Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Nightscream/Evidence

Niemti
, I have gone on record more than once as being of the opinion that letting Niemti back into the community was a mistake, and I have little doubt that he will edit war and/or cause other disruption again in the future. That being said, nothing he did excuses NS's misuse of admin tools and edit warring. That is what this case is about and that is why I did not include Niemti as a party. I didn't initially include Salvidrim either, but he chose to add himself. I don't even really consider myself an "involved" party. I don't have any sort of long-running feud with NS but the filing party is automatically considered involved. It takes a minimum of two users to edit war, it is never just one person's fault, and an admin should never use their tools to gain the upper hand in a content dispute regardless of how poorly other parties involved in the same dispute have behaved. So, yes, Niemti is a problematic user and I wouldn't be surprised if he ended up before the committee himself at some point, but it is my opinion that his actions are not particularly relevant to this case except as part of the evidence that NS engaged in an edit war. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:23, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I do not think Niemti and Nightscream ever interacted before. This is not a two-sided conflict. There are many other people involved, as should be clear from statement by Nightscream and Evidence by Beeblebrox. Nightscreem did exactly the same before with other users . What's the problem? Nightscream said before at ANI: I have not engaged in any "edit warring". Edit warring does not refer to the reversal of clear and unambiguous policy violations, and presenting an opinion as a fact is indeed such a violation (and so on). He either did not read instruction or "refused to get the point", more probably the latter. Either way, this is a problem for an administrator.My very best wishes (talk) 23:50, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Fair enough! BOZ (talk) 00:15, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I'll add that I agreed that Niemti is a problem, but he's not part of this problem and is mostly irrelevant to Nightscream's case. ☺ ·  Salvidrim!   ·  &#9993;  17:06, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I think a more troubling episode (compare to the editing over protection) was improper blocking of Rtkat3 when involved (see Evidence by Beeblebrox). The argument by Nightscreem? Yes, but they were all bad. If Arbs want to expand this case and consider behavior by other people from statement by Nightscream (Alansohn, Niemti and Rtkat3), they can do it. One should probably ask drafting arbitrator. My very best wishes (talk) 17:12, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
 * For the moment, I'm inclined not to add Niemti and the others as parties, although, if Nightscream wants to refer to their conduct, he's free to do so; I don't exclude a priori the possibility of adding other parties, but there has to be a good reason. Salvio Let's talk about it! 23:22, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Nightscream made his Evidence statement now. Key question: does this his statement demonstrate that he now understands the policies ("uninvolved administrators" and edit waring) and ready to comply? Honestly, I would recommend him making a significantly shorter and very different statement.My very best wishes (talk) 17:39, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
 * For example, here Nightscream made four edits, which represented a policy violation. Since this came to arbitration, he should simply tell: "yes, this[], this[] and this [] my edits were a violation of such and such policies, because ..." and promise to refrain from repeating the same in the future. His current Evidence statement shows a very different approach. It may be not too late to fix the statement... My very best wishes (talk) 20:26, 31 December 2013 (UTC)