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
[[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Siege of Tobruk: usage of the terms "British" and "United Kingdom"|Siege of Tobruk: usage of the terms "British" and "United Kingdom"]]		5 April 2018	0/6/0
Misuse of Administrator Tools		5 April 2018	0/6/0

[edit]

Open cases

Currently, no arbitration cases are open.

[edit]

Recently closed cases (Past cases)

Case name	Closed
Yasuke	13 Nov 2024

Clarification and Amendment requests

Currently, no requests for clarification or amendment are open.

Arbitrator motions

No arbitrator motions are currently open.

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

• Talk:Siege of Tobruk
• User:Keith-264/archive1#Friendly_advice

Statement by Grant65

Current word length: 1088 (limit: 500). Evidence is too long: please reduce your submission so it fits within limits.

The Siege of Tobruk (1941) involved Allied forces from Australia, Czechoslovakia, Poland, the UK and British India. For most of the battle, most of the combined Allied force was Australian and it was commanded by an Australian general. Australia (like other Dominions) by that time was fully independent after 1931. 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. Independence had not, however, been achieved by British India (or crown colonies like Bermuda, the Solomon Islands, and Rhodesia).

An article, Siege of Tobruk (SoT), was created in August 2004. For about 12 years, numerous editors upheld a consensus that the terms "Allied" and "Allies" were used as generic descriptors. (Naturally, this has also 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, "British" or "United Kingdom". (From such an approach, a lay reader with little knowledge of the historical background would likely infer, albeit incorrectly, 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

• Australia
• British India

As the talk pages listed above show: (i.) lengthy appeals to Keith-264 (by me and at least two other editors) to abide by a longstanding WP:CONSENSUS and WP:COMMONNAME at SoT have been fruitless, and; (ii.) Keith-264 has not stated any specific objection to "Allies" or "Allied"; Keith-264 simply asserts WP:RS in support of British/UK, even when it is pointed out that (a.) RS are divided on the issue and (b.) RS may themselves perpetuate WP:SYSTEMICBIAS. In summary, Keith-264 disregards 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 (while ignoring equally valid RS).

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 how anything short of intervention by other admins will resolve this particular issue. 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)

@Beyond My Ken: & @Martinp: – I had my doubts about the block before the comment by power~enwiki and then re-read WP:INVOLVED, at which point I quickly realised that the block was not the right course of action and lifted it. I will not go anywhere near that line in future.

The fact that, as others have noted below, I've made a total of seven blocks in 10 years suggests that I'm not prone to arbitrary, capricious or totally unreasonable admin blocks.

I stand on my previous record as an admin and don't wish to renounce any aspects of the role.

Regarding my "friendly advice": it began as a good faith effort; I thought the import of WP:CONSENSUS etc might be clearer if delivered in a personal way, i.e. the involvement of third parties might inflame matters further. Obviously that was false logic. Grant | Talk 04:32, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

@Euryalus: and @Newyorkbrad:: your supplementary information and suggestions about alternate courses of action are helpful and I am considering them.

Once again, I commit absolutely to not imposing an inappropriate block on any editor (especially one whom I have personally been in dispute). Grant | Talk 04:32, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

The points above aside, the substance of my original statement stands; IMO this is more than a one-article content dispute. I respect Keith-264's evident knowledge of and enthusiasm for the subjects upon which he writes. However:

(i.) "Resignation" from Siege of Tobruk (SoT) aside, Keith-264 has not requested (AFAIK) the formal imposition of WP:ABAN re SoT. (Let alone a WP:TBAN.)

(ii.) I find it worrying that Keith-264 does not acknowledge any problem with his approach to SoT other than the fact that he is "outvoted". And even that realisation was not acted upon until this RfA. There is a tendency (deliberate or otherwise) amongst a significant minority of editors to WP:GAME, e.g. take an ad hoc, partial or self-serving approach to WP policy/style, rather than abiding by the overall spirit of the five pillars and MOS. Hence I am concerned that Keith-264 and other editors will take away nothing of substance away from this RfA.

In other words, there is nothing that will stop the situation from recurring, at the same article, or a wide range of other articles, it seems to me, at which the same or similar issues may arise.

Would it be appropriate for ArbCom to ask Keith-264 to re-read, in detail, WP:Five Pillars and WP:MOS, and to, in future, give equal consideration to all of 5P and MOS simultaneously?

Grant | Talk 04:32, 6 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)

Last correction, having read through the comments below I notice some speculative remarks about my conduct and motives, which I desire to answer, lest a mistaken impression be taken by outsiders. I resigned from editing the article because I believe that Grant 65 has been in bad faith all along. I believe that he has compromised himself and the admin role with a blatant conflict of interest. He is the second editor with admin powers since 2006 whom I have seen fit to withdraw AGF for a lack of integrity; to do this and stay within Wiki-fu I must avoid the editor, hence my resignation, also the second since 2006. Grant has offered a form of words here that he was wrong to block me but in every other respect maintains his hostility and character assassination. I think he would be well advised to stop digging. The Banner has previous which can be studied at Aktion T4 and talk, my grievance with him being a series of blanket reverts, which sabotaged my editing. I thought that I had arrived at a modus vivendi with Banner, after an exhaustive trawl through the last blanket revert and several of them being reinstated without challenge; now I'm the one smeared as a bully (when I couldn't defend myself). If anyone is curious about me they might enquire with User:AustralianRupert, since I trust his judgement.Keith-264 (talk) 16:00, 6 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 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 the advice of 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 Lorstaking

Grant65 can be given benefit of doubt here, given he made only 7 blocks in 11 years,[5] which was also indicated below and he may not be aware of WP:INVOLVED. Grant65 had unblocked Keith[6] providing an almost correct summary in unblock.

I agree that the rest of the dispute maybe related to content and the dispute is largely new[7], it needs intervention of experienced editors. Lorstaking (talk) 04:10, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

Statement by Ymblanter

I believe the only time I crossed my ways with Keith-264 was at Talk:RT (TV network) where their behavior was less than stellar. I see therefore how it could have been escalated to a block (not that I defend the block). However, there is nothing here which requires intervention of arbitrators, and this request is a clear candidate to be declined, with possible trouts to both parties.--Ymblanter (talk) 06:40, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

Statement by Robert McClenon

This appears to be a content dispute that is being compounded by disruptive editing and lack of respect for consensus, with a possibility of a mistake by an administrator. I see no indication that this is the sort of content dispute that the community cannot handle. Has there been a Request for Comments, followed by reports to either the edit-warring noticeboard or WP:ANI and blocks? It doesn't say so. I advise the parties to the content dispute to use a Request for Comments.

By the way, I would guess that changing Allied to British or United Kingdom, when the Allies were mostly Australian, is an insult to the Australians, suggesting that they are a British colony, which they were not at the time of World War Two. I don't think that we are at the point where we need ArbCom discretionary sanctions for insults to the independence of Canada, Australia, and New Zealand.

It appears that User:Grant65 may have made a mistake as an administrator. It isn't necessary to review and possibly revoke the administrator status of an administrator for a single mistake. Admin status has only been revoked and should only be revoked for patterns involving its misuse.

ArbCom should decline this case, possibly with advice to use a Request for Comments. (If there has been a Request for Comments, follow up on it.)

Robert McClenon (talk) 21:40, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

Statement by AustralianRupert

Since I've been pinged twice now, I will add a comment, although it is against my better judgement. I say this as I see little profit in this current process for anyone. I have worked with both editors over the years and, in my opinion, both are a net positive to the encyclopedia in their own ways. Nevertheless, like all of us (myself included), both have made mistakes during their time on Wikipedia. I don't see any gain in sanctioning either editor here for their mistakes, but I do see that there is a need to resolve the dispute on the Siege of Tobruk page that led here so that everyone can move on. As such, I would suggest that all involved to take a backward step and a deep breath. Work on something else for a while, or take a break. As the discussion at the article appears to have resulted in some entrenched positions, an RFC is probably the best way to determine the way forward on the article in question. This will allow more editors to offer an opinion, which can then be used to determine consensus either way. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 07:52, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

Statement by Dave

As noted above, below, left and right this is indeed a content dispute and so IMHO DRN or RFC would be the best options in resolving this (If you genuinely believe ANI's better than go for it) but at present Arbcom should be a last resort. –Davey2010^Talk 02:16, 8 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)
• Amended section heading to keep consistency. Amortias (T)(C) 21:11, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

Siege of Tobruk: usage of the terms "British" and "United Kingdom": Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter <0/6/0>

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)

• Decline as a content dispute resolvable elsewhere. Grant65: this was an "involved" block, and the further restrictions on talkpage access and email were entirely unnecessary. However, appreciate your statement re involved blocks above, so let's call it a one-off and move along. -- Euryalus (talk) 02:05, 8 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)
    • Decline. Keith-264's stepping away from the Siege of Tobruk article resolves the specific issue in dispute. If he returns to problematically editing that article, or if issues arise on other articles, any concerns should be raised in the appropriate venue or if necessary back here. Hopefully Keith-264 will abide by consensus when there are disagreements regarding future edits, so this will not be necessary. Grant65 has accepted that the block was inappropriate and promised not to repeat that error, and given his record that is a credible promise which resolves that issue. Thus we are left with nothing to do here and I vote to decline. I would also support according Grant65 a reasonable extension of the word limit as given the current status, it is probably not a good use of time to require him to trim his statement and subsequent comments especially after at least one arbitrator (me) has already read everything. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:41, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
• Decline, although I am interested to hear the opinion of AustralianRupert since they are being pinged, or alternatively Peacemaker67 as these are some of the most visible MILHIST coordinators. Having read the statement by Grant65, my impression is that this is a request for topic ban, although I am uncertain about the scope that is being requested. In either case, this is something that can be comfortably handled through third opinion by the community at AN or other venues as suggested above. In regards to the request made in the follow up comment, I don't really think it's particularly productive nor civil to request a relatively experienced editor to re-visit basic policies like WP:Five pillars and WP:MOS; if the community finds specific concern over the editing of Keith-264, it will be addressed accordingly. Alex Shih (talk) 06:37, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
• Decline. This seems more an WP:ANI issue that an arbitration matter. I echo both the concerns with Grant65's initial block and the appreciation that it was rescinded without drama; I believe him that he will avoid acting administratively when he is involved in content matters in the future. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 00:39, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
• Decline per the above comments. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 04:59, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
• Decline per above. RickinBaltimore (talk) 12:30, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

Misuse of Administrator Tools

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 [8]
• Discussion at ANI: (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

Current word length: 947 (limit: 500). Evidence is too long: please reduce your submission so it fits within limits.

• (Previously requested extension here. Please see diff for details. Thank you. — Initial statement now 512 words. (Permalink original)//(Permalink previous version)

Rewritten for clarity and to address length

§ Prefatory statement (Comment from old version)

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.

This material clearly illustrates FPaS substituting their personal view point that there is a policy issue in re the newsletter's use of the phrase "profound loss" for the community consensus that it is a content dispute. He then proceeds to edit war his preferred version of the text while threatening to protect the page if the other editor does not accept his version. When the other editor reverts FPaS's edit FPaS protects the page 'winning' the edit war and protecting his viewpoint while using his counter-community consensus view that the wording is an administrator-enforceable policy violation to justify his INVOLVED action.

1. ANI thread on 'profound loss' closed as "Content dispute" - 01:49 Apr 04 — (Permalink to closed discussion)
2. FPaS first edit to the newsletter was at 13:31 Apr 04

   Edit summary:((actually, NPOV does apply to wikiprojects. Do not use this newsletter to promote your personal opinions on things.))

   Note: No claim at this time that this is an administrative issue or reason to assume it is so because ANI said it was a content dispute.

   The claim that NPOV applies is counter guidelines on WikiProjects and Project namespace in general

   • Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Guide#What is a WikiProject? — "The pages of a WikiProject… act as a forum where issues of interest to the editors of a subject may be discussed."^{(emp mine)}

   • Wikipedia:Project namespace#Content — ("Pages within the "Project namespace … do not generally need to conform to the same content … standards as articles")

   It is also counter to:

   • Specific longstanding consensus on newsletters: ("The Signpost … allows … editorializing, narrative, original research"^{(Signpost purpose)})

   • Apples-to-apples comparison from Wikipedia:Top 25 Report/February 18 to 24, 2018 ("Christianity lost one on its bastions this week, and curious Wikipedians journeyed to parse the page of the evangelist …" )

3. FPaS re-opens thread, asserting the counter-consensus view the issue is a policy matter. 14:46 Apr 04
4. -Reverted to original. 17:35 Apr 04
5. FPaS reverts and threatens to protect page claiming policy issue 18:47 Apr 04

   Edit summary: ((rv, no. This is an administrative measure, don't force me to protect the page.))

6. -Reverted to original 19:29 Apr 04
7. FPaS reverts again. Clearly an edit war is in progress. 19:32 Apr 04
8. and immediately protects page 'winning' the edit war. 19:32 Apr 04

   Edit summary: (persistent attempts at POV spamming)

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. With the addition of evidence that ANI had already determined the matter was a content dispute any conceivable justification for FPaS not violating INVOLVED is gone. This matter does rise to the level of a desysop.

§ Administrators do a tough. (Comment from old version)

Replies to arbitrators

• @Newyorkbrad: I have no objection to this being disposed by motion. I agree that a lengthy case would be of no benefit, particularly since there are no issues not already addressed by policy, guideline or longstanding consensus. There is a fundamental flaw in our dispute management system which we are all all to aware of; there is no way to substantively address mid-tier misbehavior by administrators.
  I would, however, like to draw your attention to what I see as a weakness in your reasoning. Specifically your conclusion "FPaS's error did not lie in taking a self-interested or "involved" action, because in his mind his entire role was as an administrator enforcing policy.". The mere assertion of acting in an administrative capacity can not be a shield against INVOLVED. I assert there must be an actual not a putative policy violation to invoke exemption. Administrators are given tremendous leeway in their actions and an assumption of good faith. To also say they can assume and assert an incorrect policy to shield their actions creates an untenable moral hazard while raising the bar to show wrongdoing to a practically unreachable level. I do not find it at all unreasonable for administrators know the limits of the policy they are enforcing before being allowed to use it as a shield against INVOLVED.
  In this specific case, as part of my 'attempted resolution' I specifically requested FPaS to cite the written policy/guideline which they were relying on. They declined to do so and have continued to fail to do so. Basic administrator accountability requires FPaS explain their reasoning. Even if you completely disagree with my reasoning above, it is not reasonable to give them a pass based on an asserted policy violation based on reasoning they have failed to either articulate or support.
• @BU Rob13: When I opened this request I recognized that my view of how egregious a single but blatant incident of tool misuse was differs from the community's in general (See §Administrators do a tough job above). The reason why I specifically decided to assert that the conduct reached the level of a desysop in my re-write is that it was not a single error.
  All of this starts with a community consensus at ANI that the matter is a content dispute. This is key because a single administrator can not overrule, by fiat, an ANI consensus. So, either FPaS knew of the ANI thread and followed it to the newsletter or they came upon it for the first time by independent coincidence. In either case they edit claiming NPOV violation giving no indication it is and admin action. There is no definite way to know if they intended this as an administrative action or not but so far nothing improper has occurred. In any case, an hour or so later FPaS shows up at the ANI thread, disagrees with the close and re-opens it.
  It is this last act, the re-opening of the thread, which gives us something we so rarely have — we know 'what FPaS knew and when they knew it'. At this point FPaS knows with absolute certainty that the community sees this as a content dispute. After FPaS's initial edit to the newsletter is reverted FPaS ignores consensus on an ANI thread they had re-opened (so there is no 'out' by claiming consensus was in flux) and reinstates their edit now claiming administrative action and threatening to use page protection. There is no way to see this as anything other than contempt for consensus and FPaS asserting their view over that of the community's. If they had protected the page at this point it would have still been INVOLVED but it would have been a pretty minor thing, probably not even worth an AN complaint if they relented quickly.
  FPaS's edit is then reverted. Now, they already know that prior to their dispute of the ANI close the community saw this as a content matter and we all know to take edit wars to the talk page or an admin board for our colleagues to opine. So had a choice. They could do the right thing — discuss, or the wrong thing — revert and continue the edit war. FPaS made not only the wrong choice and continued the edit war they used page protection to win it.
  So, we are not talking about a single, in the heat of the moment, poor choice. There were several places where FPaS could have made the right or even a less bad choice. Instead FPaS made a series of choices which show utter disregard for the norms which make Wikipedia a collaborative project. FPaS unquestionably knew that the community, via the ANI thread, had a different opinion on the matter than they did but their actions show they just did not care. FPaS knows that you discuss contested edits but their actions show they thought their opinion was the only one that mattered. Neither of those things are a reason to loose the mop but FPaS used their tools to overrule consensus by winning an edit war which they started on a page they had never edited before. We simply can not have administrators who think they have the right to use their tools to disregard community consensus and bypass the norms of collaborative editing. That is why this issue should result in a desysop, not because it was a one-off bad call — we all make those, say 'ooppss… sorry' and move on. FPaS showed utter contempt for the collective processes and norms which make Wikipedia function and in doing so showed they can not be trusted not to use their advanced permissions when they get into a disagreement.
  'Easy come-easy go' has been bullshit since before I started editing here and we as a community rightly tend to read admin actions in the best possible light — hell NYB even said FPaS's behavior was OK because they thought what they were doing is OK. Well, I believe I have made a pretty good argument that either FPaS knew what they were doing was wrong or that they are completely out of touch with Wikipedia's norms of consensus and collaborative editing. In either case they will do something like this again if they continue to be an administrator. At the very least, I implore all of you, if you do not make this the last time insure through your decision that the next time will be the last time.

(Based on NYB's comments I will not edit my section further for length without a specific request from or on behalf of an arbitrator.)

— Jbh ^Talk — Last edited: 19:06, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

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 abovein the original filing 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)
• @The ed17: Surely: "Some examples of appropriately editing others' comments:
  • ... Removing prohibited material such as ... anti-promotional policies" (emphasis mine, but direct quote from WP:TPO. Removal of advocacy or expression of personal opinion is allowed. Disappointed to see you questioning straightforward policy). I am certainly not framing this as a BLP issue. However, removing personal opinion is allowed by policy. Swarm ♠ 03:58, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
• @The ed17: I'm not "interpreting" anything. I'm simply pointing out that the relevant policy is unambiguous. Removal of personal opinion is explicitly allowed by the talk page guidelines. Swarm ♠ 04:46, 6 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)

FPaS: It's not your words that are in question here, but your action. The division of opinion in the admin corps is an indication that the "any reasonable administrator would have probably come to the same conclusion" clause is not an effective explanation (none of the admins so far mentioned in this discussion on either side of the question can be called "unreasonable"), and, in any case, that clause is for "straightforward cases (e.g., blatant vandalism)", which the question of whether Wikipedia resources in Projectspace should be used to express opinions is clearly not. That's an unsettled policy question, and not in any way comparable to "blatant vandalism". No, once you had expressed your personal views on the policy question via your edits, you were clearly disallowed from using your bit in relation to that discussion, and even if you believed you weren't, discretion should have told you to approach another admin with a request for protection instead of doing it yourself. That's really the only issue here (despite some of the hand-waving above dismissing it) not whether protection was justified, but whether you were the proper person to levy it. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:28, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

On the question of whether this warrants a case, I would initially have said no, and agreed that a trout (i.e. light admonishment) was sufficient, but I am troubled by FPaS's decision to stand mute and not engage with the very real concerns of numerous high-profile admins and editors. It may well be that if FPaS doesn't reconsider that stance, that a case might be necessary, but I would prefer that he would choose, instead, to engage in discussion. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:52, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

One final thing. I mentioned above that I have had disputes with FPaS in the past. That was quite a long time ago, and in the meantime I have, on occasion, supported FPaS in various discussions. I do not hold any kind of grudge against him. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:57, 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)

@Innisfree987: Not what I meant. I meant that the case request would be stronger if a pattern could be demonstrated. I did not say that no such pattern exists. Regards SoWhy 07:07, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

Addendum: FPaS rev'deleted this comment (admin-only) by an IP on the talk page per WP:RD3. Regardless of whether RD3 really applies to a comment that criticizes FPaS in strong words but still is an attempt to participate in this case, I find this action itself deeply troubling. Apparently FPaS does not realize that comments in an ArbCom request about him misusing the tools is not the right place for him to act in any administrative capacity. Whatever the reason for this request was, this has been the second WP:INVOLVED violation in less than two days... Regards SoWhy 07:22, 6 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)

To the arbs just voting decline, it would be helpful to know if you are endorsing FPaS' actions or think the situation does not merit a motion/case. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 04:34, 8 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. GMG^talk 19:06, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

Ian, the passage you reference is referring to something like vandalism. If yours was a valid interpretation of the policy, any admin could edit war on any article, and then protect it under the rationale that any admin would protect a page where there is an ongoing edit war, especially one where one side equally involved in the edit war was an admin, and full protection prevents admins from making unilateral changes as much as it does anyone else. That's silly, and nowhere in the neighborhood of anything the community has or would endorse. GMG^talk 20:36, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

@Newyorkbrad: Regarding in his mind his entire role..., the question is not whether he was correct "in his mind"; it's is whether what was in his mind was remotely in accordance with policy. Speficially:

• Is NPOV an exception to WP:EW? Unambiguously no, and responsible for probably most blocks at ANEW.
• Is edit warring an administrative action? Exactly no. It is a content dispute in which they are a party, and as such, specifically pointed out in policy as abuse.

There is no exception in policy that if you feel strongly enough about a dispute (or simply choose to assume bad faith), you are somehow exempted from EW or INVOLVED. The reason these policies exist is for situations where disagreement becomes apparent and administrators have strong feelings about it. What was "in his mind" is not just unsupported by policy; it is exactly and intentionally contradicted by it. GMG^talk 12:44, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

I think a motion is the most anyone is looking for here, but declining even a motion looks an awful lot like endorsement. GMG^talk 15:22, 8 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 ([9]), 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 (removed from Jbh's statement in edit for length; viewable here) 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(struck as SoWhy apparently disagrees with this characterization) as this appears to be an isolated incident rather than a pattern. Innisfree987 (talk) 20:00, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

Statement by Davey2010

Future Perfect at Sunrise shouldn't of protected the newsletter - they should've asked another admin to do the honours, In some ways I feel their actions were INVOLVED / HEAVY HANDED and in others I feel they only protected the newsletter to try and stop the edit warring but yeah they should've asked another admin, –Davey2010^Talk 20:34, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

Statement by Alanscottwalker

I think the underlying circumstances are rather tempest/teapot, and at least from what I have read in the AN/I and the above statements deserves no real sanction against anyone (reminders, maybe). However, I do think the committee could perhaps answer the issues posed by FPaS rather categorical assertion in the ANI [10]:

Sorry for reopening this, but unlike some commentators above I find that jps' complaint has merit. Also, I don't see there's a legitimate content discussion to be had here; it's a straightforward matter of enforcing policy. To that end, I have removed the offending bit from the newsletter draft, and I'm fully prepared to use admin tools if necessary to keep it out. [¶] "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.

So, I would limit any Arbitration case to just breaking down that quote: 1) is any or all of FPaS statement policy compliant (in whole or in part), and 2) is any or all of it supported by the underlying facts, here. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 21:22, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

Certainly no-one is asking the committee to formulate 'guidelines' on newsletters, but per the statement by FPaS, above, there is already policy here, that must be enforced. As we see, in this case - and the statements on this page - this is centrally a conduct issue (it's a conduct issue that editor's can or can't say certain things in certain places), and it impacts 1) multiple past and future Wikipedian's statements, 2) editor conduct, and 3) administrator actions across the Wikipedia Project: from the Signpost, to the Top25, to talk pages, to . . . . Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:04, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

@Newyorkbrad:: To clarify matters in adressing the issues raised, would you directly address this question: Do these diffs of FPaS edits, [11], [12], [13] constitute participation in a WP:EDITWAR by FPaS? Thanks. Alanscottwalker (talk) 00:15, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

@KrakatoaKatie:, @Alex Shih:: You may wish to work together to make a motion. If this was Edit Warring over NPOV, English Wikipedia just cannot endorse admins doing that. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:06, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

Statement by The ed17

I'm a fan of the New Orleans Saints. If, hypothetically speaking, I expressed my sadness about the death of Drew Brees on Keeper76's talk page, would that be against policy? Or, how about the op-ed "The tragedy of Wikipedia's commons" that I published when I was the editor of the Signpost. That had a rather sharp point of view. What I'm saying here is that you're completely allowed to express opinions in project and userspace. Neutral point of view applies to articles. All in all, GreenMeansGo hits the nail on the head. Not only did FPaS violate INVOLVED, they weren't even within policy had they kept to non-admin actions. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 23:15, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

@Swarm: Can you quote any sentence(s) in the talk page guidelines' "Editing others' comments" section that support your opinion? 'Cos here's the thing. If you're talking about its mention of "living persons," let me point you to this line from WP:BLP, section "Non-article space": "Although this policy applies to posts about Wikipedians in project space, some leeway is permitted to allow the handling of administrative issues by the community, but administrators may delete such material if it rises to the level of defamation, or if it constitutes a violation of no personal attacks." (I think we can all agree that "The death of Billy Graham was a profound loss" is not defamation or a personal attack.) Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 03:27, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

@Swarm: I thought you might go there, to which I would invite you to read my statement above, or to WP:ITNC when someone like Stephen Hawking passes away (sorry, direct section link doesn't work with the brackets). There just isn't consensus, and will never be consensus, for the interpretation you're proposing. Will you be removing all non-Wikipedia-related userboxes? I invite you to remove the following: I'm a fan of the New Orleans Saints. They're a great team, helped by Drew Brees being one of the greatest quarterbacks of all time. He will one day be in the Hall of Fame. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 04:22, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

I'll add here that there is a limit where other people's opinions can and should be edited. Gross personal attacks come to mind, or nasty bits of sexism/racism, or plenty of other scenarios. But going after a kind word in the project or userspace, even if it's about someone I personally disagree(d) with, is what's never going to get consensus if put to a wider forum. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 04:28, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

@Alex Shih: Note that WP:NPOV applies only to the mainspace. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 20:10, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

Statement by Tarage

Current word length: 730 (limit: 500). Evidence is too long: please reduce your submission so it fits within limits.

The start of this incident was a minor content dispute that quickly escalated into the mess Arbcom sees before it. User:ජපස brought forward a complaint about NPOV in a Wikipedia newsletter without a single attempt at discussion, along with canvasing at other boards. By the time I read it, it was clear that the discussion was going nowhere and that it was indeed a content dispute, so I hatted the section: [14]. However, User:GreenMeansGo put forward a request for a topic ban from religious articles, and User:ජපස's response convinced me that this was the best course of action, so I voted in support. At this point, User:Future Perfect at Sunrise started edit warring about the removal of the phrase without even attempting to discuss. This resulted in him also protecting the page, an incredibly inappropriate move for an involved administrator which drew swift condemnation from many involved. After more argument about the merits of such an action, and again with little to no talk page communication, the protection was removed. Because I felt strongly that this action was abuse of admin powers based on several of the arguments already presented above, I went to revert back to where the article had been as is how I understand the edit/revert/discuss cycle to work, I reverted his edit citing vandalism, which I felt FPaS's actions to be: admin vandalism [15], and proceeded to voice my displeasure with the subsequent slight on my edit summary which I defended [16], and then my frustration with the protection being re-applied and attempted to disengage before I did anything further [17]. Between the two edits, while I was formulating the last response, User:JzG left a warning on my talk page [18]. Because I saw him as trying to support FPaS's actions, I told him I didn't want him on my talk page in the future, something I understood was in my ability to do [19]. Immediately after, User:Swarm blocked me [20]. This happened before I made any edits beyond the removal of the warning. Though his own admission, the block was for the very same edit I had just been warned for [21][22]. I attempted to have the block removed on the grounds that I was being blocked for behavior I had just been warned for, double jeopardy if you would [23] and GMG came to my defense [24]. After multiple attempts to discern his motives, Swarm admitted that he considers removing a warning to be a blockable offense [25][26][27], that he blocked me for edits made prior to the warning [28], that telling an admin you want to take them to arbcom is a 'threat' and justification for blocking after the fact [29] and yet felt that taking it to arbcom was a fine thing to do [30], and lashed out at GMG for calling him out on these things [31]. He also admitted that he was wheelwaring the admin who left the waring [32]. After dealing with his hostile and escalating behavior, I asked that he no longer post on my talk page, as I thought was my right [33], but he proceeded to ignore this [34], ping me three times [35][36][37] and e-mail me despite my request not to interact with him further. His behavior was again called out by GMG for his unbecoming behavior, and when [User:User:Boing!_said_Zebedee] removed the block, recognizing that it was both controversial and punitive rather than preventative (Remember, I had already numerous times stated I was not going to edit the article or anything related again) [38], he started harassing him, to the point that even unrelated user [User:RexxS] told him he was going too far. I encourage all involved to look at my talk page[39], Swarm's talk page[40] and BsZ's talk page[41] to see the full extent of Sawrm's unbecoming behavior. While I don't believe this rises to the level of revoking his mop, I do believe he should be sanctioned, and I request that my block log, which had been spotless to this point, be amended to reflect that this block was unjust and should not have been placed so that it can't be used against me should future issues arise. Also, I am posting this in both cases because I believe the two to be related, but will respect arbcom's judgement on how the cases should be structured. --Tarage (talk) 06:36, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

Statement by Cullen328

If I was writing a signed newsletter opinion piece for editors interested in the American Civil Rights movement, and wrote a sentence saying that I considered the assassination of Martin Luther King Jr 50 years ago to be a loss for Americans, which motivated my interest in the topic area and led me to write and expand biographies civil rights figures (all of which is true), should that trigger an edit war, accusations of spam, protection of the newsletter and an attempt at an arbitration case? Only in a 21st century version of Alice in Wonderland. If we are going to ruthlessly purge every shred of personal opinion from every wikiproject communication, then collaboration among like minded editors will be severely impeded. We are not talking about article space or article talk space, but rather one sentence in an opt-in newsletter. There is an absurdist aspect to this whole controversy. Instead of accepting a case, ArbCom should just say "chill out" or something to that effect. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:34, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

Statement by Johnuniq

There is no case suitable for ArbCom because a community discussion at ANI (archive ^{ANI permalink}) did not conclude there was a problem. Five uninvolved editors endorsed FP's actions and FP clearly stated (diff among others) that he regarded removal of "a profound loss" and subsequent protection as an enforcement of policy. The five endorsements show that was a soundly based opinion. I would have also endorsed the admin action since a local consensus should not overrule community norms and action was required given that the newsletter was about to be delivered. Johnuniq (talk) 05:06, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

Statement by Literaturegeek

I had never actually heard of Billy Graham before this drama kicked off, perhaps because I am based in the UK, nor had I heard of Future Perfect at Sunrise.

I was following the administrator's noticeboard/incidents when FPaS took a POV course of action that seemed pedantic and his attitude and use of admin tools was silly and perhaps even absurd. Remember: The content dispute was about someone who is a recently deceased person who was known and liked by many, so FPaS, I feel, should've been more sensitive instead of slightly aggressive in dealing with this dispute.

I don't think, per WP:INVOLVED, that ArbCom can ignore this case because of the edit warring and use of admin tools to enforce a preferred POV version.[42],[43] This then follows futher unacceptable behaviour by page protecting to enforce his preferred version.[44]

Admin actions aside, it is very dubious that he had policy on his side wrt the content dispute. The best approach was a talk page discussion to achieve a consensus. This happened quite easily with editors agreeing to qualify the newsletter mentioning the death of Billy Graham by changing "profound loss" to "profound loss by many". There was no need for misuse of admin tools with somewhat hostile POV pushing.

Especially concerning was his attitude to the concerns of the community,[45] suggesting he does not want to admit fault or is still unable to resolve his POV to appropriate behaviour of an admin. This would be of concern with respect to the risk of a repeat of this behaviour. This is another reason an admonishment (as a final warning of sorts) should be considered to reenforce that his behaviour should not have happened, and to imply that a repeat could result in a full ArbCom case and/or recourse to more serious consequences such as a dysopp.

Full cases are more designed to investigate complex long-term problems where the facts are not obvious. The community expects at least some action to be taken against administrators who misuse their tools. I think, given it is an isolated (but still serious) incidence and the facts are clear, that an admonishment, rather than a full case with possible dysopp, is the best option.

A draconian full case might be overkill for an admin who made a mistake, but is otherwise probably a well intentioned 'good guy' who is administrating and helping with the building of our encyclopedia.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 07:10, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

Statement by JzG

This was a remarkably silly dispute that was resolved quickly after I initiated discussion at the talk page for the newsletter. Lionel considered that a byline framed the entire document as a statement of personal opinion, and thus the opinion on Graham, a divisive figure as surely everyone is aware, was a statement of opinion and not a statement of fact in Wikipedia's (or the project's) voice. After a bit of discussion I think he accepts that reasonable people could easily take a different view, and he agreed to qualify the statement. And I really do think that is all that was needed.

I am fairly sure that user:ජපස will move to another new name. His former usernames include: User:ScienceApologist, User:Joshua P. Schroeder, User:VanishedUser314159, User:Previously ScienceApologist, User:QTxVi4bEMRbrNqOorWBV, User:I9Q79oL78KiL0QTFHgyc, User:WoKrKmFK3lwz8BKvaB94, User:9SGjOSfyHJaQVsEmy9NS (from Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive970 § Username:ජපස aka jps). I am probably not the only admin familiar with his long history of disputes.

The bizarre thing here is that none of those involved actually initiated discussion on the talk page, instead preferring edit summaries and the drama board. I suspect that qualifies for WP:TROUTs all round, but probably no more. I think the community should formulate some guidelines on neutrality in newsletters. This looked like a DYK (and indeed referenced DYK), so it is not ridiculous to think that some standard of neutrality should legitimately apply. If anything positive is to come out of this, I would suggest that better guidance for newsletter editors might be that thing. But that's not ArbCom's remit. Guy (Help!) 07:05, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

Addendum: according to Special:PrefixIndex/Wikipedia:WikiProject Christianity/Outreach this appears to have been Lionelt's first experience editing the newsletter, and the first time it has been published since 2014.

Statement by Mendaliv

I think the Committee should accept this case. While I was uncertain initially, an analysis of the facts makes it clear that FPaS's use of the tools was probably improper and unreasonable, though I do not believe FPaS's actions were ideologically, religiously, or politically motivated. Rather, I believe the problem is that Graham was during his life, as a leading religious figure in the United States, a significant figure in what is known as the American culture wars, the liberal-versus-conservative battle that has raged in American society since at least the 1980s. Had Graham been an American politician, I have little doubt that FPaS's action would have been appropriate under AP2, and that's where part of the problem lies: AP2's breadth and the effect it has had.

Because no discretionary sanctions are authorized in the topic area of the American culture wars, religious leaders, or anything that really sweeps up Graham, there was no mandate authorizing FPaS's unilateral and urgent removal of the statement, let alone backing it up with page protection. No justification other than WP:BLP-violative derogatory statements or copyright violation could support such rapid, unilateral, pre-discussion action. WP:NOTFORUM is an argument that should have been made at the talk page, and upon a consensus being reached that the statement indeed would run afoul of policy, it should have been removed or modified. Rapid action without discussion is not the Wikipedia way, and should not be undertaken when there is no urgency. There is no deadline.

Finally, I would ask whether anybody would have cared or acted with urgency if, say, Wikipedia:WikiProject Firefly had a newsletter and in it described the cancellation of Firefly to be a "profound loss". That Graham courted controversy and was a religious figure should not be seen as particularly relevant, at least for the purposes of the case request phase. It may be relevant in determining the severity of sanctions.

In conclusion, the Committee should accept this case because there was no policy or DS regime justification for the urgent, unilateral removal of the offending material, and similarly there was no such justification for page protection. The misuse of tools not being a technical or accidental misuse, and the dogged insistence of FPaS that the use of tools was proper in light of these facts, is indicative that other misuses may exist. As such, the collection and evaluation of evidence that occurs in a full case is proper. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 20:59, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

Statement by Robert McClenon

This, like the other two cases now pending, appears to be a case involving a single mistake by an administrator in use of administrative tools. The fact that FPaS says that they have nothing to add (e.g., no statement that maybe they were mistaken) is not important. FPaS is blunt-spoken and has a dismissive manner, but that is less important than that FPaS is usually right, and no one has said that FPaS has a pattern of being wrong or misusing tools. It would be better if FPaS could admit that maybe they used poor judgment, but there is no requirement that administrators admit that every action might have been a mistake. The ArbCom should decline this case.

I will add that, if the filing party in the first case or this case thinks that there is a pattern of misuse of tools, they should refile stating that there is a pattern, not a mistake. (The third case was self-filed and is in a different class.) If any party in any case thinks that we need better guidelines on proper use of tools, we can start a discussion at Village pump (Policy) rather than in an ArbCom case.

Robert McClenon (talk) 19:39, 7 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).

• Tagged overlength statements. Amortias (T)(C) 21:11, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

Misuse of mop: Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter <0/6/0>

Vote key: (Accept/decline/recuse)

• I don't think this requires a full case, and I don't think it rises to the level of a desysop. I would be open to a final warning to FPaS to avoid the appearance of INVOLVEment. Katie^talk 21:35, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Decline. A motion is in the works. Katie^talk 19:45, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
• Leaning decline. ¶ As a general statement, editorial comment in a newsletter, especially one sent only to members of a wikiproject who have opted to receive it, need not be "neutral" as article content must be. After all, the "Signpost" regularly contains editorials including on contentious matters. ¶ There are some expectations that apply even in these contexts. Communications to editors must not be misleading, such as when they would appear to speak for Wikipedia rather than an individual (compare, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Karmafist). Additionally, no content is allowed in any space if it is inherently disruptive or brings the project into disrepute (Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Billy Ego-Sandstein), or which read in context violates the BLP policy (Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Gamaliel and others). ¶ In the context of a wikiproject newsletter mourning a recent death, we can all agree that (for example) a wikiproject newsletter stating that Steven Hawking's death was a loss would be perfectly acceptable, while a wikiproject newsletter stating that the death of some despicable, mass-murderous tyrant was a loss would not be. Where, as here, the subject is a person whom some people admire and others do not, there are shades of gray ... but ones that have never posed a problem before that I've heard of, nor are likely to be much of a problem in the future. ¶ Future Perfect at Sunrise (FPaS) was within his rights to raise his concern about including what he perceived as a contentious political statement in a newsletter. But that statement was written in an individual voice and was not intentionally or inherently disruptive, so full-protecting while it was being discussed was an overreaction. But FPaS's error did not lie in taking a self-interested or "involved" action, because in his mind his entire role was as an administrator enforcing policy. Rather, any error was in his taking an unwarranted or excessive action, by enforcing neutrality in an instance where neutrality was not required. While I don't care for administrators throwing their elbows around in this fashion, this type of judgment call is not a "bright-line" offense and the discussion here may help clarify expectations in this area. ¶ I appreciate why Jbhunley brought this request here, but based on my experience this is a situation in which a lengthy arbitration case will make matters worse rather than help solve them. Also, I am not unduly troubled by FPaS's removing posts by a banned troll who, if could be identified, would properly be the subject of a restraining order. Therefore, I am glad to see discussion play out here, but absent some new factor arising, I lean toward declining the case. ¶ As a final point, this request is another reminder that we on the Committee need to revisit the issue of word limits. My review of this case was complicated, rather than eased, by editors' having to revise their statements and insert links to old versions when responding to comments in an effort to meet the limits, and I expect this will prove true for others as well. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:21, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
• Decline agreeing largely with my colleagues above. In particular we've dropped the ball on word limits and need to make a decision. Doug Weller talk 10:12, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
• Decline. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 00:44, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Yes, that was an edit war, and I would support a motion admonishing Future Perfect at Sunrise for participating in one. I don't think that rises to the level of desysopping, and I don't think a full case is needed to examine those few diffs; it's pretty clear what happened. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 14:34, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
• Decline RickinBaltimore (talk) 01:30, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
• As there does not appears to be a clear consensus on whether or not Future Perfect at Sunrise's administrative actions were involved or not, I would decline a full case but support a motion to clarify two questions: 1) Is it acceptable for an administrator to overlook best practice and proceed to edit warring for the purpose of enforcing neutrality, regardless of namespace 2) Where do we stand on whether or not there was administrative misconduct by FPaS. Alex Shih (talk) 05:30, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
• Decline. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 06:15, 8 April 2018 (UTC)