Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Toddst1

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 (chat!) 15:38, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
 * The self block (clearly not a violation, as the below motion has not been passed) is the same sort of behaviour as the wiki-break enforcer. We shouldn't humour that sort of behaviour. The motion below is clearly passed; lets clear this up and move on. --Errant (chat!) 13:28, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Statement by Ubikwit
Well, it's good to see somebody finally reporting Toddst1. I was subjected to what I consider to be a 'drive-by block' by him in User_talk:Ubikwit.

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 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 Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive821.

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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia. 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 filed against IP
 * 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  連絡見学/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 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 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)

Question from WJBscribe
I do not think a motion in the form proposed has been made before, but I may be wrong about this. @User:AGK in particular: Please could you clarify whether the motion as proposed authorises a bureaucrat to remove Toddst1's admin rights were he to make an admin action without this case being resolved first, or whether we would need further instruction from ArbCom to do so? WJBscribe (talk) 11:13, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Question from Fut.Perf.
Why restrict Todddst from using admin tools until the case is resolved? In normal cases of admin conduct, even where a likely result of desysopping is on the tables, the admin in question has nevertheless always been at liberty to act as an admin during the proceedings. Why would this case be different? (Of course, if he does use the tools, it means he's back to active and the case can begin, but other than that, I really don't see what relevance the use of tools has or what grave danger of abuse this measure is meant to prevent.) Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:10, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Statement from Black Kite
Even before the MrX incident, I was a little concerned about Toddst1's use of the tools, and the large number of times he has been brought to ANI is evidence for this, quite apart from those listed above (of course, as with any admin at ANI a number of those complaints are baseless, but many aren't). But the MrX incident was unforgivable. There was no possible reason whatsoever why, in an edit war where two editors on one side have made four reverts and one revert, and two others on the "other side" have made three and two respectively, the two latter editors should be the only ones that are blocked. Nor is there any excuse for an admin, upon being called out on this behaviour, to not only insist that they were right, but to attack those pointing it out, trying to claim that the consensus forming that his block was wrong is because the editor "is one of us" and accusing other editors and admins of double standards  editsummary here, bad faith editsummary here and of being a "lynch mob" editsummary here. Not to mention that the blocked editor had already clashed with Toddst1 a short time previously over a single revert that they made (ANI here). The result of all this was the loss of a contributor with 40K edits. We can't afford this type of thing. I'd certainly be looking for a requirement that Toddst1, if not desysopped until a case can take place, at least pledges not use his tools for that period. Black Kite (talk) 15:25, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Statement from Ihardlythinkso
Hard to relate I think, unless you've been on receiving end of one of Toddst1's grudge/revenge blocks for having "talked back" to him. E.g. User:FleetCommand   the "usual deal" being subjugation, humiliation and domination  looking for grovelling backed up by his tag-team buddy admin User:The Blade of the Northern Lights defeated by two admins please note edit summary. Much more but will stop now. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 17:06, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Statement by Jehochman
I am not going to comment on the merits of this case, but rather, on the construction of the motion. When a case is pending about an administrator, that administrator is not required to stop using admin tools. Toddst1 does not need to be restricted in that way. Instead, please vote to accept the case, and suspend it until Toddst1 returns. If he resigns or loses sysop access due to inactivity, then the case will be dismissed as unnecessary, and the tools can then be regained through a new RFA. There should be no assumption that he's done something wrong, but if he resigns while a case is pending, he has resigned under a cloud. Jehochman Talk 17:46, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Short statement from The Blade of the Northern Lights
Just a quick note that I'm no tag team buddy of Toddst1, despite Ihardlythinkso's protestations. Before I started refusing to work on almost anything outside of two articles Toddst1 and I would occasionally run into each other, and we tend to see eye to eye on things, but we don't have any significant influence over the other. I have no idea what this is all about, but I want to make sure that's 100% clear. The Blade of the Northern Lights ( 話して下さい ) 17:44, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Short short statement by Drmies...
...to express moral support for Toddst1. Take it easy, Toddst1; then, come back and explain. It's always better to talk things out. Drmies (talk) 03:35, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Note: Toddst1 blocked by Toddst1
I guess Toddst has got round the Wikibreak enforcer. Or doesn't it affect blocks? Bishonen &#124; talk 00:25, 25 February 2014 (UTC).
 * Disabling Javascript is all that's required to bypass the so called "Wikibreak enforcer", and yes, he had to bypass it to block himself.  Snowolf How can I help? 01:00, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Not sure, but my reading of that action is that he did it on purpose to secure a desysop per the motion being voted below, and stay blocked indefinitely while being unable to unblock himself (given that he would be desysopped). — ΛΧΣ  21  Call me Hahc21 01:11, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
 * That's how I read it, too. Furthermore, I think that Toddst1 expects to get desysopped, and this is him getting in the last word. Binksternet (talk) 02:02, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Proposal related to the above by Konveyor Belt
Now that he's gone and committed suicide by admin self-block, I propose he be desysopped automatically without having to go through this case nonsense of a formal motion for desysop. The case can still be opened, then put on hold, though, per the motion.  Konveyor   Belt  04:10, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Statement by Blethering Scot
Todds blocking himself shouldn't be seen as a violation of the motion as said above, this is my view because the motion hasn't been actioned as yet nor has Todds been formally notified. Obviously once that happens its a different story. Blethering  Scot  19:06, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

What’s going on?
know this is not the first time when Toddst1 evades disputes by declaring a wikibreak; the same on the wake of the scandal with his retaliatory blocks of several users from Myanmar. But where do we heading for now? Will this sysop quietly return from his break, retaining the sysop, and continue this off-again-on-again pattern of administrative abuse? Incnis Mrsi (talk) 09:57, 17 March 2014 (UTC)