on an appropriate noticeboard, so that they can provide help.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * Minor tweaks to opening sentence,  Roger Davies  talk 08:20, 11 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Knowledge of policy
3) Administrators are generally expected to know policy and to keep abreast of its developments. However, occasionally ignoring the existence of a policy or of an amendment thereto or interpreting either in a way which is incompatible with how the community currently interpret them may be considered a mitigating or exempting factor, provided the administrator in question is acting in good faith and makes credible assurances that he will change his behaviour to conform to community's standards and expectations. Occasional errors or deviation from community expectations in the interpretation or application of policy are to be expected, and are not incompatible with adminship provided that the admin is willing to accept community feedback when the situation arises, and modify his or her conduct accordingly. However, serious or repeated breaches or an unwillingness to accept feedback from the community may be grounds for the removal of administrative tools.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * I suppose the crunch issue here is not that admins must act to enforce policy they disagree with but that they must not ignore policy when they do act.  Roger Davies  talk 08:25, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree with that; however, what I was trying to say is that there may be cases where an admin is not ignoring a policy in the sense of pretending it's not there but rather he is not aware of it or interprets differently from the rest of the community; in these cases, the admin in question can be said to be misusing his tools, but is doing so inadvertently and that should be taken into account, in my opinion. Salvio Let's talk about it! 19:44, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
 * For clarity, I might change the second paragraph to something like "Occasional errors or deviation from community expectations in the interpretation or application of policy are to be expected, and are not incompatible with adminship provided that the admin is willing to accept community feedback when the situation arises, and modify his or her conduct accordingly. However, serious or repeated breaches or an unwillingness to accept feedback from the community may be grounds for the removal of administrative tools." Seraphimblade Talk to me 14:16, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks, it's much clearer and, so, I have pilfered your wording. Salvio Let's talk about it! 19:44, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment by parties:
 * I agree with this principle in a general sense. Of course no admin is perfect, I have certainly made my own mistakes and have misinterpreted or been ignorant of policy once or twice. And in the older incidents presented I am sure that was what was going on with Nightscream as well. However, I believe the material I presented below in the historical background section is more or less a smoking gun that shows that NS had not just forgotten the details of the involved admin policy but rather was perfectly aware of it and chose to ignore it in these recent incidents. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:10, 13 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:

Nightscream's use of tools while involved
1), an administrator and longtime user, has recently used his tools in an inappropriate fashion twice. The first time, he with whom he had been in a content dispute ( and subsequent ). The second time, he edited an article after it had been fully protected to put a stop to an edit war he had participated in . Both times Nightscream's actions violated the policy on administrator involvement.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * Minor copy edit: "appropriate" to "inappropriate".  SilkTork  ✔Tea time  13:31, 10 January 2014 (UTC) I think the wording could be tightened up, but the essential point is made, and the supporting evidence is supplied. An admin used tools while involved on two distinct occasions.  SilkTork  ✔Tea time  13:40, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the c/e. That was an embarrassing oversight... Salvio Let's talk about it! 14:07, 10 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:
 * Support findings of fact. As about remedies, I think arbitrators should look at Evidence statement by Nightscream and decide. Making two alternatives by Salvio looks to me as a good solution. My very best wishes (talk) 20:40, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Historical background
2) In the past, 's use of the block tool has on three occasions been the subject of noticeboard threads; on each occasion, he was counseled as to the best practices which where followed at the time (Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive405, Administrators' noticeboard/Archive184, Administrators' noticeboard/Archive201). During the course of this case, Nightscream has also made assurances that, if allowed to keep his administrative privileges, he would conform to the current interpretation of the policy in question (see Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Nightscream/Workshop).


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * Though those incidents are from five and four years ago, they deal with the same concerns as this case: that Nightscream uses the block and the protection tools in situations where he is involved. They also indicate that he has previously been given warnings about his behaviour.  SilkTork  ✔Tea time  13:54, 10 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:
 * I am glad to see this here as this was my central point. I did not undertake this lightly, desysopping an admin is not something I want to do and not something I would ever try to do unless I felt it was the best thing for the project and there was no other option. The fact that this has come up again and again over a period of years is exactly what makes it so troubling. At best he is simply not able to understand the policy, at worst he understood it and chose to ignore it. At this point it doesn't really matter which it is, the point is that he has had many previous chances to fix this problem and has not done so. Another promise to do better in the future is simply not a sufficient remedy. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:26, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
 * To your knowledge, have there been issues regarding Nightscream's understanding of WP:INVOLVED between the events linked above from four years ago, and the two recent incidents?  SilkTork  ✔Tea time  19:17, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
 * You know, that's a good question, and as an answer I would direct you to User talk:Jc37/Archive/07. This incident was in 2012. In the discussion NS clearly indicates that he went to another admin because he "didn't want to hear any whiny complaints about being "involved" or "uninvolved".  and then he goes on to say "If those in the community who crow endlessly about admin "involvement" want me to take them seriously, then they're going to have to get off their collective duffs, and stop being so bend-over-backwards passive" and also "if the other admins I go to for assistance are not competent enough to provide it, then I'm not going to bother with those who bloviate about "involvement". " Note how he keeps putting scare quotes around the words involved and uninvolved, showing contempt for the very idea. I didn't submit this as evidence earlier because I had only searched at ANI and this never wound up there. I encourage everyone here to read the entire exchange and see if you think it looks like the innocent remarks of someone who was simply not up to date on the involved admin policy. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:38, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Also see User talk:Daniel Case/Archive 17 1/1/2012-10/4/2012, and User talk:Nightscream/Archive 8 (each user was commenting only on the other's talk page so it is kind of hard to follow) another discussion that appears to be the trigger for the statements provided above, in which NS, seemingly fully aware that he should not act as he is involved, asks Daniel Case for help and seems to get rather upset when it does not take the form he wanted it to. I think these incidents speak to NS attitude, which is that the involved admin policy is an obstacle that stands in his way, not some obscure policy he simply was not fully aware of. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:50, 12 January 2014 (UTC)


 * "Note how he keeps putting scare quotes around the words involved and uninvolved, showing contempt for the very idea." The fact that I put the phrase in quotes has nothing to do with showing "contempt" for the idea. This is just your interpretation, which you're mendaciously passing off as fact. Nightscream (talk) 01:36, 16 January 2014 (UTC)


 * If it makes you feel better I will concede that point as your words, with or without the scare quotes, show your contempt plainly enough. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:24, 16 January 2014 (UTC)


 * No, it does not. That is your interpretation, which you are passing off as a fact. Nightscream (talk) 22:23, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, that is my interpretation. You said that already and I conceded the point, yet you continue to argue it. This discussion looks like it will be purely academic in the very near future, but in any event I didn't make up the fact that you said these things. I would hope that the arbs took the time to read the entire thread and see for themselves, because it is actually more damning than just the excerpts I posted here. You could have made it even easier by actually using the words "I have nothing but contempt for the involved admin policy" but you weren't quite that reckless about it.


 * I don't imagine you really care but for the record I bear you no ill will and sincerely hope that when this is over you will still be a passionate contributor of content. You may actually find it easier to be one without having to worry about the additional rules and higher standards of behavior that admins are subject to. I don't plan to comment here again regardless of what happens next so I will just say best of luck in your future endeavors, whatever they may be. Beeblebrox (talk) 07:20, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

'''"Yes, that is my interpretation. You said that already and I conceded the point". Except that you're trying to have it both ways. You say you're "conceding" it in one breath, but in the next you state it as if it's a fact. It isn't. I did not use the words "I have nothing but contempt for the involved admin policy" because, simply put, I don't have contempt for that policy. You don't know me, you don't know what's in my mind, and never bothered asking me, because you operate under the arrogant belief that the one interpretation that serves your little vendetta is the only one exists, and that conceiving of other possibilities is somehow beneath you, and that dogmatically stating that interpretation as fact, as if your the Pope passing a decree, somehow makes it true. It doesn't. It just makes you a liar, and a rather Orwellian one at that. Nightscream (talk) 18:56, 17 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:

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

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


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * I think it is appropriate that both this and the desysopping remedy are offered simultaneously as the Committee will be seen giving consideration to both options, and members may give explanations if they wish.  SilkTork  ✔Tea time  14:02, 10 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:
 * The admonishment is understood and acknowledged. Nightscream (talk) 22:06, 10 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Every time this has come up in the past, by the end of the discussion NS had been admonished by the community and made a statement or promise like the one above, and yet here we are again. I understand the point about providing a lesser option but the community already tried telling him he was wrong and believing his promises to do better in the future. That approach clearly did not work. Arbcom's role is to "break the back" of persistent problems, not to just repeat the same solutions that already failed. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:32, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment by others:

Nightscream desysopped
1.1) For repeatedly violating the policy on administrator involvement, 's administrative privileges are revoked.
 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * I don't see any other option that makes sense at this point. There are a few admins who manage to also be very active with content editing without running into trouble. Others don't manage the two roles that well. We need active content editors more than we need admins, and I see little hope that NS is willing to rectify this problem on his own or to voluntarily relinquish the tools. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:48, 10 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Revocation of admin tools will not be necessary. My use of the admin tools over the course of the past six years has been mostly positive and constructive, and will continue to be so, if permitted. I will have to be more circumspect in cases like the ones at hand, and I indeed will be. Nightscream (talk) 22:06, 10 January 2014 (UTC)


 * With respect, and this is merely my opinion, but this is something you have said in the past again, and again, as noted by Beeblebrox and others above. At some point this sounds rather similar to an Election promise. Though in this case (paraphrasing): "I promise to not do X if you'll please not sanction me." In this case the same X over and over: In particular, use of the tools while involved.
 * Arbcom may have a lot of warts and bureaucratic procedure and even sediment that has built up over time, but I would argue that something the members aren't is stupid, or blind, for that matter. - jc37 18:58, 13 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:

Template
1) {text of Proposed principle}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
2) {text of Proposed principle}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
1) {text of proposed finding of fact}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
2) {text of proposed finding of fact}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

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

Template
1) {text of proposed remedy}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
2) {text of proposed remedy}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
1) {text of proposed enforcement}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
2) {text of proposed enforcement}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Analysis of evidence
Place here items of evidence (with diffs) and detailed analysis

Template

 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template

 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template

 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template

 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template

 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template

 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template

 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

General discussion

 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others: