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

WP:INVOLVED
Nightscream, I have reviewed the evidence submitted so far and, for the moment, the main issue in this case seems to be that your interpretation of WP:INVOLVED appears to be somewhat out of step with the community's. The current interpretation is that an administrator who has edited an article in his capacity as an editor should not use his tools whenever said article is concerned and that the exceptions to the rule should be strictly construed: blatant vandalism, blatant violations of the BLP policy or other uncontroversial cases such as these (and, when an admin acts while involved, best practices suggest he should start a thread on a noticeboard, asking for outside review), the same goes for editors you've been in a dispute with, even if the action in question is related to a different article. In short, when you start editing an article as an editor, then you can no longer use your tools wrt it or the other editors you've been in a dispute with. There are various reasons. The first is that when you act as an admin, you are supposed to be neutral and to appear to be neutral, which is impossible if you've shown your bias wrt the article or the editor in question. The other is that doing otherwise gives the inappropriate impression that you're using your tools to advance your position, even if that wasn't your intention. Again, there are exceptions: if your edits were all minor (although the expression "minor edits" should be strictly construed as referring to those where you were just reverting vandalism or fixing typos and the like) or if you've only been dealt with an editor in an administrative capacity, then you're not involved for the purposes of the policy. However best practices suggest you should be careful and always err on the side of caution. In short, your interpretation of the relevant policy is, in my opinion, excessively liberal, which is problematic. And, though I have not discussed the case with my fellow arbs yet, my opinion is that they'll agree with this view. For this reason, before proceeding further, I have thought it necessary to start a discussion on the issue with you... Salvio Let's talk about it! 18:33, 26 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Alright, when I read "One important caveat is that an administrator who has interacted with an editor or topic area purely in an administrative role, or whose prior involvements are minor or obvious edits which do not speak to bias", I understood that to mean edits that were not a part of any dispute I personally had with the other editor in question. If you and the Arbitrators here say that this is wrong, then I accept that. I appreciate the clarification, and I'm sorry if I misunderstood that passage. Should you give me the opportunity to continue as an admin, that won't happen again. Nightscream (talk) 19:29, 26 December 2013 (UTC)


 * The problem with that response as I see it is that (as clearly demonstrated by the evidence I provided) you have been repeatedly confronted about your interpretation of the policy and in pretty much every case  you make a statement like this to try and satisfy those concerns. After five years and numerous promises to be more aware and respectful of the policy, you still chose to ignore it.


 * And that is the crux of this case as I see it. I don't believe it is reasonable to expect to anyone to believe you when you say this was just a misunderstanding and you weren't aware of the nuances of the policy because it is easily proven that this is simply not the case. And if the policy has changed somewhat over the course of those years, the onus is on you, the person who kept getting into hot water for not respecting it, to keep up with any changes. Not that the underlying principle as expressed above by Salvio has really changed much in the last few years anyway.


 * The bottom line for me is that I wouldn't have brought this here if I believed it was s imple one-time misunderstanding. This is an admin who was perfectly aware of the rule, perfectly aware of what the community expected of him, and made a choice to just do whatever he wanted anyway.


 * I also find it very telling that up until just now he has persisted in defending his actions. Other members of the community and his peers in the admin corps have pointed out these issues and he has insisted they were wrong and he understood the policy better than they did. One sitting arb says he was wrong and just like that he suddenly sees the light and promises to change. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:41, 27 December 2013 (UTC)


 * I do not recall if that particular portion of WP:INVOLVE that I have cited here was specifically raised during previous discussions with me. The fact that the vast majority of the blocks that I have enacted are against unregistered IP editors for unambiguous vandalism, and that blocks by me against editors with username accounts for reasons other than this are so rare, may also be why that particular passage and its wording were not explicitly examined in previous discussions with me.


 * And as far as keeping up with changes to policy, well, I agree that that would be a good idea, but how is one to do this? Should I put every single relevant policy page on my Watchlist?


 * I'd also like to know what you have to say for your own violation of the Blocking policy (which I pointed out at the end of this section of the page I created to respond to the initial Arbitration request), and how this figures into your view of administrator responsibilities and long-standing admin culpability. Nightscream (talk) 01:59, 27 December 2013 (UTC)


 * As a matter of fact, many active admins do keep a broad range of policy pages on their watchlist so they will be aware of major changes. I had more than fifty on mine until I decided to severely trim my list and focus on arbcom pages during my term. As for my unblock, the reason I felt confident in sumarilly overturning it without consulting you is simple: you were involved. Therefore, you should not have been taking administrative action of any kind and your opinion would just be the opinion of a user like any other who was involved in a content dispute, not that of someone involved solely as an administrator.  Admins have no special authority in content disputes. Your failure to understand and abide by that simple principle is exactly why we are here.  I did immediately note my action on your talk page, which I could see was being actively watched by other admins. You may note than none of them have spoken up to say my unblock was wrong or that I should have asked your permission before undoing it, rather the opposite actually. Beeblebrox (talk) 02:43, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
 * And if an editor doesn't want to have too many pages on his watchlist, a good alternative is WP:UPDATE, which lists the main changes in policy. Concerning Beeblebrox's unblock, my opinion is that his actions were reasonable and many of our current admins including myself would probably have acted in the same way, because the block appeared inappropriate on its face (being that it had been imposed by an involved admin), which is covered by the "except in cases of unambiguous error" clause in WP:UNBLOCK. Salvio Let's talk about it! 17:18, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

It may not make a big difference in this case, but I think Salvio may be reading the "involvement" policy a bit more restrictively than is optimal. It is of course common ground that an administrator who has been involved in a dispute concerning article content may not take any administrator actions concerning that article (with the usual caveats for blatant vandalism, etc.). I demur from the broader statement that an editor who has edited an article at all, or at least in any non-trivial fashion, is similarly disqualified. If I have an article on my watchlist because I added a couple of sentences about a non-controversial aspect of the topic a year ago, I wouldn't necessarily consider myself disqualified from dealing with a dispute arising on that article today. The question in my mind is whether the administrator will be seen as non-neutral in addressing the specific issue, not whether he or she happens to have ever touched the article in any way at all in all of his or her years of editing. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:38, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
 * In my eyes, it's not even a matter of time or controversialness of the edits; I have barely touched Dr. Mario in a very long while, but was so involved in its improvement and GAN that I'd be very, very careful about acting as an administrator (as opposed to a regular editor) in regards to any dispute involving the article. If there is anything to which I had significant and/or recent non-minor contributions, I'm involved. Period. It is always best to err on the side of caution in these matters: there are plenty of other admins who are apt to make the proper decisions; if you really feel you cannot stand by idly, post at AN/I about it! ☺ ·  Salvidrim!   ·  &#9993;  04:19, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Salvio, thank you for referring me to WP:UPDATE. I was going to ask Beeblebrox to list which policy pages he still had on his watchlist, but WP:UPDATE makes it unnecessary. Beeblebrox says that many active admins do keep a range of policy pages on their watchlist, though I hope you understand that many others like myself may not have thought to do this. Even looking over WP:UPDATE, the number of updates and the seemingly picayune nature of so many of them may make it difficult to keep track of them by heart, so I hope you understand that even an admin may not have a (no pun intended) encyclopedic command of them. I hope you also understand why an admin may not be aware of the admin community's stance on any and all permutations of a portion of a given policy's wording, especially when most of the blocks he enacts are to anonymous IP editors for cases of straightforward vandalism. Nightscream (talk) 19:47, 29 December 2013 (UTC)


 * I have to say I totally don't buy this "aw shucks" line of argument for the simple reason that you were advised of these matters as long ago as 2008 and promised back then to be more mindful of the policy. On the day you made that promise the policy contained these words: Administrators should not normally use their tools in matters in which they are personally involved (for example, in a content dispute in which they are a party). This is, in my opinion, the central point of this whole affair. You have already been called out for this same behavior before and pledged to be more cautious in the future. To now turn around and claim you just got behind the times is proved false by your own previous statements. How many times, over how many years must the community be asked to just be patient with you while you get up to speed on at least this one simple policy that 99% of admins have absolutely no trouble adhering to? Beeblebrox (talk) 23:36, 29 December 2013 (UTC)


 * That you "don't buy" anything I'm saying is understood, as you've already made your position clear at the outset. I'm here because Salvio giuliano wanted to have a discussion here, and not because I'm trying to convince anyone who has dogmatically made up their mind from the get-go. I haven't made any "aw shucks" line of argument. What I have done is explain why I read the wording of WP:INVOLVED as I did, and why the permutation that occurred in this most recent incident is not one that I often have to deal with. If any of the others here have questions for me, I'm all ears. Nightscream (talk) 12:16, 31 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Yes, I wanted to have a discussion here, because, while I thought that your interpretation of policy was wrong, the consequences thereof would depend, as far as I'm concerned, on your reply. Over the next couple of days I'll be posting on the workshop page my proposed decision, so that everyone (parties, arbs and neutral observers alike) can leave their comments. I anticipate that I'll post a proposed principle to the effect that, in keeping with WP:NOTPERFECT, admins are expected to know policy and to remain up to date; however, ignoring the existence of a policy or of an amendment thereto or interpreting it in a way which is incompatible with how the community interpret it may be considered a mitigating or exempting factor, provided the admin is acting in good faith and is willing to change his behaviour so as to meet community's standards and expectations. Clearly, this is only a proposal, which means that the final decision may be quite different, but this is what I think at the moment. Salvio Let's talk about it! 12:46, 31 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Yes, I understand that, Salvio, but Beeblebrox doesn't have to chime after every single post I make to say "I don't believe you" over and over. He doesn't accept my responses, I get that. He doesn't have to repeat it ad nauseam. I am indeed offering my replies here for the entire community, and not for his sole benefit. Nightscream (talk) 14:31, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Even if we were to set aside that in general any Wikipedian is welcome to comment on any talk page afaik, the ping at the top of this section was to you both...
 * Incidentally, while I agree with NOTPERFECT (I know I'm not, and I hope in humility all Wikipedians feel the same about themselves as well), Nightscream, you've been informed about this all in the past many many MANY times. And typically only when faced with possible sanction you say you won't do it again, but then then inevitably return to similar activities. I haven't posted links here yet, but I suppose I could.
 * As I have posted elsewhere previously, I think in general you're a well-meaning editor, but I just don't think you "get" adminship. I and others have tried to discuss this with you for literally years. And I see more of the same in your postings to this case. (Though clearly softened somewhat.)
 * I have been busy with RL of late, so I apparently missed some deadlines that apparently have been introduced for RfAr, but if the committee permits, I think I could show some diffs rather supporting beeblebrox's statements that this isn't new, and isn't a surprise, it's merely that you continue to use the tools while INVOLVED, and tend to balk at anyone telling you otherwise. - jc37 15:58, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
 * considering that a. this is a holiday period and, so, everyone is generally busier than usual in real life, and b. that your evidence submission may be not only material to the case at hand but, rather, also have a direct impact on the final decision, I'll reopen the evidence phase. As a result, anyone can submit evidence until the third of January (Nightscream, if you then need additional time to compose a response to the new evidence that will be presented, I'll grant you another four-day extension; you just have to ask). Salvio Let's talk about it! 16:18, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your consideration in this. I'll work on assembling diffs and such. I should probably note from the outset that it's possible that in the past I may have indicated a tendency to be a bit verbose (smiles at the understatement of the year : ) - and I understand that here, conciseness is appreciated. So any help (constructive criticism, etc.) with that would be most welcome, Salvio : ) - jc37 17:43, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
 * (@Salvio]) - Just wanted to let you know I haven't forgotten about this. Just with the new year's holiday I'm a bit behind. If you would be kind enough to spare one additional day (so I can finish this up on Saturday) I would be appreciative. Thank you very much again. - [[User:Jc37|jc37 18:04, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
 * please post your evidence by midnight UTC today. If you can't make it by that time, then I'm sorry but I can't grant any further extension. Salvio Let's talk about it! 14:50, 4 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Just as a final response to the above, I kept repeating myself quite deliberately, not just to say I wasn't convinced but out of a desire to get NS to address what is actually the central issue of this whole case, which is not these recent incidents themselves but rather the long pattern they are only a part of. That he has failed to explain why he still needs time to get up to speed on a policy he asked for more time to understand five years ago is the entire point. I no longer expect NS to actually respond to my prodding on the subject, it seems clear he either has no answer or simply doesn't see the problem. If he and Salvio wish to continue this discussion they may do so with my assurances that I am done making such comments. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:05, 31 December 2013 (UTC)


 * I have already explained that more than once here: The specific wording in WP:INVOLVED, which tends not to come up with most of the blocks that I impose, as I rarely enact any on username accounts for things other than vandalism. There is no "pattern". There is merely a set of mistakes on my part that occur over a course of six years, a time span in which one would expect such things to occur. If you're going to take a look at my adminship, then look at the total picture, including the disputes I've asked to mediate (even by people with whom I myself have had disputes no less!), the accolades I've gotten, etc.


 * The only thing that I may not have "gotten", Jc37, was that specific passage, and that is due to its wording. I would ask you all: Can you not understand how that wording would appear to an admin who doesn't often impose blocks on username accounts, or for things other than vandalism? Why is that passage worded that way, after all? Why does it say "cases" instead of "articles"? Why does it use the term "e.g." instead of just outright saying that vandalism is the only instance in question? For that matter, why is the exception for involvement not mentioned as an exception for the principle that an admin should talk to a blocking admin before undoing a block? More broadly, how would an admin expect to know if his or her understanding of these permutations is out of step with the community until they come up? It's not like I have occasion to discuss these things with other admins as a habit, and only recently did I learn of WP:UPDATE. In any event, Jc37, thank you for offering your counsel on previous occasions. Happy New Year to all. Nightscream (talk) 03:14, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
 * You and I (and others) have talked about "specific wording" of INVOLVED in the past NS. (I've tried to elucidate more on the workshop page.)
 * A big part of what I think you gloss over is that, as admins, when we use the tools, or implement responsibilities, we're here as a service to the community, not the other way round. WP:IAR isn't a stick to help fight one's side in a debate. It's there to allow for the betterment of the encyclopedia. for everyone. It's not there as a consensus workaround.
 * In my estimation, you seem to be what we used to call an "enthusiatic editor". Well-meaning, and focused on the debate or topic at hand. And I wish Wikipedia had more enthusiastic editors.
 * But as things currently stand, your seemingly intentional misunderstanding of policies and guidelines in order to serve your "side" in a dispute is just incompatible with adminship.
 * I think it would be great if you had that eureka moment. If you genuinely did, I would love to support your next RfA (should de-sysop be a result of this case), but not unless or until I was comfortable that you truly had grown to understand adminship in its relationship to the community, and the appropriate usage of the tools and responsibilities of adminship.
 * I don't know if you will be open to understanding or accepting these words in the tone/tenor in which they are meant, but regardless, I sincerely do wish you well. And yes, if I am around (which is unfortunately less often these days), I am, as always, happy to help. And I hope you and yours had a very merry Christmas season (including a happy new year) as well. - jc37 19:30, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Any misunderstanding on my part was not "intentional". Nightscream (talk) 04:54, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

My apologies

 *  Copied from User_talk:Salvio_giuliano 

I want to thank you (Salvio) for offering the extension, life just is what it is sometimes. So my apologies for not getting back to you sooner.

It looks like Beeblebrox has already pointed out in the workshop discussion some of what I was going to post (the jennifer grey discussion, for example), though I suppose I should note that due to copy pasting discussions back n forth (and at times, just removal), that discussion may need to be read chronologically between the three talk pages (NS's, DC's and mine), using the page history diffs alone. (NS's talk page history would seem to be moved to User talk:Nightscream/Archive 1, with some at User talk:Nightscream/Archive 4.) But I suppose one could start here and read diffs at least through October 20ish 2008. Several people besides me, including Hiding, Emperor, Doczilla, DC, etc., tried to talk with NS (with his responses mostly on their talk pages). It's been years now, has there been a behavioural change in the meantime?

When I had a spare moment, I started trying to better illustrate with diffs, and it just became a point by point lengthy mess which I'm guessing you'd have wanted me to trim anyway. And I just ran out of free time after that.

What also may or may not be of note was how NS seemingly turned on DC. Which surprised me, since DC had noted to me that he had met NS in person previously, and they were friendly. It seemed to surprise DC too, and apparently cooled their subsequent interactions.

I can note this all in some case page/talk page if you like, or you are of course welcome to paste this as well, at your discretion.

And again, my apologies for the late reply. - jc37 08:41, 13 January 2014 (UTC)