Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case

Requests for arbitration

Arbitration Committee proceedings

• recent changes
• purge this page
• view or discuss this template

Case requests

Request name	Motions	Initiated	Votes
Catflap08 and Hijiri88		23 September 2015	{{{votes}}}
Lady.de.Clare and Necrothesp		24 September 2015	{{{votes}}}
[[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#{{anchor|jps vs. Spinningspark|Request for review of admin actions}} Spinningspark|{{anchor|jps vs. Spinningspark|Request for review of admin actions}} Spinningspark]]		27 September 2015	{{{votes}}}

[edit]

Open cases

Case name	Links	Evidence due	Prop. Dec. due
Backlash to diversity and inclusion	(t) (ev / t) (ws / t) (pd / t)	10 Oct 2024	24 Oct 2024

[edit]

Recently closed cases (Past cases)

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

Clarification and Amendment requests

Request name	Motions	Case	Posted
Amendment request: Palestine-Israel articles (AE referral)	Motion	(orig. case)	17 August 2024

Arbitrator motions

No arbitrator motions are currently open.

Catflap08 and Hijiri88

Initiated by Nyttend (talk) at 17:51, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Involved parties

• Nyttend (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), filing party
• Catflap08 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Hijiri88 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• John Carter (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

• Catflap08
• Hijiri88
• John Carter

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

• WP:AN#Request for a block as of right now
• Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive897#Hounding_by_Hijiri_88
• Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive270#Interaction_ban_between_Catflap08_and_Hijiri88

Statement by Nyttend

Catflap and Hijiri have been on uncomfortable terms for quite a while. They were interaction-banned from each other some while ago (lots of people refer to this fact, and both have acknowledged it, [1] and [2], although I can't find the original ban decision), we've seen various dispute-resolution threads about them that sometimes go so long that they don't get any action (e.g. the ANI archive that I link above), and an incident yesterday resulted in both being blocked for an interaction-ban violation. I've listed John Carter as a party because as part of yesterday's incident, he suggested an Arbcom case; as far as I know, he's not taken sides in this fight. I definitely haven't; before I issued Hijiri's block yesterday, I don't think I'd ever interacted with him, and before leaving a comment in yesterday's incident, I don't believe that I'd interacted with Catflap aside from issuing an unrelated 3RR block last year (see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive832#User:Naveen Reddy reported by User:Catflap08 (Result: Both blocked)). There may be additional reasons to request arbitration, reasons that I'm not aware of; I'm just making it because it was suggested and because I can see previous attempts at resolution that obviously haven't worked. Both editors are blocked at the moment; I'll be willing to copy their statements to this page if other editors don't do it first, and I'll willingly unblock Hijiri (and ask the blocking admin to remove Catflap's block) to allow them to participate here if that's a better idea. Finally, please note that I picked the name "Catflap08 and Hijiri88" because of alphabetical order (were it "Katflap08", I would have switched them), not because of a perceived need to list them in that order.

Note to arbitrators — while both editors are currently blocked, I told them that statements are welcome: I offered to copy stuff for them (if they write a statement for inclusion here, I'll copy/paste it from their talk pages), and after getting permission from Fram (who blocked Catflap), I stand ready to unblock either or both if they want to participate here directly. Neither one's edited since I left talkpage messages for both of them, so I won't do anything yet, but hopefully we'll get a response soon. Nyttend (talk) 01:42, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Catflap08

• I have said before that I have little faith in the processes here, given the refusal of admins to take what seemed to me required action regarding the misconduct of Hijiri88.
• To the best of my knowledge my interaction with Hijiri88 began when he challenged material added to the Kenji Miyazawa article as can be found at Talk:Kenji Miyazawa/Archive 1#Nationalist. The bone of contention was whether the subject's membership in a nationalist group made him a nationalist himself. I had proposed to drop the word nationalist and simply include the undisputable fact of the subject's membership in that nationalist group, Hijiri88, editing often as an IP, continued to resist, indicating that there was no difference between the two, although there is a clear and obvious difference between the two ideas which was apparently beyond his ability to understand.
• Since that time, Hijiri88 has shown an unusual interest in editing articles related to the topic which is pretty much my sole area of activity, the category of Nichiren Buddhism. They also, repeatedly, cast allegations regarding my competence. They have never done anything to substantiate their claim regarding my competence though.
• He has, sometimes in his verbose comments or responses to questions, also regularly engaged in unnecessary personal attacks (including foul remarks in notes accompanying his edits) and explicit assumptions of bad faith regarding me, and, so far as I have seen, most anyone else who disagrees with him. I am aware from the comments of others that Hijiri88 may have been subject to abuse earlier, but I believe his demonstrable inability to adhere to conduct guidelines is a problem which cannot be excused or overlooked because of the earlier abuse he had received. I also agree with the comments of others here, that sanctions were past due before, and that attempts to resolve the matter short of strong and clearly-defined sanctions from the ArbCom are doomed to fail given Hijiri88's apparent inability to believe his conduct might be reasonably sanctionable. His comments [in his request for the block being lifted, implying he sees that he has an absolute right to respond to anything he perceives as criticism, is interesting here in the section beginning here, because of along with his obvious indications of paranoid thinking and his stated belief that somehow my comment to him must have been taken as an invitation to comment from me, even though I as an individual do not have the right to do so, so far as I understand. Their behaviour is such that there are reasonable bases for questioning their competence to editWP:CIR, and I believe that only a full review of all the activity involved in this and other instances involving him is likely to yield reasonable results here.
• The continuous deletion of references I find to be problematic too. Challenging them is one thing, but making them invisible to the reader’s eye is de facto censoring Wikipedia.--Catflap08 (talk) 19:30, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Statement by John Carter

I wholeheartedly and in the strongest terms possible urge the committee to take this case. There are I believe amply demonstrated reasons to believe that there are long-standing behaviorial issues involved, and that dealing with those concerns now will likely reduce the likelihood that similar problems will recur in the future. John Carter (talk) 18:04, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

A link to the previous request Catflap08 filed here for an interaction ban on April 8 can be found here. John Carter (talk) 18:26, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

If there is going to be a question about the name for a case, I think "Japan" or "Japanese culture" or similar might be best. And allow me to say up front the poor arbs who have to wade through this interminable mess if the case is accepted have my greatest respect and thanks. John Carter (talk) 18:50, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

I may be one of the individuals @Dennis Brown: is referring to below in his opening comment, and I agree that there is perhaps a rather obvious tendency toward problematic behavior on the part of several editors who may or may not yet have made statements. The potential list of parties to a case dealing with all the issues present here would be a really long one, and while I don't like the idea of doing that to you arbs I think that the behavior of all the individuals involved, including tendencies toward counterattacking by allies and harassment, will probably have to be addressed as well. John Carter (talk) 19:18, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Floq

Good idea, Nyttend, an ArbCom case is really the only practical solution. I saw this blowing up on ANI in passing yesterday, and there are lots more ANI threads that someone involved in this could list. It boils down to this: we (the community) let this fester so long that it is now impossible to solve this ourselves. There will never be a consensus on what to do, so ArbCom needs to cut the Gordian knot and make an unambiguous solution, even if it ends up being impossible to make a perfect one. Every new Catflap/Hijiri ANI thread runs several pages, populated nearly equally by long term editors convinced Catflap is right and Hijiri is wrong, and long term editors convinced Hijiri is right and Catflap is wrong, all referring to things that everyone involved seems to know about (and fundamentally disagree about), but which uninvolved admins new to the dispute cannot understand. I once looked at a Catflap/Hijiri thread with the intent on closing it, and gave up after a half hour produced nothing but confusion and a headache. Everything seems to end in "no consensus", which just makes the next ANI thread more complicated. My first instinct on seeing this a long time ago was "a pox on both their houses", but apparently many long term editors think one or both are good editors when not interacting. A topic ban is not a simple solution, apparently, as it seems the biggest point of contention is an area in which one editor focuses almost exclusively. And I'm slowly becoming convinced that interaction bans cause more gaming than the conflicts they are intended to solve; that certainly seems to be the case here. Please take this case, draw straws to determine what poor sap has to wade into this and figure out what the hell is going on and draft it, and then make a decision. Any decision. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:14, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

p.s. If this runs true to form, you're going to need the Clerks (or Arbs) to run a pretty tight ship, or the evidence and workshop will degenerate into incomprehensibility. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:34, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Note that I've unblocked both editors so they can participate here (rather than transcribing their comments, which gets complicated). The conditions of the unblock are that they can only post here, and on their own talk pages, until the existing 1 week blocks would have expired. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:58, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Beyond My Ken

Just to note that I've added the Wikilink to the iBan discussion. BMK (talk) 18:18, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Letting Nyttend know that I've done so. BMK (talk) 18:25, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Further, all other pathways having been tried and failed, I urge the Committee to accept this case. BMK (talk) 18:27, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Although, as noted above, a large number of noticeboard discussions about the situation between these two editors could be listed, I believe that the one that came between the iBan discussion and the "Harassment" discussion is relevant, as it directly relates to the latter, and also illustrates what Floquenbeam describes, the community's inability to reach a consensus. It can be found here. BMK (talk) 18:37, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

@Clerks: Arb numbers don't seem to be right at the moment. I think they should be 5/0/1/2, no? BMK (talk) 02:05, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Statement by AlbinoFerret

This situation defiantly needs to be addressed by Arbcom. There are numerous sections on both AN and AN/I that deal with the problems between these two editors that never reach consensus. Part of the problem may be that, at least the ones I have commented on have been very long. It appears that they become to long didnt read and so the closer to consensus they become, less community involvement results. The conflict in the particular subject (Japanese culture) has spread to other editors. Arbcom should consider widening the scope if they accept. This one has most of the same people minus Catflap. In one subsection of that section I proposed a short ban and warning for Hijiri88 for a long list of uncivil comments, all backed by diffs. But it was derailed mostly by editors who support Hijiri88. AlbinoFerret 18:44, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Sturmgewehr88

I've been watching this issue grow since February. Catflap added OR/SYNTH to an article that Hijiri noticed and contested, and when the CIR/IDHT by the former met the TLDR/CIVIL by the latter it lit up like gasoline, leading to the IBAN. Since then, Catflap has announced his "retirement" multiple times due to "harassment" by Hijiri. He also violated the IBAN multiple times (manually reverting Hijiri's edits, discussing him on user talk pages, and even !voting for Hijiri to be TBANned in an unrelated ANI thread) and didn't get so much as a slap on the wrist until now. Hijiri, emboldened by Catflap's immunity, also violated the IBAN a few times in a similar but lesser fashion, but received sanctions. While I believe that Catflap's editing and gaming is a problem, I do not condone the misbehavior of Hijiri. The IBAN has failed to be effective, and a general topic ban (like of "Japanese history and culture") would be counterproductive. ArbCom should take this up and settle it once and for all. ミーラー強斗武 (StG88ぬ会話) 18:53, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Dennis Brown

I closed the one of the last ANI with Hijiri88 [3], and it was ugly enough that I actually put a link on the top of my talk page, knowing I would have to revisit it. I don't think I've had to do that before. Right now, my talk page looks like ANI2 due to other problems with Hijiri88. I've been mulling over how to deal with that for days: Go to AN for a topic ban, try to talk more, block, anything. I can't think of anything that would work with any of these situations. There are other editors that have contributed to their interaction issues with Hijiri, so no one is blameless here. The community has tried and failed to deal with several of these interaction on several occasions, two of which I've been involved. I think that collectively, the community is out of ideas. Because of this, I would respectfully ask that the Committee accept this case, and perhaps expand it to look at other editors and their interactions with Hijiri88, to insure a fair investigation is done. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 19:11, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Statement by IJBall

Let me second John Carter's statement and [beg!], [plead!] that ArbCom take this case. The "dramah" between these two editors has been crashing about at both WP:ANI and WP:AN for months now, and it seems too intractable a problem for any single Admin to tackle. In short, this seems to be the kind of case that ArbCom was literally made for! Hopefully the Committee can fashion a remedy where others have failed... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 02:31, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Statement by JzG

Pile-on support for this, for all the reasons stated above. These editors are acting in good faith, hence they don't simply get banned, but it is proving impossible to prevent constant drama. Guy (Help!) 12:42, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Blackmane

I too urge Arbcom to look into this. Although uninvolved in the regular flare ups at ANI between these two, I have had on occasion posted to Hijiri's talk page regarding various comments I had made at ANI. I have also !voted previously in support of topic bans for both of them. I regularly gnome about on AN and ANI and their regular appearances there are a sign that the community is unable to decisively deal with the problem. This needs to be dealt with once and for all. Blackmane (talk) 03:41, 25 September 2015 (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.

Clerk notes

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

Catflap08 and Hijiri88: Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter <5/0/1/3>

Vote key: (Accept/decline/recuse/other)

• Waiting for statements from Catflap08 and Hijiri88 (who are currently blocked for a week); however, I am inclined to accept this case based on the urging of Floq and Dennis who don't normally do this kind of thing. --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 20:12, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Accept but we need to follow the queue and act on GMO first. --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 20:51, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
• I'm leaning very much towards accepting this as it seems like the community has repeatedly tried and failed to resolve the issues, but I'm going to wait for both Catflap08 and Hijiri88 to have an opportunity to comment first. Thryduulf (talk) 22:32, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
• Like my colleagues above, awaiting comment from the involved parties, but I'm inclined to accept as it seems this issue is intractable otherwise. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 01:16, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
• Accept I can't conceive of anything Catflap08 and Hijiri88 might submit that would make it a bad idea to take this case (feel free to prove me wrong, gents), so I'm willing to accept it now, though I would of course like to hear from both parties. Yunshui ^雲_水 09:42, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
• Recuse. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 10:20, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
• Provisional accept, I can't really think what could be said by Hijiri88 that would render this case unnecessary, but anything is possible. Courcelles (talk) 02:09, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
• Accept -- Euryalus (talk) 10:05, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
• Accept LFaraone 18:40, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Lady.de.Clare and Necrothesp

Initiated by Lady.de.Clare (talk) at 09:28, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Involved parties

• Lady.de.Clare (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), filing party
• Necrothesp (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

• [diff of notification Necrothesp]

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Dame

Statement by Lady.de.Clare

This person refuses to allow me to build upon the Dame page while ignorantly presuming that the honour system seems to only be something in the U.K. - like there has never been any other Monarchy which issues honours. Knights and Dames are separated by one's biological sex and as such through history the function has been drastically different. Even so, I moved some of the relevant information from the "Knights" page in order to make the Dame page more complete. Any order of chivalry which has ever had a woman in it (whether a queen or a princess) has and had Dames. I am not sure where the disconnect here is. Since this information clearly tarnishes the administrators ego and is aberrant to his limited understanding of honour systems outside his respective country, he locked the page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lady.de.Clare (talk • contribs) 05:28, 24 September 2015‎ (UTC)

Statement by Necrothesp

User:Lady.de.Clare seems to assume that any woman who fought or was a member of an order of chivalry was a dame. This is inaccurate. A dame is not merely any female knight, but a title introduced in the British honours system in 1917 to equate to a knight. Historically a dame in English usually meant the wife of a knight. The article already states this. This editor copied and pasted a long list of orders from the knighthood article into this one which had no relevance to this article since they did not have dames and most probably did not even have female members. When I deleted this list as irrelevant and copyedited her other additions mostly to correct over-capitalisation she seems to have taken offence and reverted with the edit summary "I am not going to compromise". She then left a message on the talkpage insulting me and accusing me of sexism (she has even done this in the title of this arbitration). I protected the page for a day to allow her to cool down and come back later and edit in concert with other editors and not against them. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:40, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Note that I do not consider this to be an edit war, otherwise I would not have protected the article. It was merely done to prevent disruptive behaviour from an editor who doesn't seem to understand how we operate on Wikipedia. Adding large chunks of copied and pasted content from another article is not good practice, especially if it has no proven relevance to it, mass reverting of reasonable copyediting for capitalisation etc is merely disruptive, and the editor's attitude and accusations are unacceptable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:53, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

I have to say I'm really not too happy about being accused of edit warring for deleting copy/pasted duplicated content and copyediting the rest. To me that's being a good editor. I protected the page for 24 hours because of the other editor's appalling attitude, which is I think pretty clear from her comments on the talkpage. If that is deemed to be a mistake then so be it (although I honestly do not consider it to be a misuse of admin tools to attempt to prevent this sort of attitude on Wikipedia, no matter whom it is directed at - this is supposed to be a co-operative project not a forum for unfounded accusations), but edit warring and trying to preserve my preferred version? I think not. I should point out that the version I protected was not "my" version, but the stable version that previously existed plus the original material added by the other editor. What I did not do was add my own material and then protect it, which would obviously be a breach of protocol. -- Necrothesp (talk) 20:21, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

May I just draw everyone's attention to the messages that the editor in question recently left on my talkpage, the talkpage of the article in question, her own talkpage and Floquenbeam's talkpage regarding the rest of us. I think that sums her uncompromising and aggressive attitude up quite nicely and goes some way towards explaining why I thought a cooling down period may be a good idea. I apologise if other editors believe I was too involved, but I think her comments speak for themselves. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:47, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Dennis Brown

Necrothesp violated WP:3RR and used the tools afterwards to protect their preferred version [4] 1 minute after the 4th revert [5]. I don't see this as reason to strip the bit from someone, but there is no other venue to review. It looks like two policies were violated by an admin, warring and WP:INVOLVED. As an admin, I really can't block for the 4RR since the article is now protected (by the warring admin) and it wouldn't be preventing disruption. I don't see how BLP or any other 3RR exception can come into play here. Surely that is worth a look, as inaction is the same as condoning. At the very least, it requires explaining in a public forum, via WP:ADMINACCT, as a demonstration that we don't just gloss over admin misconduct, even when it is seemingly minor. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 16:25, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

@Salvio giuliano, that is more or less what I had in mind, something more than ignoring it, something less than a full blown case. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 17:35, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

To all - Now that a number of experienced editors have opined and it should be clear that the use of the tools was really more than a bad idea, it was actually against policy (albeit, not a huge violation), I would say I'm satisfied. I jumped in because what I didn't want to see was a half dozen quick declines and the appearance that no one cares about the violation. Necrothesp seems to have already received adequate admonishments by the community. So I'm striking the above request, which appears all but moot anyway. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 22:36, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Robert McClenon

On first look at this case, it looked like a content dispute that should be taken to third opinion or the dispute resolution noticeboard. On further looking at it, including the comments of User:Dennis Brown, it is more troubling, because it really does appear to be also a case of an administrator (I hadn't noticed that aspect at first) using the lock tool to gain an advantage in a content dispute. The administrator's statement that this is not an edit war is not persuasive. They may be right that an editor "doesn't seem to understand how we operate on Wikipedia", but this also gives the appearance of an administrator who does understand how editors operate on Wikipedia but not the standards to which the community holds administrators on Wikipedia. I agree with Dennis Brown that this administrator abuse is not sufficient to desysop an administrator, but I would ask the ArbCom to provide a warning about administrator accountability, and then decline the content dispute. (I will recuse from any neutral role if the content dispute is filed in an appropriate forum.) Robert McClenon (talk) 17:09, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Floq

With the exception of the page protection, this is a bog standard content dispute that should be handled through one of the steps of WP:DR.

Regarding the page protection, this was a mistake on Necrothesp's part, but as a one-off (I assume), more in the realm of a trout and a reminder that when you're making judgements about the quality of edits, compromising on wording, etc, you really are acting as an editor, and need to put away your admin tools. I'm sure he'll see the comments by several people above and below and agree to be more cautious about that. But I don't understand why in the world this would rise to the level of an ArbCom motion; it's bad form to issue ArbCom admonishments for isolated occurrences. I've done dumber stuff than this before and didn't get admonished; I'd wager most of us have, being human and all. ANI is permanently chock full of people doing dumber stuff than this; admonishing them would require ArbCom to triple it's size just to handle the volume. Please save the admonishments for patterns of behavior. --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:45, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Beyond My Ken

I recommend that the committee split the baby: decline the case as not ripe for Arbitration, per se, but admonish by motion the misuse of tools by an involved admin. BMK (talk) 20:38, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Hawkeye7

I would like to second Floq's recommendation that admonishments be restricted to patterns of behavior and not be issued for isolated occurrence, while acknowledging that ArbCom did, in fact, admonish me for an isolated occurrence somewhat less dumb than this. (An apology motion would be nice.) Locking down the page was not necessarily the wrong action, but blurred the lines between adminship and stewardship ie WP:INVOLVED. It would have been best for another admin to lock the page. Lady.de.Clare does seem to be an editor who doesn't seem to understand how we operate on Wikipedia. In particular, I hope she realises now that taking a dispute to ArbCom is invariably a terrible idea. I think this only gives more reason to treat her with due consideration, kindness and respect. third opinion or the dispute resolution noticeboard would be a better option. ArbCom should itself refer the matter thence. I urge the committee to pass on this case without further action. Hawkeye7 (talk) 03:27, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

@Thryduulf: While ArbCom can compel volunteers at DRN or 3O to discuss a matter, I was merely thinking along the lines of easing the bureaucratic process for a new editor by having the ArbCom clerk file the required electronic paperwork. I don't think that a narrow interpretation of the role of ArbCom serves the committee, the community or the encyclopedia well. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:01, 25 September 2015 (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.

Clerk notes

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

Lady.de.Clare and Necrothesp: Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter <1/8/0/0>

Vote key: (Accept/decline/recuse/other)

• Decline While I'm a bit concerned about Necrothesp's apparent use of the tools in an edit war, I would prefer to see this settled via dispute resolution if possible, which has not yet been attempted. ArbCom is the last stage of DR, not the first. Yunshui ^雲_水 09:40, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
• Decline per Yunshui. I would also like to make it clear that I see no evidence for the claim of sexism, and would recommend User:Lady.de.Clare read Wikipedia:No personal attacks and Wikipedia:Aspersions. Thryduulf (talk) 11:07, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Necrothesp: You did use your tools while involved - although this was not edit-warring, you were involved in an editorial dispute on the article and should have asked another administrator to do protect the page if they felt it needed doing. Unlike Salvio though I do not think that either editor's conduct rises to the level of a formal admonishment from arbcom. Thryduulf (talk) 21:15, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
  • @Hawkeye7: I don't know that we actually can refer a content dispute in that manner - we can suggest and recommend (and I do), and our declining a case is without prejudice to any other form of dispute resolution, however compelling volunteers at DRN or 3O to discuss this feels too much like ArbCom involving itself in a content dispute for my liking. Thryduulf (talk) 11:36, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
  • @Necrothesp: I see that Ched has given Lady.de.Clare a (non-templated) warning for those personal attacks, so no further action is needed unless she repeats the behaviour - and even then it is nowhere near the level arbcom needs to get involved. The page protection was a case of the right action taken by the wrong person - if you find yourself in a similar situation again just ask another admin to push the buttons. As an observation, WP:RFPP is about 18 hours backlogged as of this comment so more admin eyes there would seem to be useful. Thryduulf (talk) 14:18, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
• Commenting only on behaviour, since content is not within our province, what I see here are an editor who violated WP:NPA and an admin who used his tools while involved. So, basically, both are at fault. Let's accept this case and admonish them both by motion. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 17:30, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
• Decline as a case. I think we can give a mild rebuke for using the admin tools while involved without formally passing a motion; the mere fact this was filed and is getting the commentary it is ought to be a warning not to do it again. Courcelles (talk) 02:06, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
• Decline. Using page protection while involved in a dispute was an error, but there's no indication it's a pattern, and we can't expect perfection. Absent a pattern, I see no need for a case or formal admonishment, I think the feedback here should be clear enough. And to everyone involved, use dispute resolution, not the revert button. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 18:59, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
• Decline Arbitration is an energy intensive process and this case is not going to end with anything harsher than a "don't do it again". Necrothesp is already getting a warning here so I don't see a need to go through the process. --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 20:46, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
• Decline per Hawkeye7 above and Opabinia Regalis somewhere further down this page. Necrothesp was should not have been the one who protected the page. But there's no evidence this is a pattern of misconduct, or needs anything more than this: Lady.de.Clare, please refrain from personal attacks. Necrothesp, please be careful not to use tools while involved. If we really need a motion to this effect, we can also pass one without a case. But I don't immediately see this as required. -- Euryalus (talk) 09:56, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
• Decline Doug Weller (talk) 13:14, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
• Decline LFaraone 18:40, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Spinningspark

Initiated by jps (talk) at 14:30, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Involved parties

• I9Q79oL78KiL0QTFHgyc (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), filing party
• Spinningspark (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
• Dennis Brown (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
• MastCell (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
• Bishonen (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
• EdJohnston (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

• [6]
• [7]
• [8]
• [9]
• [10]

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

• Request by MastCell for an acknowledgment of having made a bad block
• Request by Bishonen for an acknowledgment of having made a bad block

Statement by I9Q79oL78KiL0QTFHgyc

I was blocked for one week and then subsequently unblocked by Spinningspark for disruptive editing with no explanation either as to the rationale nor duration of the block. I had been in an edit war with him at Self-creation cosmology. Spinningspark at first refused to explain when asked to do so by another administrator, but later admitted that this was a mistake. Spinningspark still maintains that he was not WP:INVOLVED with me in an editing dispute. I am of the opinion that when anyone reverts another user, both are in an editing dispute. Dennis Brown agrees with Spinningspark. He says WP:INVOLVED was not breached because "Protecting the integrity of an article you don't edit doesn't make you involved as an editor..." I cannot find a policy justification for this attitude and two other administrators think it was involved action. Spinningspark technically broke 3RR, and, after blocking me, immediately reverted back to his preferred version of the article.

Spinningspark's (and Dennis Brown's) position is that the only thing he did wrong was to not give a block notice, but blocking me was legitimate. He claims that his reverts were "admin actions" and therefore he was not edit warring, only I was. My position is that Spinningspark misused his administrative ability to block other users because he was involved in an editing dispute with me. I maintain he used the block to win the edit war. If this behavior is allowed, admins can, with impunity, revert and then block users who undo the admin's revert as long as the admin claims to be "protecting the integrity of the article". If this truly is the policy of Wikipedia, users like myself will need to give complete deference to administrators during editing disputes lest they risk being blocked by that very same administrator.

There are some additional concerns I have about the general attitude of Spinningspark. His last statement on my talkpage indicates that he thinks "...dealing with an editor with a block history as long as your arm (and thus already knew perfectly well how to appeal) and was well known (as stated at his arb case) for edit warring, wikilawyering and contentious talk page posts... [means that] any interaction would result in an attempt to grind me down with walls of text, and frankly, I have better things to do. I therefore chose to keep interaction to a minimum.... I don't think this was entirely out of order." This kind of insulting dismissal of a Wikipedia editor that had just been blocked seems like a case of administrator hubris that is indicative of the attitude that blocking users with whom you disagree is fine if they have a long block log or they have been subject to past arbitration decisions (no matter how ancient).

A fuller account of the blocking, unblocking, and ongoing dispute can be read on my User talk page. I want arbcom to say that Spinningspark was wrong to block me and I would like my block log amended to that effect.

Statement by Spinningspark

I will limit this comment to the substantive issue of the redirection of Self-creation cosmology. I came to the page through a CSD request to delete a redirect that was holding up an inappropriate name change. I have no previous connection with the article and have no axe to grind on the subject. Having found that the moved page had itself been blanked and redirected and that there had been a recent AfD on the page (no consensus), I put everything back how it was. I9Q79oL78KiL0QTFHgyc then redirected it again. Now if an AfD closes as delete and the same article is posted again, it can be deleted by administrative action under CSD G4. It would be perverse if the converse did not apply, that administrators could not restore articles AfD had decided to keep that had been blanked, redirected, or otherwise deleted by the back door.

It goes without saying that I do not believe, or even wish, that "admins can, with impunity, revert and then block users who undo the admin's revert as long as the admin claims to be 'protecting the integrity of the article'." In this specific situation though, it was an admin action, not edit-warring, and the real problem was the continuing attempt at back door deletion. SpinningSpark 16:23, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Dennis Brown

I think SpinningSpark thought he was protecting the outcome of an AFD. Even I thought it was an ok block until MastCell explained it. These are not common situations, and the line between editor and admin action are often blurry. If jps had only redirected once, we wouldn't be here at all, but he inserted it 3 times. SS erred as well, I'm just saying this didn't happen in a bubble. I now see why the block was bad. My problem was that once he made the block, he refused to explain it in detail to EdJohnston or jps. I was a bit more blunt on jps's talk page and directly asked via WP:ADMINACCT, which forced his hand, but to be honest, he did so in good faith after that.

I didn't see malice, just errors, it wasn't an article that he had edited before, and I can believe he was doing what he thought he should do, but Bish's link of his final words do put him in a negative light. I was completely wrong in the interpretation of policy at first but I listened to MastCell with an open mind and realized he was right. So I can understand why SS got it wrong to start with. If SS had listened and reconsidered his position after the unblock, then we wouldn't be here. So, it seems that it is up to SS whether or not a case (or motion) is needed. Personally, I think education is a better solution than a case, short of a showing that this is a pattern. I certainly learned something from it. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 15:30, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

• I need to be emailed if more is needed from me as I'm going on a scheduled Wikibreak. I don't really see myself as an involved party if this goes to a case, but will respond if specifically requested. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 22:43, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Statement by MastCell

This is really simple. I9Q79oL78KiL0QTFHgyc (talk · contribs) and Spinningspark (talk · contribs) were edit-warring over a redirect at self-creation cosmology. When Spinningspark hit 3RR (1, 2, 3), he blocked I9Q79oL78KiL0QTFHgyc to ensure that his preferred version "stuck". You will not find a more blatant misuse of admin tools, or a more blatant violation of WP:INVOLVED. Spinningspark also refused to leave a block notice, despite prompting from another admin, later stating: "frankly, I have better things to do."

Spinningspark argued that he was not edit-warring, but instead acting as an admin enforcing an AfD closure. In fact, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Self-creation cosmology was closed as "no consensus". The deletion policy explicitly states: if there is no rough consensus (at AfD), the page is kept and is again subject to normal editing, merging, or redirecting as appropriate (emphasis mine). Redirecting the article was completely legitimate in the setting of the prior AfD. Spinningspark was not "enforcing" any sort of consensus; he was just straight-up edit-warring. His view of himself as an uninvolved admin is based on his ignorance of very basic site policy. (In his defense, this misunderstanding of basic editing mechanics seems to be shared by many commentators here and by at least one Arb).

This episode showed piss-poor administrative judgement on several levels: fundamental misunderstanding of AfD and editing mechanics, edit-warring, disregard for WP:INVOLVED, and an abusive block followed by a refusal to meet minimum standards of accountability (e.g. a block notice). That said, I don't know that a case is necessary. Assuming this is the sole blemish on Spinningspark's admin career (I haven't checked), it would be fine to treat this episode as an educational opportunity rather than a punitive one. It's also a chance to affirm the basic tenets of admin accountability and standards in the face of a clear violation of both. For that to happen, it needs to be made absolutely clear that this was a bad block and Spinningspark needs to understand why. We don't need a full case for that, but we do need to do a better job of making clear where the line is. MastCell ^Talk 18:01, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Bishonen

Please review Spinningspark's use of admin tools in this instance. (All hour-minute indications in the following are UTC.) There was no consensus to delete Self-creation cosmology in this AfD, but there certainly wasn't consensus against redirecting the article to Brans-Dicke theory either. Jps did so redirect it after the AfD had been closed, and then he and SS reverted each other twice (somewhat distractingly, there was another revert by SS in the middle of it, of a move by another editor to a re-spelled title, but I would recommend people to simply ignore that). Jps had argued for a redirect at the AfD, and several other people had agreed that might work. Nobody at the AfD had argued against redirecting. Just before he was blocked, jps attempted discussion in several places, including on Spinningspark's talkpage at 23:26 25 Sept, where he asked him not to revert again. Spinningspark's response was to revert again at 23:49 25 Sept and then immediately to block (23:50 25 Sept). Only then did he reply to jps's post (at 23:56 25 Sept), recommending him to open a new Afd "when your block expires". This is the language of power, of "I'm an admin and you're not", and unpleasant to see in a pure editorial dispute.

I was following the discussion on jps's page, not planning to comment, but this so far final post on the subject from Spinningspark pushed me into doing so. It too is unpleasantly power-speaking: doubling down on the block, conceding "in retrospect" that not leaving a block rationale was a "mistake", but only a mistake in the sense that admins responding to an unblock appeal would require a rationale. SS explains his original thinking in not leaving a block message by referring to jps's "block history as long as your arm" and the way he, jps, was well known "for edit warring, wikilawyering and contentious talk page posts". He, SS, thought it better not interact with jps at all, as that would only "result in an attempt to grind me down with walls of text, and frankly, I have better things to do". This kind of talk of long block logs, old arbitration cases, and propensity for "walls of text" (? really?) is smoke and misdirection, and smells of old dislike. Where is the relevance of it, other than poisoning the well? Not interacting with a guy you have just blocked for a week because you have "better things to do" than engage with the walls of text from him that you think will ensue? (Are walls of text really something jps is known for?) It's all unacceptable in my view, and it moved me to ask SS on his page to relinquish his tools and stand for a re-RFA. (He hasn't commented.) Incidentally I don't like his unblock rationale either. Bishonen | talk 15:06, 27 September 2015 (UTC).

@Doug Weller: I agree it doesn't need a case, as the facts are simple and limited, and the pomp of "Evidence" and "Workshop" etc would hardly help arbcom interpret them. But how about a motion to tell Spinningspark to not use his tools in such situations and not to talk to/about respectable users like they're a mess he wants to clean off his shoes? Because I don't see any indication that he has taken any of that on board. Bishonen | talk 17:15, 28 September 2015 (UTC).

Statement by EdJohnston

The block of jps showed up on my watchlist. This made me curious to see what was happening, so I went to User talk:I9Q79oL78KiL0QTFHgyc to get the details. Since there was no block notice, I suggested to User:SpinningSpark that he create one. (My leaving the note for SS seems to be why my name is mentioned here). I will leave my two cents' worth of opinion. Experience suggests that blocks of jps will lead to controversy, and clear communication may be useful. It does not come as a complete surprise that jps was blocked due to his three edits at Self-creation cosmology (converting the article to a redirect), though it might have been better for SpinningSpark to ask for review of his actions at ANI to allay the concern about involvement. (Most likely ANI would have lifted the block). Revert-by-admin-followed-by-block-of-the-other-party is a pattern that sometimes occurs but more commonly in cases of vandalism or BLP violation. That sequence of events tends to raise our eyebrows. EdJohnston (talk) 17:56, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Kraxler

The AfD Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Self-creation cosmology was nominated by the filer of this complaint. The result was no consensus. Although !voters mentioned a redirect (Tigraan !voted "delete" and said "no objection to a redirect"; the nominator says "One possibility might be a redirect"; Ashill !voted "delete" and said "I agree that making this a redirect...is appropriate"; Garthbarber voted "keep" and said "The suggestion that 'One possibility might be a redirect' might be a good consideration"; there were also 3 more keep and 2 more delete votes) none of them !voted Redirect. The closing statement does not mention any redirecting, but suggests a new AfD instead. No consensus defaults to keep the article. Deleting the page (using the tool of a redirect), contrary to the AfD result, must be considered vandalism, especially when done by a grudging AfD nominator who didn't get it their way. Under the circumstances, admin Spinningspark was absolutely correct to protect the article, supported by a clear mandate by the AfD result, and blocking the disruptor is not any involved decision. Spinningspark did not take part in the AfD, and did not edit the article, he only restored a blanked page. Anti-vandalism is also exempt from 3RR. ArbCom should Decline the case, and instead admonish User:I9Q79oL78KiL0QTFHgyc to respect the result of community discussions, and follow the appropriate procedures indicated in their outcomes. Kraxler (talk) 15:14, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Drmies

I usually take a pretty hard line when it comes to "enforcing admin-made decisions", and the other line I take is the blue line, or so I'm told. But in this case I cannot. First, the lack of a rationale is pretty incomprehensible to me and if I can psychologize for a moment or two, it indicates some anger and frustration, not the best emotions for an admin to have when making use of the tool.

Second, and this goes to my "hard line", I am all for protecting the outcomes of discussions. That is, if a deletion discussion closes as "redirect", admins can and frequently should enforce those decisions, which are no different from RfCs, for instance. If an editor continues to undo such a redirect, then of course the admin can revert and revert and revert without being guilty of edit warring and without being INVOLVED, in all-caps and in blue print. Now, I do not know if there is any reason to think that Spinningspark was involved in the content of the thing one way or another, but it doesn't matter: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Self-creation cosmology was closed by Randykitty as "no consensus", so there was no community decision to protect. And so I cannot agree with the block. Drmies (talk) 16:29, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

• I just had a look at the comment by JustBerry below, and just wish to note that a. this is completely unrelated; b. Spinningspark wasn't acting as an administrator in that exchange; c. Spinningspark was right and JustBerry was wrong. Drmies (talk) 00:52, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Black Kite

I am surprised that experienced editors such as Spinningspark and, especially, Kraxler above, do not know what an AfD result of "No consensus" actually means. It does not mean "Keep" (although the obvious result of the AfD is that the article is unchanged). It effectively means that the AfD is null and normal editing can continue. In this case, redirecting the article is a normal editorial decision (it's certainly not vandalism, that's simply ludicrous). Now of course I, or any other editor, can simply revert that change and point to WP:BRD, but as an admin, as soon as I've done that, I would be involved. This is a bad block, I'm afraid. Black Kite (talk) 17:04, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Statement by NE Ent (spinningspark)

Do we have to choose? (Rhetorical question, if I had any sense I'd log off for another four months). Ya'll, of course have to choose something. (Sorry.)

• Editors who rely on edit summaries to "communicate" are acting like idiots. Both editors had plenty of opportunity post either the article talk or the other's talk page, but failed to do so.
• So WP:DP clearly says a redirect is an option if an Afd is no consensus, and WP:BLANKANDREDIRECT says to file an Afd if there's no consensus to redirect? No wonder folks can't agree here, and all the more reason folks need to not be hasty and WP:AGF talk to each other.
• Of course redirecting a page is deleting it; that's why WP:BLANKANDREDIRECT refers folks to Afd.
• Because SS used admin tools they get admin levels of responsibility; the lack of warning, lack of talk page notice about the block, using an editor's previous blocks as justification merits at least mention in your remarks.
• If unpronounceable name felt an Afd that closed in June was consensus for a redirect, why did they wait until late September to do so? NE Ent 19:07, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Statement by John Carter

While I agree with BlackKite above regarding the meaning of no consensus, as per WP:DP, quoting the current version in full, "The deletion of a page based on a deletion discussion should only be done when there is consensus to do so. Therefore, if there is no rough consensus, the page is kept and is again subject to normal editing, merging, or redirecting as appropriate," in that it clearly does indicate that normal editing, including redirecting as appropriate, is acceptable after an AfD discussion, the extant phrasing at WP:AFD regarding this matter, quoting again, "If consensus seems unclear the outcome can be listed as No consensus (with no effect on the article's status) or the discussion may be relisted for further discussion," is somewhat ambiguous. Expanding the text there to provide more information might be appropriate. Not watching the page of an editor he has blocked is probably at best dubiously acceptable, and, honestly, having a block log in and of itself is in no way necessarily relevant to any individual block action. I agree that this was an at best dubious block, although I am not at all sure myself one way or another that it necessarily is one that particularly requires a broad review of the blocking admin's actions. And in response to Bishonen above, I have never known jps to be a wall-of-words person. I do believe that given SS apparently considered the block log as a factor in the block, there may well be grounds to have this particular block removed from the record, and I also agree that there is cause to at least admonish SS for his actions. And I can understand where Bishonen is coming from. I think while the block in and of itself might not be sufficient for SS to stand for a confirmation RFAdmin, his actions, inactions and comments about it since the block can be seen to raise questions which might best be dealt with in that way. John Carter (talk) 18:26, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

In response to Gamaliel below, I think he and many others might better known I9 by one of his earlier names, and he provides a link on his user page to all of them. John Carter (talk) 18:47, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Gamaliel

I do not believe I've ever seen the usernames I9Q79oL78KiL0QTFHgyc and Spinningspark before. All I know of this matter is what I read here, and a number of users whom I respect have raised concerns about this block above. I'm not sure what the issue is, though. WP:INVOLVED seems like a canard. It's pretty clear Spinningspark believed they were performing administrative matters and attempting to uphold policy, though there is some reason to believe they were interpreting policy incorrectly. I9Q was edit warring, and their block log does not impress. "any interaction would result in an attempt to grind me down with walls of text" does not strike me as a statement of arrogance, but one of experience and common sense, as WP:ADMINACCT is often employed to harangue admins, filibuster enforcement, and otherwise disrupt matters. Nevertheless, as an administrator, Spinningspark is obligated to explain administrative actions, even if they are not obligated to respond to any subsequent harangues or other negative behavior. Since I9Q was relatively quickly unblocked, if Spinningspark will agree to explain their actions in the future in compliance with normal procedures and expectations, there's really nothing else to do here. Gamaliel (talk) 18:29, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Statement by MSGJ

Doesn't seem to be ripe for arbitration and prior dispute resolution does not seem to have been fully tried. Suggest taking this to WP:AN where SS can be invited to comment more fully. Either way, if this is just about one (possibly misjudged) action then it does not rise to the level of needing arbitrators. Cheers — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 19:36, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Robert McClenon

This case isn't the worst RFAR request this month, but that says nothing, given that the worst RFAR of the month was just filed. I would urge ArbCom to decline it because it is just as trivial an off-by-one mistake by an administrator as Lady de Clare v. Necrothesp. The only difference is that in the first case, there was a content dispute, and the admin used the page-protect button rather than requesting another admin. In this case, there was move-warring against consensus, and the administrator used the block button rather than requesting another admin. If ArbCom isn't going to open an off-by-one admin action in a content dispute, why should ArbCom open an off-by-one admin action in what appears to have been move-warring against consensus? I recommend a decline, since the admin mistake has already been noted. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:41, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Statement by JustBerry

I happen to come across this case; having encountered issues with the sysop recently, the situation does not look good in their favor. In case this case is accepted and further investigated, I would encourage the committee to review a rather unpleasant encounter with Spinningspark quite recently. Although the rationale of Spinningspark does appear to have substance, their response here does not reflect "administrators are expected to lead by example and to behave in a respectful, civil manner in their interactions with others" from WP:Administrators. If this issue appears to be off-topic from the main issue at hand, feel free to use this additional information however you may see fit, committee members.

 Comment: To address Drmies's comment above... @Drmies: Are you saying that administrators have no responsibility to act in a respectful, civil manner outside of their administrator duties? Regardless of whether they're acting as an administrator remains independent of their expected conduct. Also, I never said that Spinningspark's comment was not substantive, as mentioned above. The concern is the failure to recognize that the revert was made as a good-faith anti-vandal edit and, with that, the tone in which the administrator decided to use. Although this instance may not be directly related to the exact case at hand, it still exemplifies the administrator's tone towards other editors. I'm not sure how this would classify as a "low blow," as you mentioned on Spinningspark's talk page. --JustBerry (talk) 00:59, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

 Comment: @Hawkeye7: I don't recall mentioning outside Wikipedia. "Policies and guidelines should always be applied using reason and common sense" from Wikipedia:Policies_and_guidelines. I think it's fairly clear that these guidelines apply to Wikipedia; there was no mention of conduct outside of Wikipedia. The goal here is not to exaggerate one instance into an entire case, but I think there appears to be a pattern being noticed. Thus far, I have not done any serious digging, but if there appears to be a need for it - I will most likely present the additional diffs, etc. after the case has been accepted. --JustBerry (talk) 12:45, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

 Comment: @Hawkeye7: Not to pile on here, but to address your comment to Courcelles: accepting a case does not necessarily mean that the user will be admonished; rather, patterns of behavior will be looked into upon the acceptance of the case. --JustBerry (talk) 12:48, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Opabinia regalis

Really? This is like watching the emergency vehicles fly past burning buildings in order to respond to a fender-bender. The GMO case has been ready to open for almost two weeks. There's at least one other recently discussed long-outstanding matter of arbcom business that the community is waiting for a response to. Admonish by motion if you really must - or however you say "that was dumb, don't do that again" in bureaucratese - and move on from this one. Opabinia regalis (talk) 02:22, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Hawkeye7

@JustBerry:: Are you saying that administrators have a responsibility to act in a respectful, civil manner outside of their administrator duties, including outside Wikipedia? I think this goes way too far.

@Courcelles:: How is it possible to take your claim that "the entire situation will be examined, as it must when INVOLVED is the issue at hand" seriously, when ArbCom did just that (and quite correctly) as recently as the Lady de Clare v. Necrothesp case the day before yesterday.

I recommend that the Committee reject yet another pointless and meritless case. Admonishment should be reserved for patterns of behaviour, not individual lapses; arbitration should be for cases where normal resolution mechanisms have proven inadequate and not a knee-jerk response; and admins should feel that will be supported and not second-guessed by arbs. Hawkeye7 (talk) 03:31, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Shock Brigade Harvester Boris

This wasn't Spinningspark's best moment as an admin. This wasn't jps's (aka Alpha-Bits) best moment as an editor. But making an arbcom case out of this is waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay overboard. If you really feel like you have to do something this deserves no more than a motion to give them both a stern talking-to, without the agony of a full case. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 03:45, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Looie496

For the sake of clarifying the background, it might be useful to point out that jps, aka AlphaBits, is the editor who was once known as ScienceApologist. Looie496 (talk) 17:02, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Statement by MrX

One has to admire the temerity of I9Q79oL78KiL0QTFHgyc, given his well-hidden history leading up to a ban, as well as his more recent history of edit warring, personal attacks, and BLP violations (diffs available on request). At worst, Spinningspark's block falls into a gray area of WP:INVOLVED. While not optimal in some respects, it's hardly worthy of more than mild rebuke. I too am surprised that some Arbcom members, whom I respect for their usual good judgement, would consider accepting this case. If the new normal is to bring Admins here for one transgression of involved, admin accountability, or unpopular blocks, then I predict a deluge of such cases, starting with one concerning an admin involved in another request on this very page. - MrX 17:38, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Floq

I guess my question would be, now that it has been explained by several people that this was not administratively enforcing an AFD decision - i.e. that redirecting is not a forbidden edit after a no-consensus AFD - does SpinningSpark understand that the block was incorrect because he was making editorial decisions about the article? If so, then I strongly suggest declining, rather than issuing some kind of official admonishment. Otherwise... well, I guess I still suggest declining unless someone shows evidence of a pattern of behavior of some kind, but in that case I'll add my name to the list of people who think this was a block by an involved admin, and that an ArbCom case would be a distinct possibility if it happens again. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:25, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Swarm

Also just weighing in to go on record: Spark's edit summaries alone clearly reveal that he was not acting in an uninvolved administrative capacity but instead had taken a position in a dispute. There should be no doubt as to the fact that this was a clear abuse of the tools. Whether or not one is involved is almost always a matter of common sense and I assume and I assume his defensiveness is merely a natural human reaction as opposed to a genuine lack of understanding as to why his actions were wrong. Bad judgment happens, and people make mistakes. That's okay. Hopefully the feedback in this case request serves as ample admonishment as to render additional measures unnecessary. However administrators who make this "mistake" multiple times should absolutely not remain in possession of the tools. Swarm ♠ 21:14, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Ched

Along with agreeing in great part with Floq above, I'd like to mention my own perspective.

• I have no idea what would or would not come out in a "case", but it appears to me that some of the roots of this disagreement may also be tied to some form of "Fringe"[11] (either directly, or indirectly). If you do decide to take this on, the newer members may want to brush-up on some of the past cases where that topic has been involved. (I believe there are a few of them) Admittedly, it may be well outside the "scope" of what you would agree to take on if you accept this as a case - but background never hurts. And forewarned is forearmed. — Ched :  ?  21:13, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Cla68

How about one or a few of you experienced admins put together a better admin guide, an admin training syllabus, a list of best administrative practices, and a log of non-routine admin actions with added peer-reviews? I know, I know, this would require WP's administration to actually get well, you know, organized and stuff. Cla68 (talk) 05:55, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Statement by uninvolved Olowe2011

I believe this case brings to light a bigger issue that is facing many newer editors on Wikipedia and that is being confronted with administrators who will deliberately decline Afd in favor of their own point of views. Many administrators also have problems with understanding that civility is important and reflects on the community as a whole. It is worth noting that in order for Wikipedia to be fit for the generations in front of us we must continue to engage new editors with different opinions and different outlooks without imposing rather barbaric treatment. Unfortunately it is often the impression of new editors to Wiki who I have spoken to that after editing they find that they no longer use the Encyclopaedia as a source of information. When asked why three of my good friends said once they saw the administrators apparent bias treatment of certain topics and users that they no longer felt comfortable in the general integrity of information found through Wikipedia. This is an exceptionally serious issue because while indeed it is true that Wikipedia is designed to bring free and accessible knowledge - its integrity and public image is equally important. A factor often forgotten by this often self absorbed community. Let us remember we do not edit this place for ourselves but do it for those who read it and I seriously believe that in this case and others it is reflected that editors have formed this disruptive insider type scheme which only considers the understanding of itself rather than those which it serves. Articles like the one mentioned above (Fringe theory) demonstrate almost perfectly how content is emerging that seems designed not for all to freely access but only those who have a higher education to understand and partake in - this defies the point in having a free and open place to gain knowledge that is accessible by all. This article is just one example of many which are products of a place that has become so focused on its own self that it no longer considers the goal for the wider good. Administrators acting idiots without any regard for civility or the public image of Wikipedia are part of the problem as it creates a community focused on its behaviour and discontent for it rather than what really matters and that is our readers. Olowe2011 ^Talk 11:23, 29 September 2015 (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.

Clerk notes

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

Spinningspark: Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter <5/4/0/0>

Vote key: (Accept/decline/recuse/other)

• Accept as "Spinningspark" --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 19:04, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
• Accept as "Spinningspark". Whether or not Spinningspark was acting in accordance with policy, or in a good faith belief they were, and regardless of whether I9Q's actions were correct or otherwise, there is enough of concern here that it merits ArbCom looking at the situation. Thryduulf (talk) 19:22, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
• Accept. As for comparison to the above case, I get a lot more concerned by involved blocks than protections or other actions, as those target a specific editor, and there's enough concern raised here that the block was made while involved that I think we need to investigate. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 20:12, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
• Accept and I couldn't really care which name it is under, the entire situation will be examined, as it must when INVOLVED is the issue at hand. Courcelles (talk) 01:22, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

• Hawkeye7, how do you propose not looking at the entire situation? The first step in a case about INVOLVED is to determine if the admin was, in fact, involved. Also, the difference between this case and the other one is that blocking an editor is a far more severe action than protecting a page. Courcelles (talk) 18:05, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

• Accept My initial thought was that this was something that could be dealt with by a straightforward admonishment, but the more I look into it, the more I think this was a really bad block. I expect a full case to end with no greater consequence than the admonishment that I'd originally have preferred, but I think it's worth taking nevertheless. Yunshui ^雲_水 07:21, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
• I'm quite surprised to see my colleagues voting to accept this case, after voting to decline Lady de Clare v. Necrothesp, where, in my opinion, the conduct of the administrator involved was less justifiable and more clearly violated WP:INVOLVED. Here we have an admin who thought he was helping in the enforcement of an AFD result; and I agree that, in those cases, admins can use the tools, even after reverting, because those edits do not speak to bias and can be described as administrative in nature. Consequently, per policy, they are not enough to trigger WP:INVOLVED. Granted, SS made a couple of mistakes, but, for me, they do not rise to the level where they'd warrant a case. For that, decline. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 09:32, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
• Decline per Opabinia Regalis, Salvio Guiliano and the Lady.de.Clare imbroglio. This was a bad block but I'm not seeing a pattern of conduct in it. Spinningspark, please be careful not to use tools while involved. -- Euryalus (talk) 10:04, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
• Decline per Salvio and Euryalus's comments. And yes, Spinningspark needs to be more careful, but this doesn't require a case. Doug Weller (talk) 13:12, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
• Decline, as a case is not necessary without potentially egregious lapses in judgement or a pattern of a number of smaller instances of the same. LFaraone 18:43, 28 September 2015 (UTC)