Beyond My Ken (talk | contribs) |
Innisfree987 (talk | contribs) →Statement by {Non-party}: Seems to me what point needs making has probably been made |
||
Line 173: | Line 173: | ||
=== Statement by Natureium === |
=== Statement by Natureium === |
||
I am also concerned about this blatant abuse of power by an administrator, and that multiple other admins stated that in their opinion, he hadn't done anything wrong. Also notable is that when a similar situation was brought up in the past ([https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Top_25_Report/Archive_5#Blatant_leftist_POV]), the opinions on policies outside of mainspace were very different. [[User:Natureium|Natureium]] ([[User talk:Natureium|talk]]) 19:24, 5 April 2018 (UTC) |
I am also concerned about this blatant abuse of power by an administrator, and that multiple other admins stated that in their opinion, he hadn't done anything wrong. Also notable is that when a similar situation was brought up in the past ([https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Top_25_Report/Archive_5#Blatant_leftist_POV]), the opinions on policies outside of mainspace were very different. [[User:Natureium|Natureium]] ([[User talk:Natureium|talk]]) 19:24, 5 April 2018 (UTC) |
||
=== Statement by Innisfree987 === |
|||
Mainly here to note I too thought the underlying issue was a clear policy violation and so saw admin intervention to hold the line on policy as legitimate, even as eventually handing off also seemed well-advised given contention. I now understand (thanks to their ever-clear explication) why Jbhunley saw it differently, and so their choice to come here feels reasonable, but I do continue to think reasonable people could disagree in good faith, rather than it being so obvious that this course of action is {{tq|shocking to the conscience}} of WP. As such I tend to think the appropriate outcome is a general reminder of the prudence of caution, and that that existence of this thread probably makes that point adequately, especially in light of SoWhy's point that this appears to be an isolated incident rather than a pattern. [[User:Innisfree987|Innisfree987]] ([[User talk:Innisfree987|talk]]) 20:00, 5 April 2018 (UTC) |
|||
=== Statement by {Non-party} === |
=== Statement by {Non-party} === |
Revision as of 20:00, 5 April 2018
Requests for arbitration
Siege of Tobruk: usage of the terms "British" and "United Kingdom"
Initiated by Grant | Talk at 04:52, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
Involved parties
- Grant65 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA), filing party
- Keith-264 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request
- User_talk:Keith-264#Request_for_Arbitration_(RfA)_regarding_Siege_of_Tobruk
- The notice I left at User talk:Keith-264 has since been deleted by Keith-264. Grant | Talk 08:56, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
- Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried
Statement by Grant65
The historical Siege of Tobruk in 1941 involved Allied forces from Australia, Czechoslovakia, Poland, the UK and British India. For most of the battle, most of the Allied forces were Australian and the entire Allied force were commanded by an Australian general. While even the Indian Army was technically separate from the British Army, Australia and the other Dominions (at that time Canada, New Zealand and South Africa) were fully independent after 1931 – a status that was not, however, granted at the time to British India (or crown colonies like Bermuda, the Solomon Islands, and Rhodesia). Likewise Czechoslovakian, Polish and other forces constituted by exiles from occupied Europe were officially and technically subject to governments-in-exile, not the UK government.
The article Siege of Tobruk was created in December 2004. For about 12 years, numerous editors upheld a consensus, usually unspoken, that the common names "Allied" and "Allies" were used as generic descriptors. Moreover, this has been the convention in most WW2 articles. However, about two years ago, Keith-264 began to insert (in places where Allied or Allies would previously have been used and are historically accurate) terms like "British" or "United Kingdom". (Which a lay reader with little knowledge of the history could interpret as meaning that, Australian, Czechoslovakian and Polish forces had the same non-independent status as Indian forces.) For example, since 3 June 2017, Keith-264 has repeatedly changed the list of combatants in the inbox in a fashion such as:
Belligerents
Czechoslovakia
Poland
United Kingdom
As the talk pages listed above show, lengthy appeals to Keith-264 (by me and at least two other editors) to abide by a longstanding WP:CONSENSUS and WP:COMMONNAME at Siege of Tobruk have been fruitless. Moreover, Keith-264 has not stated any specific objection to "Allies" or "Allied". He simply asserts WP:RS in support of British/UK, even when it is pointed out that (1) relevant RS are themselves divided on the issue and (2) RS may themselves perpetuate WP:SYSTEMICBIAS. In summary, Keith-264 continues to disregard longstanding consensus and usage of common names, among editors in this and many similar WP articles, and to assert the authority of a limited/selective range of sources.
Yesterday, Keith-264 again altered the infobox, in the fashion of the example above, with the (IMO inadequate) summary: "Nearly correct, remedied minor error".
(In response, I have imposed a 36-hour editing block on Keith-264; I will gladly lift this ban or or see it lifted, if it is considered to be improper.)
I can't see anything short of intervention from other admins resolving this particular dispute. Thank you for your attention, Grant | Talk 04:52, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
- @Power~enwiki:The block has now been retracted.
- I think this goes far beyond WP:DRN as it has the potential to set a precedent that will affect many other articles. Likewise, some of the articles implicated are beyond the scope of the WP:MILHIST task force (which in my experience as a member is very effective at creating original content, but is not well-equipped to handle disputes between members). Grant | Talk 06:06, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
Statement by Keith-264
I have left a comment on the article talk page and have nothing to add.Keith-264 (talk) 08:23, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
- Correction: I deny the allegation made by The Banner and claim that the editor is pursuing a vendetta. Keith-264 (talk) 15:43, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
Statement by power~enwiki
This seems like an editing dispute of the type that ARBCOM generally declines; perhaps WP:MILHIST or WP:DRN would be helpful. However, I'm concerned by "In response, I have imposed a 36-hour editing block on Keith-264"; it feels like a bright-line violation of WP:INVOLVED. I hope Grant65 will retract this without boomerang sanctions being necessary. power~enwiki (π, ν) 05:46, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
Statement by uninvolved Martinp
Hmm. I see passion and dedication about improving an article by both parties. So far so good. I also see occasional deviations into snark and passive-aggressive behaviour, dating back at least to the so-called "friendly advice" thread kindly linked to by Grant.
There are many ways the dispute - as framed by Grant - could be resolved short of arbitrator involvement. However, since it's ended up here, it would be helpful if Grant recognized or was made to recognize that his block was really not on. If you've had a content debate on X with someone 9 months ago, that devolved as it did, and you ended the discussion with a somewhat snarky remark (see end of the thread), you are pretty clearly too WP:INVOLVED to be blocking the same interlocutor when they revert you specifically on X! And if Keith's crime was not being sufficiently communicative, the right administrative action is hardly a 36 hour block, *with talk page and email access removed*. I'm afraid it has pretty clear overtones of "we're both getting frustrated with each other, but I win since I have access to the admin bit."
I'm not trying to call for anyone's head (or bit), and see no evidence (nor have I looked for any) of a pattern of administrative misconduct, but it would be helpful for Grant undertook to wield the mop in an analogous situation differently next time. Especially since by happenstance the dispute has ended up in the chambers of those who would deal with any pattern of admin misconduct, should it ever occur or be asserted. Martinp (talk) 12:35, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
- @Beyond My Ken:, in fairness to Grant, he unblocked willingly soon after power~enwiki's comment, before NYB's advice (and before my comment). The issue is not that it took forceful persuasion to get the block reversed, just that it was a pretty egregiously bad block, and that so far the communication around it sounds more like Grant feeling "I exercised admin discretion, but I'm a reasonable guy who unblocked when that's what others suggested" rather than "I realize I really screwed up here, don't worry it won't happen again." To me that's the extent to which the block is germane at this venue. If Grant shows that amount of self-reflection unambiguously and promptly, we should just move on. If it's slow, begrudging, or shows (continuing) lack of self-awareness, then an arbcom warning or suchlike might be needed. Martinp (talk) 18:23, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
Statement by Beyond My Ken
- (1) Clearly a content dispute, not ripe for arbitration.
- (2) Following
theadviceof NYB, Grant65 has unblocked Keith-264 [See the correction above, in Martinp's statement. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:53, 5 April 2018 (UTC)] - (3) I am concerned that an admin would be so unfamiliar with normal Wiki-procedure as to block an editor they're heavily involved with and then file a content dispute as an Arbitration request. That doesn't speak well for Grant65's knowledge of the site's rules, policies and norms, and I would suggest that the Committee or individual Arbitrators strongly advise Grant65 that they need to bone up on the subject. His actions don't rise anywhere near to the level of consideration of desysopping, but it is worrying to have someone with the bit who doesn't appear to understand some basic stuff.
Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:50, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
- I've had a chance to look through Grant65's admin logs, and in his 11 years as an admin, he's made 7 blocks (as noted by NYB), 3 protection actions [1], 47 deletion actions [2] (averaging less than 5 per year), and no user rights actions [3]. He has done a large number of page moves [4], close to 1,000, so I'm wondering -- since moving pages seems to be the majority of what he does with the admin bit -- now that we have the Page mover and File mover user rights, if Grant65 would be interested in giving up the admin bit in return for receiving those two rights? Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:46, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
Statement by {Non-party}
Other editors are free to make relevant comments on this request as necessary. Comments here should address why or why not the Committee should accept the case request or provide additional information.
Siege of Tobruk: usage of the terms "British" and "United Kingdom": Clerk notes
- This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).
- I have moved Grant65's reply (to power~enwiki) to their section. All editors are reminded that should reply to other statements in their own section. --Kostas20142 (talk) 14:13, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
Siege of Tobruk: usage of the terms "British" and "United Kingdom": Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter <0/0/0>
Vote key: (Accept/decline/recuse)
- @Grant65: thanks for posting this. Hoping now to clarify what it is you're asking Arbcom to determine. If it's whether Keith-264 is right or wrong on content then we probably can't help you - that's something for the talkpages, or an RFC. I note the view that Milhist/DRN may not be the right path, but Arbcom probably isn't either as we don't resolve content disputes. An RFC with a neutral notification to relevant wiki projects might do the trick in getting wide input.
- Alternatively, you could be inviting us to offer a view on whether Keith-264 is a disruptive editor; but if so I'd say there's a few earlier dispute resolution processes to try first, like DRN or ANI. Or I could have missed the boat entirely and you're asking a different question to either of those - in which case let us know. -- Euryalus (talk) 12:04, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
- Comments on first review:
- The crux of this request originates in a content dispute—perhaps an easy content dispute, but still a content dispute. It is a basic principle, although often counterintuitive for editors who are fortunate enough to avoid the arbitration pages, that ArbCom does not decide content disputes. It does appear that consensus favors one side of the content dispute, and at some point, an editor's refusing to accept consensus on a content issue crosses the line into a user conduct problem that could fall within ArbCom's scope. But before resorting to the complicated and time-consuming arbitration process, an editor is expected to have attempted earlier forms of dispute resolution, and I do not see that that has been done here.
- In any event, Keith-264 has stated on Talk:Siege of Tobruk that he no longer intends to edit that article, which would appear to resolve the immediate dispute. More concerning is the comment by The Banner on the same page that
"[t]he aggressive behaviour of Keith-264 is an important reason for me to stop editing most military articles."
If that is true and if it is reasonable then it might indicate a broader problem beyond this one article. Evidence on that score would be relevant here, although again, arbitration might not be the best way to address such an issue, if it exists, in the first instance. - Despite any problems with Keith-264's editing, I am very troubled by the block that Grant65 imposed. The "involved administrators" policy has nuances and exceptions, but the core of it is that an admin must not take action against an editor with whom he or she is involved in a dispute. Here, Grant65 and Keith-264 were obviously embroiled in a sharp content dispute on Siege of Tobruk, and if Keith-264's conduct in editing that article crossed the line, literally any administrator other than Grant65 would have been better suited to evaluate and address the issue. This block by Grant65 particularly stands out because Grant65 has made only seven blocks in total in his eleven years as an administrator. Grant65's relative unfamiliarity with blocking may explain why he blocked Keith-264 with both talkpage access and e-mail disabled, which would otherwise be inexplicable. I would appreciate any comment on this aspect by Grant65 and particularly his commitment that there will be no more blocks like this one.
- Finally, since this dispute arises from punctiliousness about terminology, I note in passing that the British Solomon Islands were a protectorate rather than a crown colony. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:11, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
Misuse of mop
Initiated by Jbh Talk at 16:06, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
Involved parties
- Jbhunley (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), filing party
- Future Perfect at Sunrise (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
- Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request
- Future Perfect at Sunrise (notified)
- Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried
- Attempt on talk page [5]
- Discussion at WP:ANI#Taking a position on whether Billy Graham's death was a "profound loss" (permalink)
- Issue which FPaS thought worthy of enforcing his opinion about was solved by good will discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Christianity/Outreach/April 2018. No tool use, no edit war, no participation by FPaS.
Statement by Jbhunley
- Comment I have slept on it. Thought about it, and considered to drama and possible ill-will this will generate. I simply can not reconcile the deliberate, willful and unapologetic use of the mop to enforce an editor's apparent personal dislike for a dead man. I have seen zero introspection on the part of Future Perfect at Sunrise and no indication that they understand what they did was wrong. Because of that they are likely to behave in the same way again, and again. So I will take my serving of shit for requesting the Committee review this incident. I think it is worth it because, to me, FPaS's actions were unconscionable. -- Jbh Talk
This event is, in the scheme of things, pretty insignificant. Its very insignificance lends it clarity though; there are no long running feuds, no reams of diffs, no accusations of cabals or history of questionably questionable behavior to pick apart. There is one definite action by a single person that broke a simple bright line rule. Administrators do not use their tools to enforce their own views.
Future Perfect at Sunrise edits WikiProject Christianity's newsletter to change "The death of Billy Graham was a profound loss" to read "Billy Graham died" and justified it at ANI by saying [6] ("The death of XY was a huge loss", where XY is a controversial political/religious figure, is a contentious political statement of opinion. A WikiProject newsletter is a means of mass-crossposting messages across user talk pages. We do not use mass postings on user talkpages to promote contentious ideological messages. It's immaterial whether it's done by an individual user via mass copying, or through the vehicle of a project newsletter. It's also immaterial whether the opinion is attributed to the wikiproject as a whole or to an individual author's byline. It's even immaterial whether the message actually matches a consensus opinion of the wikiproject's membership, or of the majority of the intended recipients. Political messages of opinion unrelated to our common goal of writing an encyclopedia are simply a no-go, period.)
- Edit waring for preferred version of page: [7] [8] [9]
- Threatens use of tools to enforce opinion: [10] (Removed again. I still regard this as a straightforward administrative matter of enforcing policy, not a content dispute, so I won't feel any qualms about "involvement" if I should have to protect the page.)
- Full protected preferred version: [11]
- Advised by NeilN [12] (Pretty involved protection though.)
- FPaS stands by action [13] ( I don't care if was the "wisest" course of action; it clearly was the right action though. As clear and unambiguous a case of enforcing policy as preventing a copyright violation or an NFC breach. There simply cannot be a legitimate disagreement among good-faith Wikipedians whether it is legitimate to spam hundreds of user talkpages with political messages of opinion.)
- Attempted resolution [14]
- (Would you please cite the policy which you are relying on when you edited and then full protected Wikipedia:WikiProject_Christianity/Outreach/April_2018? If you can not do so please reverse the protection. This looks like a clear cut abuse of tools to enforce your POV. Thank you for your prompt attention to this issue. [)
- (I stand by what I said at ANI and have nothing more to add to that. I'm not going to have additional discussions about it on this page, so please don't continue the thread here.)
- (Good enough. Just attempting to exhaust avenues of dispute resolution on what I firmly believe to an abuse of your tools. )
- Unprotected page about an hour later with (another admin has offered to take over this protection if necessary; hope it won't have to come to that.)
- "Profound loss" issue was solved with about half an hour of discussion on the talk page without any input from FPaS.
It seems that FPaS is basing their actions that saying a that a person's death is a "profound loss" is in some way an impermissible political statement as opposed to a legitimate expression of grief (It was written under the newsletter editor's byline and was clearly opinion) and that it rises to the level of administrative action to remove it and keep it removed from a project newsletter. This is entirely a reflection of the FPaS's POV on Billy Graham which is not necessarily the view held by the members of that WikiProject. This was a clear cut misuse of tools to enforce a personal political view and is completely incompatible with the actions expected of a English Wikipedia administrator.
To be perfectly clear. I have never to my knowledge interacted with FPaS. I am not a member of WikiProject Christianity and I hold Billy Graham in pretty low esteem. FPaS's actions were, from a Wikipedia point of view, 'shocking to the conscience' and in my strong opinion require review. Whichever version of that newsletter is 'proper' based on community norms is not relevant to this matter. FPaS refused to cite any policy to support administrative action and their bare assertion that they were acting in an administrative capacity is not sufficient to remove the bar of WP:INVOLVED.
The page was unprotected after about an hour and the issue of "profound loss" was addressed after a bit of discussion on talk by changing it to "profound loss by many". To me the simplicity and ease of finding a solution, and FPasS not bothering to participate in that process, highlights the impropriety of FPaS's actions. They wanted it their way based on their own biases and belief and used administrative tools to force that outcome without discussion. There was no edit war there without FPaS, there was no disruption without FPaS and the only editor unwilling to discuss was … Future Perfect at Sunrise.
There behavior and actions here have demonstrated that they are not temperamentally or ethically fit to continue to be an administrator. There are not many bright lines on Wikipedia but using the bit to win an argument is one; it is never acceptable and can not be shown, by the Arbitration Committee, to be acceptable.
Statement by Future Perfect at Sunrise
I stand by every word I said yesterday on the noticeboard and I'm not planning to engage in any further discussion here. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:28, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
Statement by SarekOfVulcan
I think this is a reasonable request, but I don't think it needs a case. I'm just posting to call attention to an inconsistency above that sheds light on why a case isn't necessary.
The page was unprotected after about an hour and the issue of "profound loss" was addressed after a bit of discussion on talk by changing it to "profound loss by many". To me the simplicity and ease of finding a solution, and FPasS not bothering to participate in that process, highlights the impropriety of FPaS's actions.
In other words, FPaS acted administratively, and then other people resolved the content issue in a different way. While it's possible FPaS shouldn't have acted as he did, his action wasn't a case of "winning the dispute".--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:16, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
Statement by Swarm
To simplify what I said at AN, advocacy of certain viewpoints or the expression of personal opinion on talk pages is explicitly prohibited as a matter of policy. Removal of such content is explicitly allowed by the talk page guidelines. Fully-protecting as a necessary measure to enforce the talk page guidelines should not be seen as a breach of WP:INVOLVED, as FPaS was acting in an uninvolved administrative capacity the entire time. The fact that he was repeatedly reverted by a disruptive editor and had to employ a full protection does not change that fact, or at least it shouldn't. Swarm ♠ 17:14, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
- To counter NeilN's point, just because something is not strictly enforced does not mean such enforcement is abusive. The merits of FPaS's judgment call are debatable, and I am not even attempting to engage in that debate. I'm simply pointing out that what they did is technically not in breach of any policies and thus should be classified as discretionary rather than abusive. Swarm ♠ 19:16, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
Statement by kelapstick
I don't see this as an abuse of tools, or worthy of a case, but that naturally isn't for me to decide anymore. My belief is (and I don't want to put words in FPaS's mouth), that they saw the mass posting of the message as against Wikipedia policy (whether it is or is not against policy is neither here nor there as far as this case request goes, it was at the time their interpretation), and the protection was to prevent changing the newsletter back to a state in which they believed it would be against policy, and distributing it. Thus making the protection a preventative administrative action, not protecting the page to get a leg up in a dispute. While best practice would be for FPaS to revert and then request protection, that didn't happen. And that often doesn't happen with protection (have you seen how long RFPP requests can take?). Noting that at the ANI discussion I (and other admins) endorsed the protection (for various reasons to be sure), and I have since re-protected the page to prevent edit warring while discussion is ongoing on the talk page. --kelapstick(bainuu) 17:18, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
Statement by Beyond My Ken
I have had disputes with FPaS in the past, and I have sympathy for JBH's complaint, but I do want to point out, in all fairness, that while NeilN took FPaS to task for the protection, a number of other admins I esteem -- such as Bbb23 and JzG -- spoke in support of it. Personally, as a non-admin, I disagreed, but it should be mentioned that FPaS did not stand alone within the admin corps. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:59, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
Statement by Writ Keeper
Unlike some of the others above, I do find this to be a breach of INVOLVED. It reminds me of the Kww case I filed on a smaller scale. I would certainly say that FPaS's removal of the disputed language was within policy--I certainly agree with it--per all of the guidelines people have quoted above. But what I find troubling is, when FPaS re-reverted twice, it became an edit war. There's no exemption for "admin actions" in the edit-warring policy, nor are there any exemptions for TPG or any other relevant policy, BLP certainly doesn't apply here, An editor who repeatedly restores his or her preferred version is edit warring, regardless of whether their edits were justifiable: "But my edits were right, so it wasn't edit warring" is no defense
(from the policy Wikipedia:Edit warring, epmhasis mine), etc. As I argued in the Kww case, being involved in an edit war, in addition to itself being bad, should automatically make one INVOLVED with respect to further admin actions (common sense); as such, the protection at the end of the edit war was an INVOLVED act. Bad times.
All that said, FPaS eventually backed down, even if they didn't agree with the policy interpretations, and that was exactly the kind of thing missing from the Kww case that made me file it. It's also a much smaller molehill, without any of the secondary issues that case dealt with. Ultimately I don't know whether it's worth a case or not; I don't think FPaS is blameless here and ideally there would be some official record of that, but I don't know that anything more than that is indicated here, and I don't know that that alone is worth a case. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 18:25, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
Statement by SoWhy
FPaS violated WP:INVOLVED by protecting a page he edited before and his behavior before and after the protection was less than what the community expects from its admins. That much is clear. Whether that's enough to warrant a case, I'm not so sure. I think the case request would be stronger if there was a pattern of such behavior and not just a single incident. Basically, I agree with Writ Keeper. Regards SoWhy 18:29, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
Statement by NeilN
Ill-advised protection but does not warrant a case if Arbcom makes it clear the protection by FPaS was ill-advised. Two points:
- NPOV is policy but admins reverting and protecting to enforce their version of NPOV is deeply unsettling.
- Swarm's post above may outline a justification for FPaS' protect but it does not outline a good justification. There were no derogatory BLP issues involved - it was one sentence in a newsletter. Every time someone famous dies there's probably some discussion happening on user talk pages containing personal reflections about the subject and how much they meant to their field (e.g., Stephen Hawking). An admin removing such discussions and threatening to block/protect would probably be told to get lost. --NeilN talk to me 18:57, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
Statement by GreenMeansGo
What is disturbing about this whole issue is not that an admin had a momentary lapse in judgement, but that it was so obviously a lapse in judgement, and that so many experienced admins showed up at ANI, and then here, to defend it. For the record:
- If you have a dispute over content, that's a content dispute.
- If you wage a war against someone to revert to your preferred version of a page, that's an edit war.
- NPOV is a content policy. It is one of the policies that
jointly determine the type and quality of material that is acceptable in Wikipedia articles
. NPOV does not apply to WikiProject newsletters. Here's a book review in The Bugle. That's opinion. It's not subject to NPOV. - If you engage in an edit war over a content dispute, you are involved.
- If you are involved, then you shouldn't take administrative action.
These are points I expect to explain to new editors at the Teahouse. Not to experienced administrators at ANI or Arbcom.
Having said that, I would have brought this case yesterday if FPaS hadn't reversed course. They did. So I didn't, because the best that's going to come out of it is an admonishment I suppose. Whether an admonishment is needed to remind some of our most experienced administrators about our most basic policies might however be up for debate. GMGtalk 19:06, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
Statement by Ian.thomson
Before I became involved in the discussion, the possibility that page protection would be needed had occurred to me and I would have thanked an uninvolved admin for locking the page. I do think that was a bad idea for FPaS to lock the page after his reverts there, but he unlocked the page shortly after, an edit war started back up, and kelapstick had to lock the page again. There's no pretending that the page wasn't going to end up protected due to the content dispute at some point, the only issue would be who did it. If any other admin had done it, it would be a total non-issue and any report filed against that admin would be summarily dismissed. That's why there's no case against kelapstick.
WP:INVOLVED notes that involved actions are excused if any reasonable administrator would have probably come to the same conclusion
. Again, the page would have been and was locked by another admin to due to the content dispute. The only thing I can see being necessary is maybe a trout for FPaS, though one that's not fresh is more punitive than educational. Ian.thomson (talk) 19:07, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
Statement by Natureium
I am also concerned about this blatant abuse of power by an administrator, and that multiple other admins stated that in their opinion, he hadn't done anything wrong. Also notable is that when a similar situation was brought up in the past ([15]), the opinions on policies outside of mainspace were very different. Natureium (talk) 19:24, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
Statement by Innisfree987
Mainly here to note I too thought the underlying issue was a clear policy violation and so saw admin intervention to hold the line on policy as legitimate, even as eventually handing off also seemed well-advised given contention. I now understand (thanks to their ever-clear explication) why Jbhunley saw it differently, and so their choice to come here feels reasonable, but I do continue to think reasonable people could disagree in good faith, rather than it being so obvious that this course of action is shocking to the conscience
of WP. As such I tend to think the appropriate outcome is a general reminder of the prudence of caution, and that that existence of this thread probably makes that point adequately, especially in light of SoWhy's point that this appears to be an isolated incident rather than a pattern. Innisfree987 (talk) 20:00, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
Statement by {Non-party}
Other editors are free to make relevant comments on this request as necessary. Comments here should address why or why not the Committee should accept the case request or provide additional information.
Misuse of mop: Clerk notes
- This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).
Misuse of mop: Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter <0/0/0>
Vote key: (Accept/decline/recuse)