Jump to content

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Arbitration | Requests

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Doug Weller (talk | contribs) at 12:46, 27 June 2011 (→Alternate motion: enacted). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Arbitration Committee proceedings
Request name Motions Initiated Votes
Nabla Motions 20 June 2011 {{{votes}}}
[edit]
Open cases
Case name Links Evidence due Prop. Dec. due
Palestine-Israel articles 5 (t) (ev / t) (ws / t) (pd / t) 21 Dec 2024 11 Jan 2025
[edit]
Recently closed cases (Past cases)

No cases have recently been closed (view all closed cases).

Currently, no requests for clarification or amendment are open.

Motion name Date posted
Arbitrator workflow motions 1 December 2024

Requests for arbitration


Nabla

Initiated by NW (Talk) at 01:05, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Involved parties

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request
Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried
  • Not really applicable, although I suppose a request for comments could be tried, maybe?

Statement by NuclearWarfare

Nabla (talk · contribs) has been an editor since 2004 and an administrator since 2005. They have not been seriously active since 2009, but it is my understanding that they have been an administrator in good standing in that time. Earlier today, Nabla posted this thread on the Village Pump (confirmation), stating that they had vandalized several times recently. Nabla also apologized for the vandalism, stating "I'm sorry for the mild vandalism, it will not happen again. I hope you guys and gals still involved try to shift WP back into a human site."

The matter was soon brought to the Administrators' noticeboard, where several editors have called for a summary desysop and/or block. As the community does not have that power, and in the interests of heading off drama, I submit this request to the Committee to ask whether they will consider a summary desysopping or if they wish the community to go through the request for comments process first. NW (Talk) 01:14, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I must confess myself somewhat surprised by Kirill's proposed motion #1; I would have thought that what was almost certainly was going to happen would be "Admonish, refer to RFC/U". Would it be possible for the Committee to vote on such a motion as well? NW (Talk) 01:25, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Nabla

User Hans Adler (whom I do not recall having any contact with) got the idea quite well. If you want a short review, his is perfect. Still, follow me as I go a little further, if you wish.

I have been away for a couple of years, also for not being too happy about WP, but mostly for lack of time. Nevertheless I read WP often and edit a sentence once in a while, just as many net user do, I presume. I have not forgot I am an admin, but over time my mindset turned into a mix of that and of a regular "IP user", I guess. Usually I avoid editing, not for being angry, that goes away with time, but to avoid being sucked in again, so the few times I edit, I do it anonymously.

Lately I have read a lot of football (soccer) related pages, including many smaller leagues. Those pages reminded me some of the strengths of WP - loads of information easily accessible and reasonably well organized - and some of it's weaknesses - namely lots of "dated recentism". And... being reverted by a bot for making a constructive edit?! How do you argue with a bot? You can't! Maskes no sense, is quite annoying not having who to argue with. I reverted it and filed the report for false positive. And then I went on to give it something real to revert... Not the best of actions, but not exactly a major disruption.

Days later I tried to correct a link at Belgium's second division, yet the page's code is so obscure that even a experienced user - though a little rusty - gets lost. Moreover, I could see how a casual user would get completely lost. And reacted as one might. Then all shifted. Then user Pelotas (thank you!) did the right thing: *politely* he reverted my comment and corrected the template. What a difference to a bot reverting without reading. Many - most - of us should learn from Pelotas' civility, coolness and good edit. I tried to learn, recall that his cool style was my style, when I could, and went to mend my latest bad edits as possible, by bringing several of this problems to discussion at the Village Pump.

Using 'admin' and 'vandal' in the same sentence evidently is (unconsciously) aimed at causing a bang. But it is only that: marketing. I have not really vandalised, and certainly not as an admin. The magnitude of the following events - namely, being here! - are quite a surprise to me. Those bad edits were made on a different mindset, as explained, and I think they do not diminish my capacity to be a useful admin as I presume my previous work shows - namely with hundreds of XfD closings without much fuss - as does my VP's statement. Removing my admin rights would help WP at nothing, and it would lose a decent working admin that might come back some day.

Note: all relevant threads have been linked to by others, it seems, so I added no links.

Note2: I am not sure if this is what is expected now and here, if I am somewhat off, please say so. - Nabla (talk) 23:04, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@ TenOfAllTrades (et al.), about the account being possibly compromised.

  • Go to a diff of my Watch sub-page from May 29, 2007.
  • You'll see that I've added the text "1212900F995445E9B4D0294221B5E018579B9844", in a comment.
  • Open, as if to edit, the immediately previous version of that page. Copy that text into a text file (e.g "nabla_id.txt").
  • Get the md5 sum of the file (e.g. "md5sum nabla_id.txt")
  • You'll get a hash key: "1212900F995445E9B4D0294221B5E018"
  • That is the start of the string I have entered back on 2007. The trailing "579B9844" is 8 random characters to make the md5 sum look like a sha1 sum.
  • It is possible this does not work at first (that's why I haven't told this before - I failed to eproduce the string). If not, then the likely reason is text encoding. I did this then using Windows 98 and IExplores 6 (or 5?), not sure what was the encoding. Doing it now, under Linux and Opera 10 resulted in a different hash key.
  • Fortunately I saved the original file, so I may mail it if someone wants to check but fails to reproduce the above result. But I presume it will still work under Windows/IE
I presume this will leave no doubt about my identity. As to losing skills, I did not forgot that comments are supposed to go to talk pages, the 'Belgium 2nd div' comment was a provocation, a possible IP user style reaction, at that momment I 'was' an IP user. Also I misplaced, at the top, my comments at "Wikipedia:Village_pump_(miscellaneous)" because I forgot to check that page's use. Note that "Wikipedia:Village_pump [...]" is not a talk page (that would be "Wikipedia_talk:Village_pump [...]") so there is no reason to assume it is a 'talk-like' page. Note also that "Wikipedia:[...]" pages don't have a set order to edit, if I recall correctly. Did I followed the common pattern at, e.g., WP:TDF#Current_discussions which has new entries on top? I don't know... maybe... That was one of WP: pages I used most. But quite possible it was simply an error, and errors happen.
- Nabla (talk) 23:21, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@ Timotheus Canens: Thanks for checking the above! The problem is indeed the newlines but also the encoding (I first converted the newlines with no success) Probably UTF-8 (Linux/Opera) vs. ISO 8859-1, or Windows-1250, (Win/IE). - Nabla (talk) 12:53, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Strange Passerby

A section of the community, made up of both admins and regular editors in good standing, have raised a concern that Nabla's actions are not in line with administratorship. The Arbitration Community would do well in this case to listen to the community, perhaps with the caveat that this is not to be taken as a precedent that the community can call for a desysop willy-nilly. There has been a breach of trust here, and I believe it would be proper in this situation to remove the tools. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 01:41, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by MuZemike

This is unacceptable conduct by a Wikipedia administrator, and this administrator should be desysopped at earliest convenience. The community has been deceived by the usage of IPs for the sole purpose of trolling. I should also note that this gives more credence to supporting Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)/suspend sysop rights of inactive admins. This is disappointing to say the least. –MuZemike 04:02, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Statement from Fetchcomms

I commented once on the AN thread and that's it, so I'm not sure if that's "involved" or not.

I honestly don't see a major issue here. Yes, admins shouldn't be vandalizing, but IAR. This is like WP:NEWT but with one person; Nabla wanted to investigate what xe feels is a bot epidemic on Wikipedia and performed several harmless bits of vandalism. Xe has already promised never again to engage in such behavior, is obviously not acting in a manner that might suggest further disruptive behavior, and should simply be reprimanded or whatever it's formally called.

I suppose I shouldn't be surprised if Nabla is desysopped, considering the outcome of the last MZMcBride case (the one about unwatched BLPs or something). But this incident doesn't seem to be part of a pattern of disruption or really quite serious to me. What's done is done, he's apologized, pointed out some problems with the system, and promised not to participate in the offending behavior again. The end?

/ƒETCHCOMMS/ 04:24, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to go a little further than everyone else and say that we should be encouraging this sort of activity. Not vandalizing, but editing as an IP for a while to see what issues there really are. How else are we supposed to know what it feels like to add some original research into an article and have it disappear for what seems to be no reason? (It's harmless if the offending material is quickly removed; if it's not by someone else, then you would remove it yourself.) That someone should be punished for ultimately trying to pursue the greater good is irrational to me. Nabla seems to have had no intention of hurting Wikipedia when he made those several IP edits. The problematic content was promptly removed. There is no cause for concern. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 19:31, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
@Burpelson AFB: Re. your statement: "In any case, making comments as an IP that you had vandalized and then telling everyone you're an admin looks to me like little more than base trolling. IPs vandalize stuff every day, it's reverted and forgotten. Why announce this fact unless you want to deliberately cause drama." I disagree. From reading the initial village pump discussion initiated by Nabla as an IP, it is clear that xe is not intending to "deliberately cause drama" or engaging in "base trolling". I assume that the admin claim was to establish some level of credibility, as IPs' concerns are are routinely dismissed by citing some silly "policy" reason or other; it is also clear that xe was attempting to stir up discussion—not to be confused with drama—regarding what xe felt is a serious problem involving bot editing of Wikipedia. As I said above, while I disagree with the tactic, these are concerns not to be taken lightly or quickly disregarded, and such "experiments" are not ultimately harmful to the project. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 04:36, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
In addition, I think it should be noted that there has been (as several have claimed) a breach in the community's trust of Nabla. Xe could very well have kept the admin account dormant and continued vandalizing anonymously, possibly causing actual damage, but instead, xe openly admitted to the edits, which were, again, intended to benefit the project by identifying issues that most active editors would not notice or give weight to. A few users who have commented in this case seem to be assuming bad faith without even waiting for a further response from Nabla. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 04:43, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
@TeleComNasSprVen: Re. your statement: "Consensus has one of the highest, if not complete, overruling powers given to the democratic nature of an openly editable wiki." I disagree. Consensus can easily be ignored when necessary. If consensus were to delete the main page, common sense would dictate that such a move is irrational. Consensus is important, but it is also an obstacle at times—in certain situations, a simple "executive decision" is required. But common sense trumps everything. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 16:55, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
@TenOfAllTrades, I think Nabla, as an IP, purposely made the misplaced comment in the template as an example of what an actual new user might experience (and I've seen new users do sillier things). I do not think that Nabla fails to understand the purpose of talk pages, the help desk, etc. The IP edits are not meant to be representative of how Nabla would usually edit. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 17:00, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Statement from The_ed17

Reading through the links above, I was strongly reminded of WP:NEWT, but I see that point has already been raised above. I don't see any need for a desysop here. If he was coming out to say that he was purposely and deliberately gaming the system, trying to get subtle vandalism or misinformation into articles, this would be an open-and-shut desysop. However, the way he raised it at the Village Pump seems to have actually generated constructive discussion, and I don't see anything truly terrible beyond how disillusioned Nabla is with the project.

Some could argue that removing the admin tools is a net positive because he doesn't need them, seeing as he hasn't edited in years and probably isn't going to return to full-time editing, but I don't think that the current bar for desysoping reaches that low. I also don't think we should set a precedent that the bar is that low. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 07:15, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Hans Adler

I was shocked by the initial reactions, I am shocked that someone had the poor sense to take that matter here, and I am shocked that this nonsense isn't immediately rejected by Arbcom. I guess this is just another symptom of the mindset in which a president is removed from office for lying about consensual extramarital sex and is reelected for trying to legalise torture. If you don't have anything else to do, why don't you go for a walk, or swimming? It's summer, after all. Hans Adler 07:19, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Response to Strange Passerby: The proposal that Arbcom should rubberstamp a witch burning, and that this would not serve as precedent for future such occurrences, is ludicrous.
Response to MuZemike: "The community has been deceived by the usage of IPs for the sole purpose of trolling." As far as I can see, there is no evidence whatsoever for this claim.
Response to ErrorX: While I actually support desysopping inactive accounts in general, the idea that desysopping someone preventatively because they are "clearly and strongly disgruntled with the project and processes existing her", with your liberal interpretation of those strong words, is severely at odds with the basic values of this community. It amounts to thought police, and would create a climate in which something like WP:NEWT could lead to mass desysops. Hans Adler 10:35, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nabla, as an IP, started a perfectly reasonable and constructive discussion at WP:VPM#From admin to vandal? Random thoughts why. Then, for no apparent reason, Duncan Hill suddenly started WP:AN#IP claiming to be both an admin and a vandal. The IP's irritated response "Don't be silly. [...] No need to go paranoid." is hardly a sign of rudeness or immaturity. Duncan Hill's response "When I want editing advice I don't go to abusive adminsocks for it." fits this description much better. The taunting continued, with calls for checkuser, until Nabla logged in for the first time after 2 years [1], thus making it clear that checkuser would have been totally useless. At that point the witchhunt continued in spite of Nabla's demonstration of good faith.
A regime under which editors are punished for saying, essentially (in my words) "Look, I made this mistake today while editing logged out as I have been doing for years. I am not planning to make this mistake again myself, but what can we do to prevent tempting anonymous users in that direction?" – I think it's fair to characterise this as thought police. Hans Adler 11:25, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by ErrantX

FWIW I concur with removal of his sysop bit without prejudice for a new RFA in the future; because he has not used the tools (productively) in a long while, apparently does not intend to and is disaffected with Wikipedia.

Removal of the bit should be precautionary for the last reason; at the moment I see no urgent risk of Nabla mis-using his admin tools (and, hell, he will be under scrutiny for some time to come I am sure!). However I think bit removal would be a useful preventative measure to make sure that in 6 months, a year, whenever, this user does not have the temptation to abuse the tools.

He is clearly and strongly disgruntled with the project and processes existing here, and there is no sensible reason to leave such a user in possession of the Sysop bit - on the understanding that there should be no prejudice against a future RFA if he returns to the community.

Finally; there seems no need for an Arbcom request. Consensus is pretty strong at WP:AN and there is now a !vote of sorts, once that has been open for 24-48hours it should be closed and, if appropriate, a Stewards request submitted. The community can de-sysop someone, Arbcom is here for emergency measures, but there is no emergency in this case. --Errant (chat!) 10:03, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@Hans; I disagree with the idea that it would be a "thought police" proposal. Beyond no longer needing/using the tools the user has also expressed anger over the dominance of bots, has vandalised a page, has been rude and a little immature in discussions. All of this leads me to believe, at the moment, he is not an adequate admin candidate and that removing the tools removes any temptation to make a further point. Or to put it another way; he has demonstrated a willingness for rash and angry action, so lets not leave the door open. The sysop bit is no big deal; to add or take away. It disturbs me that taking away the admin bit is resisted so hard, and made so difficult. It should be hard to do; but not impossible.
If community consensus at WP:AN is not to remove the bit, then fine, it is community consensus. All I am saying is that the community can happily decide this.
He also raises some important points (which got lost because of his approach to raising them) about treatment of Newbies by bots - and we should get this matter concluded and consider those wider issues. --Errant (chat!) 10:49, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
@Hans; agreed that the handling of this (and to some extent his treatment) certainly leaves a lot to be desired. --Errant (chat!) 11:45, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by roux

Vandalism, however minor, is completely incompatible with the community trust established by a successful RfA. Logging out to engage in such vandalism--again, however minor--is indicative of deception also incompatible with community trust. Any other issue raised here is a red herring. Desysop. If the user is so clueless as to request a new RfA, the community will make its opinion known regarding admins who deliberately log out in order to engage in what they themselves describe as vandalism. → ROUX ₪ 11:59, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Jehochman

If the user is engaging in petty vandalism, how will a desysop prevent that? A serious question is whether the account has been compromised and is no longer in possession of the owner.

Please stop being silly and focus on a real problem. This user's contributions have a high signal to noise ratio. Let them be. A few mistakes are not grounds to strip, tar and feather (assuming the account hasn't been compromised). Jehochman Talk 04:25, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@Kirill: We really don't need rhetoric and straw man arguments like, "I would hope that, four years later, the project has finally reached a sufficient level of professionalism that casual vandalism by administrators is no longer tolerated." Nobody here has suggested that we tolerate vandism. However, there are options between tolerating casual vandalism and the hanging tree, such as denouncing the vandalism and warning the admin that it is not a good course of action. Your remark creates the impressions that you are on a power trip. I hope you have bought a round trip ticket. Jehochman Talk 13:39, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by DuncanHill

I am the editor who brought the matter to the further attention of admins and the community by posting on the Admins' Noticeboard. I was disappointed (though, from previous experience I should have expected it) by the negative reactions of some to my having done so. An admin admitting vandalism and indicating such a deep disaffection with Wikipedia is worth discussing. Nabla did not choose to identify himself until after another admin had suggested I contact the checkuser mailing list - as this proved impossible I emailed ArbCom instead. Had he posted his original "I'm a vandal and an admin" comment under his own name it might be possible to have assumed he was doing so in good faith. I do not see how he can retain admin rights, and I have to say I get very suspicious of those who say it's no big deal. Untrustworthy behaviour by those entrusted with power is a big deal. The comparison with politicians' extra-marital affairs is false. Admins are part of our system for counteracting vandalism. Politicians are not part of society's system of marriage support. DuncanHill (talk) 13:32, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@JohnVandenberg, Nabla has indicated that the IP addresses available to him cover a huge range, something like half of Portugal, so further vandalism from him would be hard to tie to the account. letting him retain admin tools with a free-pass to vandalise as an IP seems bizarre. DuncanHill (talk) 13:34, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@Hans, I posted the link at AN as I thought it was an issue that admins would and should be interested in. That Nabla objected so strongly to it is not indicative of good faith on his part, for which see also the delay in him declaring himself. I note you choose to blame me but not mention that it was not me who originally called for checkuser. DuncanHill (talk) 07:08, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@Risker, it doesn't surprise me that you've seen other admins doing worse - but I don't see how that exonerates Nabla. Some people commit murder, it doesn't mean that society shouldn't take action against pickpockets. DuncanHill (talk) 07:12, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Mlpearc

It is not a question of Vandalism, we deal with that on second by second basis. It has nothing to do with "Did they misuse the tools". It has EVERYTHING to do with community trust, common sense and maturity. I could just imagine the comments if this were a active RfA. This user has engaged in behavior unbecoming an Admin or any trusted mature user. I for one am not comfortable having this user as a model of community trust to newbies. Mlpearc powwow 13:36, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Burpelson AFB

I commented at the AN thread as well but may as well add my 2 cents here. This is the third such admin in the past week or two I've seen return after an extended absence only to engage in questionable or borderline questionable behavior and stir up drama. Something strange is going on here. In any case, making comments as an IP that you had vandalized and then telling everyone you're an admin looks to me like little more than base trolling. IPs vandalize stuff every day, it's reverted and forgotten. Why announce this fact unless you want to deliberately cause drama? This person has proven they have no business with the tools and ought to be blocked as well. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 13:51, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Onorem

This seems like a very minor transgression in general. Far worse has been ignored by ArbCom in the past. I do think that Nabla should voluntarily relinquish the bit based on a pretty evident lack of current understanding of how things work...but I don't think removal should be forced unless they actually use the tools incorrectly. Bots make errors...and so do people. That's a perfectly good reason to bring reasonable discussion to a noticeboard, but it's not a reason to vandalize. --Onorem♠Dil 16:25, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Bwilkins

When the "bit" is granted, many things are taken into account during RFA including attitude, aptitude, knowledge of policy, and apparent maturity level. When they are given the mop, it's like joining the Cub Scouts: "...to keep the law of the wolf cub pack...". Intentionally making WP:POINTY edits, vandalizing while logged out, and that they consider none of this to be an issue shows a massive betrayal of all that was originally investigated during RFA, and of the trust granted by the community. The entire ANI thread (soon to be archived) was pretty WP:CONSENSUS-based; time to drop the bit. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 17:15, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@WereSpiel - if this were the military, it would be a case of "conduct unbecoming an officer" (or whatever your local military calls it). Having followed a lot of courts-martial, this specific situation would likely have led to a reduction in rank, and not just a mere fine. Same here. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 10:38, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Cube lurker

Per 1.1.3 of the new arbitration policy arbcom has a clear responsibility to handle this request. Rejection would ignoring the just ratified policy. You are free to handle it by officially endorsing IP vandalism by admins, but you need to go on record.--Cube lurker (talk) 17:52, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

On alternative motion. the community has no expectation that administrators will observe all applicable policies, avoid inappropriate edits, and behave with maturity and professionalism throughout their participation on Wikipedia, the community just wishes they would.--Cube lurker (talk) 01:29, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by LessHeard vanU

Resp to Jvb; Um, so you believe that the inactive, but still accessible, admin account of an individual who is, by their own admission, at odds with the WP editing environment and is willing to (mildly) edit inappropriately as an ip, should retain the flags that have not been used for the benefit of the project for many years? What possible loss to the encyclopedia, other than the potential for major damage, is there for removing these moribund buttons? LessHeard vanU (talk) 19:56, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Eraserhead1

There is currently a village pump proposal to remove admin rights after a year of inactivity, which seems almost certain to pass, so I'm not sure Arbcom needs to get involved with that :). -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 20:22, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by R. Baley

So is "stripped" (link) the normal language used for the removal of administrative access? Seems a tad harsh. R. Baley (talk) 02:08, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Ched Davis

I know this isn't an RfA, or XfD; but I'd still like to register my view. Yes, a pretty silly attempt to bring attention to a "bot bite" issue. However, given the mildness of the edits, and the regretful stance taken by the admin. in light of the community view, I'd hope that only an admonishment would be given in this case. I completely concur with Risker's thoughts. We've all seen IP's and new users do far worse with the only repercussion being a warning, no block. Any editor that's been here any length of time is going to have days of being disenchanted, and considering that there hasn't even been a WP:RFC/U brought forth, I think a desysop is entirely too harsh. Thank you for your time. — Ched :  ?  06:06, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by TeleComNasSprVen

Block and desysopping are technicalities designed to prevent disruption to the encyclopedia project by removing an administrator in a trusted position or a vandal of his or her sysop privileges or editing abilities. Nabla has promised not to vandalize again, and there has been no evidence presented that editing as an IP or, in fact, vandalizing as one has interfered with the administrative duty of the main account, which itself seems largely inactive and relatively harmless. Nevertheless, the community consensus presented to us by the AN discussion cannot be ignored. Consensus has one of the highest, if not complete, overruling powers given to the democratic nature of an openly editable wiki. :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 06:12, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the alternative motion, this seems the safest middle path between alleviating the community concerns about Nabla's behavior and the option of outright desysopping Nabla; however, I will note that (D) does not seem relevant to this situation. :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 13:40, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Nick-D

I agree that this isn't the kind of conduct which is expected from admins and shouldn't be encouraged. However, as xeno notes this was a one off in unusual circumstances, and there seems no reason to desysop here. This is the kind of thing which admins only hand out warnings for, and comparable misconduct by active admins (for instance edit warring or name calling) only leads to a desysop if it continues for a reasonable period of time or is of a particularly serious nature. The best way forward would be for Nabla to be trouted and then hopefully choose to become fully active again as an editor and admin. Nick-D (talk) 09:01, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I should also note that I support adopting a practice of removing admin rights from inactive admins (as long as they can easily reapply for to get them back if they return to editing), but that's not really within the scope of this ArbCom request. Nick-D (talk) 12:29, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Mjroots

Looking at the wider issue of inactive admins, would it help if there was a register of admins who are willing to be desysoped after a certain period of inactivity. Such desysoping would be without penalty and not "under a cloud". The period of inactivity to be chosen by the admin in question. If an inactive admin returned to editing, they could simply ask for the tools back. Mjroots (talk) 12:23, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've put my money where my mouth is. Mjroots (talk) 12:41, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by WereSpielChequers

Several editors have compared this to my WP:NEWT project of 2009, but I think there is a false comparison as a couple of Nabla's edits did merit warnings or a Trout. A fairer comparison would be with someone who logged out and did goodfaith edits as an IP and then logged back in to remonstrate with anyone who incorrectly reverted their edits. Not that I'm suggesting anyone does that as some members of the community clearly dislike such Mystery shopping. If Nabla or anyone else was to test the system by deliberately doing badfaith edits whilst logged out, then that would move this from Mystery shopping to a Breaching experiment, and I hope that no-one would support that.

However I'm not sure I'm seeing a deliberate breaching experiment here, instead I see two years of IP editing and then a brief loss of temper. If Nabla had been logged in for those two years would this have gone beyond a trouting?

If Nabla wasn't an admin we would not be considering a block, but the community quite reasonably judges its admins against a harsher standard. I think that these edits were a spontaneous off the cuff response rather than premeditated, and in my view that makes a desysop disproportionate.

On a broader note one of the reasons why I don't support replacing Arbcom with some sort of community de-adminship is the lynch mob that can form at ANI. "Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried" is I think highly applicable here, and since that hasn't happened I believe an Arbcom filing is disproportionate. Some editors have commented that if an RFA candidate was to have done that just before their RFA then they would be a snow fail, which is true but remember RFA is broken. If a longstanding editor goes to RFA a month or so after such a spat then regardless of however long their tenure and however isolated that recent lapse was, they will be rejected by the community. But if they wait a couple of months it probably won't be spotted. The intense focus on the questions and lack of scrutiny of the editing history means that providing an incident doesn't lead to a block a candidate can get through RFA providing they put on their best behaviour for a fairly short time. Judging current admins by the standards that RFA expects of a candidate's very recent edits would in my opinion be unhealthy for the site, as it would rapidly leave us with insufficient admins to stay on top of AIV and the deletion process.

As an aside there have been a number of concerned comments about the number of long inactive admin accounts that have recently been reactivated, I suspect we should be celebrating that as a successful outcome of the switching on of email notification of talkpage messages, though that may not be the case with Nabla. Perhaps we need some sort of refresher course or on the job training to get returning admins and indeed other editors back up to speed? ϢereSpielChequers 10:20, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Query by TenOfAllTrades

I probably have missed it in the ongoing discussions, but are we entirely confident that the person using the Nabla account now is actually the same person who was using the Nabla account prior to that editor's semi-retirement?

When I saw the new thread created on the Village Pump (and it sure looked like trolling) I remember thinking it odd that an individual purporting to be an experienced admin would place the thread at the top of the Pump (where it was less likely to be noticed, and contrary to long-established Wikipedia practice on virtually all of its noticeboards) instead of adding it to the bottom of the page where it belonged. How did we manage to find an admin with five years of active editing experience who doesn't know how to properly start a discussion thread? That said, if Nabla's identity is confirmed to the satisfaction of ArbCom, then there may be some serious competence issues. If someone has been away from the project for long enough that they've forgotten how to create a thread on a talk page, then that's an argument for withdrawing the tools purely because their basic skills are in question.

In the same vein, looking at some of the edits which prompted this kerfuffle, Nabla found an error in a template-rich section of a sports article. Since he couldn't figure out how to fix the template-containing table, he thought it would be a good solution to leave a signed, bolded comment ([2]) in the middle of the article—instead of using the article talk page, posting to the Wikipedia Help Desk, asking at the talk page of one of the page's other editors, or reading the documentation pages associated with the templates. When a bot automatically reverted ([3]) his edit, he raged about the bot's oh-so-unreasonable assertion that his edit was "possible vandalism" (despite the fact that he had just inserted a signed, bold-text, profanity-containing rant into an article's body), and rolled back the bot's edit with more accompanying profanity ([4]).

I will be the first to acknowledge that it is unreasonable to expect a Wikipedia administrator (or any editor) to be intimately familiar with all aspects of the project and syntax. However, administrators are expected to understand the bounds of their own skillsets, and to know how to seek assistance when they reach those limits. The Nabla account's gross failure to do so (and his ongoing lack of self-awareness regarding why this might be a problem for him or for the community) is a strong argument for desysopping. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 14:49, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Timotheus Canens

No comment on other aspects of the matter; however, I have reproduced the md5sum Nabla is referring to using the procedures provided. This needs to be done in Windows, presumably due to the different newlines (CR+LF vs. LF only). T. Canens (talk) 21:11, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk notes

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

Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (0/1/0/5)

  • Don't think we need a full case here, either a "will we or won't we" motion will suffice. SirFozzie (talk) 01:46, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Awaiting a statement from Nabla. Newyorkbrad (talk) 07:01, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • My thanks to everyone who has commented on the request and provided us with an expression of community views. Unless there are any new facts to bring forward, I don't think that much more piling on will be useful until we hear from Nabla, assuming that he is planning to make a statement. (For what it is worth, this situation reminds me to a certain extent of the Deltabeignet case, but that may be more a function of my having hung around the arbitration pages for too long at this page more than anything else.) Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:28, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Decline. I dont believe there is any risks demanding arbcom intervention; if the account or IP starts vandalising again, we can act them. An RFC is desirable. John Vandenberg (chat) 10:13, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Waiting to hear from Nabla, but leaning toward SirFozzie's motion suggestion. Shell babelfish 14:42, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Would support motion - waiting to hear from Nabla. Are we sure the account is still in the hands of the original owner? --Elen of the Roads (talk) 16:13, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support a yes/no motion. Unless Nabla responds and the response raises significant issues, I can't see anything to be gained from a full case to discuss Nabla. There's possibly a good argument for a case to discuss how we deal with inactive admin accounts—as a number of people have mentioned, this is happening too often to be a statistical blip, and the discussions on the matter have failed to provide a consensus either way—but that's not what's being requested here. – iridescent 17:44, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Cube Lurker; no, that's not what the policy says. "[The duty] to handle requests (other than self-requests) for removal of administrative tools" doesn't mean a full Arbitration case every time someone demands an admin's desysopping (or this page would have the appearance of a pipe roll); it clarifies that Arbcom acts as the final place of appeal in such instances, and that it's an Arbcom motion which triggers the actual switch-flipping once an RFC reaches a conclusion. I'm more than happy for a simple yes/no motion in a case like this; I am not willing to go through a weeks-long process of he-said-she-said every time, to get exactly the same result. – iridescent 18:22, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Motion

1) For conduct inconsistent with holding a position of trust, Nabla (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) is stripped of administrative privileges. He may apply to have them reinstated at any time, either through the usual means or by appeal to the Committee.

As there are 17 active arbitrators, 2 of whom have abstained, a majority is 8.

Support
  1. Proposed. Kirill [talk] [prof] 00:02, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  2. To me this seems something of a storm in a teacup, but given the number of people with concerns there's clearly a breakdown of trust here, to the extent that any further admin actions by Nabla would inevitably be open to challenge. Since he's not actually performed an admin action for two years, there doesn't seem to be any loss to the project here; conversely, if Nabla were not desysopped and returned to active admin activities, there would be so many complaints and arguments that it has the potential to cause significant disruption. – iridescent 00:09, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  3. SirFozzie (talk) 00:24, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:46, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Jclemens (talk) 01:35, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Reconsidering. Jclemens (talk) 05:39, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Under normal circumstances, this would probably be a borderline desysop but the deciding factor here for me is the long period of inactivity with the tools. If an editor does not use the tools for this length of time, it is hard to justify their retaining them.  Roger Davies talk 00:39, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
  1. A trouting is sufficient here, and desysopping is dysproportional to the offense. I've seen at least half a dozen administrators in good standing behave worse than this in the past week (and that's not counting the ones involved in any other Arbitration Committee cases). When the community starts bringing those people here, they'll have my attention, but it's rather absurd to be desysopping someone who's not made an admin action in two years because they owned up to behaving stupidly. People who have the capacity to admit to errors in judgment should not be kicked to the curb, particularly when the errors are precisely those that we as a community need to learn how to address in a way that best benefits the project. Risker (talk) 03:56, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  2. The punishment does not fit the crime. - Mailer Diablo 15:08, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  3. What Risker said. Shell babelfish 15:22, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  4. I find myself agreeing with Risker here. I'm not sure what's left to really accomplish. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 19:33, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  5. This was a difficult decision. On the one hand, disrupting the project to make a point — no matter how good that point may be — is an activity that is traditionally (and for good reason) considered to be entirely unacceptable. That an administrator feels entitled to behave disruptively is, put simply, a gross breach of that trust; and I find myself hard pressed to reconcile being granted the right to block vandals and indulging in vandalism. On the other hand, the infraction was more silly than destructive and there is no question that the intent was not to harm the project.

    So, I oppose the desysop at this time as too heavy handed, but I'll not hide that I would have absolutely no patience towards any recidivism. — Coren (talk) 01:54, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  6. John Vandenberg (chat) 22:19, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Prefer the alternate motion. PhilKnight (talk) 00:46, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain
  1. From July 2004 through July 2009, Nabla was a productive user who donated countless hours of service to the project, amassing over 8000 edits [5]. From October 2005 through May 2009, Nabla served as a dedicated administrator with over 1000 logged administrative actions [6]. Following their semi-retirement from the project in 2009, Nabla edited casually as an IP. In 2011, they made a handful of silly edits while logged out. These edits affected 1) ClueBot's userspace; and 2) a mainspace article, which was affected for just over an hour [7]. The two edits to the mainspace drew the attention one of the article's main editors who fixed the issue identified.

    So: on the one hand - you have countless hours of dedicated service to the project. On the other hand - you have, at most, 15-30 minutes of editor time consumed reverting some silly edits and issuing warnings to an anonymous editor.

    Now, Nabla could have just 1) stayed quiet; 2) kept their administrative tools on their dormant account; and 3) perhaps even kept vandalizing anonymously - but instead they posted about their experience to the Village pump in an attempt to spark a dialogue on the systemic issues they felt were affecting the project to which they had dedicated so many hours of service [8]. In this context, my first thought is to sentence Nabla to ten hours of hard labour on the chain gang, and hopefully coax them back to productive and quality service. Do note that they've already undertaken not to vandalize further.

    Editor and administrator retention is an ongoing concern. I can't help but worry that this is a bit of a knee-jerk overreaction and that some of those commenting are only looking at the proximal situation - and have not weighed the (voluntarily-confessed) disruption against Nabla's many hours of service as an editor and administrator. –xenotalk 01:14, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  2. Holding vote for now; I'm leaning against the motion, largely per Xeno, but Iridescent has a valid point too and I want to think about this situation a bit more given the unique combination of factors. The Deltabeignet case that I mentioned above may indeed be the most relevant precedent, and that case was resolved well short of desysopping. Regardless of my ultimate vote, per one of the comments above, I'd ask that the motion be copyedited; from a semantic point of view, either "X is desysopped" (the traditional wording for the first few years of the committee) or "X's administrator privileges are revoked" (used more recently since it was introduced by UninvitedCompany in 2007) has a much better sound to me than "X is stripped of administrator privileges" (a phrasing used only recently). More tomorrow. Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:22, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    The Deltabeignet decision dates from early 2007; I would hope that, four years later, the project has finally reached a sufficient level of professionalism that casual vandalism by administrators is no longer tolerated. Kirill [talk] [prof] 10:43, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Alternate motion

(A) The Arbitration Committee reaffirms its, and the community's, expectation that administrators will observe all applicable policies, avoid inappropriate edits, and behave with maturity and professionalism throughout their participation on Wikipedia. While administrators are not expected to be perfect, severe or repeated violations of policies and community norms may lead to appropriate sanctions, up to and including desysopping.

(B) Nabla's conduct in admittedly making several unproductive edits while editing as an IP has been subject to significant, and justified, criticism. The Arbitration Committee joins in disapproving of this behavior, but accepts Nabla's assurance that he will not repeat it in the future, even to express good-faith concerns or frustrations regarding aspects of the project.

(C) Nabla is aware from the ANI discussion and this request for arbitration that some editors' trust in his ability to serve as an effective administrator has been eroded, both because of his IP edits and because of his period of inactivity. If Nabla intends to resume active work as an administrator, he should first refamiliarize himself with all applicable policies, and we recommend that he focus initially on less controversial administrator tasks. To an extent, these recommendations apply to any administrator who returns after a long period of inactivity.

(D) Although not directly relevant to Nabla's situation, the Arbitration Committee is aware of the ongoing community discussion regarding inactive administrator accounts, and stands ready to play its part if necessary once consensus has been determined.

As there are 17 active arbitrators, a majority is 9.
Support:
  1. Proposed as alternative to the above. Several of my colleagues beginning with Xeno have adequately discussed Nabla's behavior from all sides, and I don't have much to add to what they have already said and to the community comments on the request. Everyone seems in agreement that there are no disputed facts here and that we can resolve this situation without a case, so this motion is my proposal for doing so. Suggestions for copyediting are welcome, and any arbitrator's request that the paragraphs be divided for voting purposes should be accommodated. In response to TenOfAllTrades's concern, while we do not have actual proof of identity, I understand there is good reason to be confident that Nabla is the same person now as in the past. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:07, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  2. This works for me as well. Note: I've copy-edited [D] slightly to simplify it.  Roger Davies talk 00:44, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    @Cube lurker ;)  Roger Davies talk 01:31, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  3. PhilKnight (talk) 00:44, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  4. I'm really not convinced that (D) should be there at all, but it doesn't sink the motion as a whole. — Coren (talk) 02:29, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:40, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  6. –xenotalk 02:59, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  7. SirFozzie (talk) 03:19, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  8. All administrators should note (A). Risker (talk) 03:23, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Inadequate, but better than nothing. Kirill [talk] [prof] 08:15, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  10. That about sums it up (though I'll agree with Coren that D is kinda glued on there, but meh). Shell babelfish 08:29, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Aye. - Mailer Diablo 09:10, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 12:27, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  13. John Vandenberg (chat) 21:28, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. No. This is nothing but weasel words. If it is the consensus among the Arbs, we should be explicit that his conduct was not bad enough to actually warrant a desysop - Wikipedia is not the Catholic Church, and the fact that he has repented should not be a factor if the offence was serious enough to warrant desysopping in the first place. Also, I believe this admin has lost the trust of the community, and we are storing up trouble for ourselves if we don't respond to that. Put simply, in fairness to Nabla, if the guy wants to keep on working here, we need to make it clear that he hasn't actually done anything bad enough to warrant firing him. Elen of the Roads (talk) 13:36, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:
  1. I see the point of giving repentant folks a second chance, but I also don't see the benefit of having someone walking around with the administrator bit when they're so far out of touch with the current community standards that they didn't anticipate this sort of a reaction. Jclemens (talk) 21:45, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Enacted - Dougweller (talk) 12:46, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case&oldid=436493134"