Requests for arbitration

Request name	Motions	Initiated	Votes
Toddst1	Motions	18 February 2014	{{{votes}}}

[edit]

Open cases

Case name	Links	Evidence due	Prop. Dec. due
Historical elections	(t) (ev / t) (ws / t) (pd / t)	20 Aug 2024	03 Sep 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: Definition of the "area of conflict" Clause 4 (b)	Motion	none	26 July 2024
Amendment request: German war effort	Motion	(orig. case)	31 August 2024
Amendment request: Palestine-Israel articles (AE referral)	none	none	17 August 2024

Arbitrator motions

No arbitrator motions are currently open.

Toddst1

Initiated by NE Ent at 15:04, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Involved parties

NE Ent (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), filing party
Toddst1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

[1]

Statement by NE Ent

Background: Toddst1 has a pattern of aggressive actions, which has been criticized by the community as documented on the following ANI threads. None warrant arbcom sanctions, but are presented to show a pattern. (Note I commented in some of these under prior username Nobody Ent.)

July 2012: Disputed block, inappropriate removal of rollback

Nov 2012: Inappropriate removal of rollback

Jan 2014: disputed edit warring block. Note especially Toddst1's refusal to acknowledge community consensus in this subsection. Subsequent to this event, Toddst1 proposed Edit warring policy wording to their interpretation, but dropped the issue after finding no community support.

Involved actions and failure to be accountable

February 2014: As fully documented on ANI thread Toddst1 made an editorial statement "As the admin who stopped the edit war, I recommend you consider making the the source for the contended material more explicit using <ref> tags.", to which the editor courtesy replied and waited 12 days for a reply, during which time Toddst1 was clearly on-wiki. Hearing no reply editor subsequently made the edit and was summarily blocked by Toddst1. In the context of the unblock request which followed, Toddst1 continued to argue content "as the blocking admin" [2].

The editor was subsequently unblocked by ErrantX who described the action as a "heavy handed block with very little justification." Toddst1 was subsequently requested to respond to the ANI thread.

Administrator accountability requires "Administrators are expected to respond promptly and civilly to queries about their Wikipedia-related conduct and administrator actions and to justify them when needed." Rather than do so, Toddst1 has indicated via setting on the wikibreak enforcer script [3] they intend to lay low for 11 months, which is, of course, one month short of the year of inactivity which results in removal of tools.

Reply to initial NYB, Flo, Beeblebrox comments: hopefully it's clear the Aprock block -- an attempt to direct content -- was bogus. While I respect the inclination not to take action with regard to an absent editor, I don't think Toddst1 should be able to duck out on very legitimate criticism, especially as his parting remark seems to indicate he hopes things will have changed in a year so he can continue as before. Not good. My concrete suggestion is:

Accept case
By motion, temporary injunction on using admin tools pending resolution of case. (But no desysop -- too much stigma with that)
Suspend case until Toddst1 returns

If he returns in a year with assurances he'll clearly distinguish the editorial and admin functions, and respond civilly to legit questions about his actions, a quick dismissal of the case would be entirely appropriate.

In other words, I guess I'm requesting this incident be transferred from unreliable "Ent" et. al. memory to institutional memory. NE Ent 19:53, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to query

Carcharoth It's my understanding its generally left up to the bureaucrat community to discuss / determine whether a resignation of tools was "under a cloud." NE Ent 02:57, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Motion wording

@Beeblebrox: "asked" is too WP:WEASEL for an arbcom motion. "Directed" is preferred; this is Wikipedia, if Toddst1 cames back and if they use admin tools prior to case resolution -- especially if something innocuous -- it'll be something to argue about. NE Ent 23:07, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by ErrantX

So, randomly spotted this reading the case request below... It was me that unblocked Aprock earlier this month. NE Ent summarises that situation quite well; Toddst1 was very heavy handed in that block and it left a poor taste in mouth (in terms of how an admin should treat other editors). Hence the unblock and my words to Toddst1.

Afterwards Toddst1 went on a lengthy wikibreak (ostensibly) with somewhat dramatic words. I have to say, I don't really have much respect for such stuff - it's fine to be upset or possibly cross when criticised. But to, in colloquial British, have a hissy fit is tedious and not worth our time responding to.

That said; there are things to look at here, possibly. This isn't the first time I've seen a Toddst1 block that looked heavy handed, irresponsible or out-of-policy - and I agree with NE Ent that the crux of the matter is less those actions and more the fact there seems no introspection or acceptance of criticism on show.

However, Toddst1 is now on an 11 month break and we can't really have a case in his absence. Perhaps a temporary de-sysop (if the committee feels it is warranted) and a suspended case for when Toddst1 returns? Or perhaps the committee could exam these problems in a wider context with a remit to clarify policy? --Errant ^(chat!) 15:38, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Ubikwit

Well, it's a relief to see somebody reporting Toddst1, as I was subjected to what I consider to be a "drive-by block" by him in User_talk:Ubikwit#December_2013.

Aside from that thread, I sent a somewhat detailed account of the events in a request to unblock using the ticket system on December 20, to which I received a response from @Fluffernutter: on the 23rd. I don't know if I have a copy of the text of that request, so please go through the log for that date. Here is the AN/I thread Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive821#Another_SPA_POV-pushing_and_edit_warring_at_Bukharan_Jews.2C_WP.

In short, however, there was an IP editing in a manner against several policies and he had been warned, it appeared that the IP then opened an account to continue edit warring in neglect of the warning. I described this as a loophole for gaming the system in a followup to Fluffernutter, but received no response--that issue had not seemed to be of interest to Toddst1, neither before nor after the block, even though it potentially represents a (minor) systematic lapse.

I've located the report I submitted with the unblock request through the ticket system, so I'll provide a few links to threads and expand a little. I'll post the text of that if a case is opened.
As can be seen from the following links, I had put a substantial amount of effort into dispute resolution regarding the case at AN/I. That effort had included a previous AN/I thread against the IP that appears to have subsequently registered user ID Coolforschool in order to circumvent the warnings he'd been given. That, however, remains an unexamined matter to this day.
The crux of the matter is that when editors expend significant time and effort on Wikipedia to engage the dispute resolution process, that has to be respected by admins and substantive due process afforded in order to evaluate a complex situation before any administrative action is taken.
Clearly admins such as Toddst1 pose a threat to editor retention on Wikipedia. I would support the "in absentia" mode for this case, because it should be resolved while fresh on peoples minds, and represents is another in a string of recent cases relating to admin conduct.

At any rate, my take on the scenario was that Toddst1 didn't look at the specifics of the interaction at all, and blocked me basically because he determined that I was technically in violation of the edit warring policy.

He didn't respond to my requests on my talk page or participate in the AN/I discussion at all before issuing the block. An since at least one other administrator had already commented and taken an intermediary action, I can't see the justification for the non-communicative enforcer type action taken by the individual in question.

I banned him from my talk page, and then he reverted one of my edits and issued a warning in relation to an article on which he had absolutely no editing history. I suspected he was stalking me and told him so. that edit related to the current "Gun control" case, incidentally, and the distinction that should be made between "gun control" and "arms control"--Ubikwit^連絡_{見学/迷惑} 17:54, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Leaky Caldron

An action of some sort is essential. Failure to establish a basis for proceeding now, reserving for the future or some other formal course of action simply allows any Admin. facing a case to disappear for a long enough period of time that the case against them is effectively negated. There is a "cloud" here that needs to be clarified by an Arbcom. decision. Leaky Caldron 19:41, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Statement and proposed motion by Hasteur

Assuming good faith on the actions of Toddst1, and recalling the wording of Admin Accountability, it only seems right that Toddst1 should give an accounting of their actions. Their actions were already of concern (and under scrutiny by established editors) prior to the wikibreak being enforced therefor there is reasonable perception of clouds having formed. Therefore I propose

An Arbitration case be opened and suspended for up to 1 year regarding the actions prior to Toddst1's wikibreak.

Toddst1 is provisionally desysopped pending the outcome of the case. Should the case not be opened prior to the expiry of the suspension, Toddst1's provisional desysop is to be treated as a ArbCom authorized desysop.

Toddst1 may apply for Admin privileges again by passing a new RfA candidacy should the provisional desysop become permanant

This gives Toddst1 the opportunity to account for the actions and gives a definite end point for the issue being resolved. Hasteur (talk) 21:56, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

With respect to Salvio's "dislike" of my solution, I would note that prior to going on wikibreak Toddst1's actions had been discussed at AN*, so there was cause for considering sanctions. Unless you're intending to give carte blanche that any administrator can stonewall discussions of questioning of their actions by going on wikibreak until people have forgotten about it. There is a presumption of guilt, but the actions (both implicit and explicit) of Toddst1 raise a reasonable suspicion that the break is designed to avoid responding to the questioning. For that reason the committee could authorize a injunction, but injunctions have little force beyond a "gentelman's agreement" that requires a significant amount of effort more to undo should the admin go off the rails. (effort required in monitoring + (Chance for off the rails action * Effort to clean up)) > (Effort to desysop and potentially resysop later). Preventing future harm to the encyclopedia at large is much more important than the hurt feelings of a previous sysop. Hasteur (talk) 15:44, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Johnuniq

I was shocked at Toddst1's "You were right, I was wrong" post at ANI. One such totally bizarre incident could be overlooked, but the pattern evident in NE Ent's links shows a trend that must be corrected.

Hasteur's suggestion looks good. For whatever reason, Toddst1 is not available to respond to this case, yet the underlying problem is severe since it is likely that good editors have been lost due to Toddst1's approach. It would be totally unacceptable for an administrator to be able to evade accountability by taking an extended break, then return to retain their admin tools—the same tools which NE Ent's links show have been repeatedly abused.

Toddst1's last edit (3 February 2014) was to set the 11-month wikibreak, and that edit is the most problematic in the case because the summary was "hopefully the community will have come to terms with the double standard that seems to have become superior to policy by then". The "double standard" link is to an essay created and largely maintained by Toddst1. The essay contains several insights and helpful observations, however, the linked section shows that in Toddst1's view, the only problem with their block was that the target was a "Vested Contributor" with "buddies".

Arbcom must take action to ensure that proper accountability applies. We all know that the 11-month break can be shortcircuited, and Toddst1 could resume admin work at any time without any response (other than the above edit summary) to the last incident raised at ANI. Johnuniq (talk) 10:48, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Binksternet

I was blocked unfairly in August 2010 by Toddst1 after a few days of discussion that I started at Talk:Memorex#Parody_in_film with an insistent dynamic IP editor from London. There was no consensus for adding trivia—it was just me and IP person talking back and forth—yet the editor re-added the trivia five times over two days. Toddst1 suddenly appeared to block me after I reverted the IP twice in one day, this coming after I reverted the IP twice on another day, with one intervening day. It was a petty block.

When Toddst1 unfairly blocked MrX in January 2014, a discussion was raised at ANI by Black Kite. In that discussion I pointed out that the obvious and best action taken in the situation should have been Toddst1 full-protecting the article against the three editors who were content-warring. Other observers such as Adjwilley, Black Kite, MastCell, Sportsguy17, Alanyst, Gamaliel, MONGO, Georgewilliamherbert, Dougweller and Drmies agreed that the article should have been protected rather than MrX blocked. The result was that MrX was unblocked by Fram, but a lot of editors expressed dissatisfaction with Toddst1 actions as an administrator. The bad block discouraged MrX, who had been a very constructive encyclopedia builder for four years, from further participation here.

Because of the current complaint and all the past complaints against him, I propose that Toddst1 be desysopped with the requirement that he undergo RFA to regain the tools. Binksternet (talk) 18:01, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the issue of Toddst1's absence because of his self-imposed 11-month break, I see no reason why a determination cannot be made here without Toddst1's involvement. His self-defense explanations in the past have never addressed the problem, and they have not led to a correction of the problem. Why would we expect that his self-defense going forward will be any different? It seems to me that Toddst1 can be discussed in absentia, and can just as well be desysopped in absentia, if the committee sees fit. If he comes back from his break to find his tools have been taken away, it will be less trouble and less drama for him than to come back and argue his case for a couple of weeks, then lose his tools. Binksternet (talk) 20:10, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Question from WJBscribe

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

Question from Fut.Perf.

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

Statement from Black Kite

Even before the MrX incident, I was a little concerned about Toddst1's use of the tools, and the large number of times he has been brought to ANI is evidence for this, quite apart from those listed above (of course, as with any admin at ANI a number of those complaints are baseless, but many aren't). But the MrX incident was unforgivable. There was no possible reason whatsoever why, in an edit war where two editors on one side have made four reverts and one revert, and two others on the "other side" have made three and two respectively, the two latter editors should be the only ones that are blocked. Nor is there any excuse for an admin, upon being called out on this behaviour, to not only insist that they were right, but to attack those pointing it out [4], trying to claim that the consensus forming that his block was wrong is because the editor "is one of us" and accusing other editors and admins of double standards [5] editsummary here, bad faith editsummary here and of being a "lynch mob" editsummary here. Not to mention that the blocked editor had already clashed with Toddst1 a short time previously over a single revert that they made (ANI here). The result of all this was the loss of a contributor with 40K edits. We can't afford this type of thing. I'd certainly be looking for a requirement that Toddst1, if not desysopped until a case can take place, at least pledges not use his tools for that period. Black Kite (talk) 15:25, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Statement from Ihardlythinkso

Hard to relate I think, unless you've been on receiving end of one of Toddst1's grudge/revenge blocks for having "talked back" to him. E.g. User:FleetCommand [6] [7] [8] the "usual deal" being subjugation, humiliation and domination [9] looking for grovelling backed up by his tag-team buddy admin User:The Blade of the Northern Lights defeated by two admins please note edit summary [10]. Much more but will stop now. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 17:06, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Jehochman

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

Clerk notes

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

Recuse I heavily participated, and was involved in, the July 2012 and November 2012 posts presented as evidence by NE Ent, and as such, have aprevious history with Toddst1. Though it all has been resolved, for the record. — ΛΧΣ²¹ ^{Call me Hahc21} 05:02, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Toddst1: Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter <0/0/0/9>

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

Awaiting statements, which should discuss (in addition to any other issues) whether and how Toddst1's declared 11-month wikibreak bears upon the situation. (Please note that I have changed the casename from "Involvement and accountability" to "Toddst1". I appreciate the filing party's desire to avoid the potentially confrontational tone of a case named after a specific editor, but the alternative name is too vague and generic to be useful in identifying the case.) Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:15, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I, too, would be interested in hearing comments about how the 11-month wikibreak factors into this. On first blush, I'm not seeing any way to handle the case request in light of the break that doesn't have a significant downside. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:24, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- If Toddst1 were active, I would support opening a case. I can't support a case in absentia, and it would be a waste of time if he decides to never return. I'm also unwilling to decline and completely drop the issue for 11 months. But I don't consider being a few weeks into an 11 month wikibreak as "refusing to participate" in the ArbCom case; he's not likely to be monitoring his talk page if he's on a long break. I prefer a suspended case until his return, at which time he can choose to participate in a case, or give up his adminship. I prefer NE Ent's suggestion, but could live with Hasteur's suggestion, about what to do in the interim: whether we pass a motion simply instructing him not to use his tools until resolution of the case, or a motion that actually temporarily desysops him pending resolution of the case. (inserted later) Actually, if the case is accepted then suspended until his return or 12 months, I'm not sure either suggestion is necessary, so I could live with that too. (end insert) Either way, a permanent desysop should occur if this is not resolved in a year. I would support a motion opening and then suspending a case for up to a year if it looks like several of my colleagues feel similarly. --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:32, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - Holding off for now, until we see if Toddst1 replies to the email. But inclined to accept the motion below, although I've come around to the point of view that an instruction to not use the tools is not necessary. I won't let that stop me from supporting, nor do I think the difference is worth proposing a motion 2. --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:07, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Echoing the above. While I do see some cause for concern in what is presented here, at this time I don't think I see a good way forward. There doesn't seem to be a "smoking gun" that would merit a sumarry desysop, and we don't really do cases in abstentia. It looks like Todd's wikibreak is for real, so regardless of the merits of the concerns I don't see what we can or should do about it while he is on a nearly year-long break. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:23, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I would be willing to consider a motion for some sort of suspended case, but I would not support any sort of provisional or temporary desysop. Revocation of admin status is generally something we do at the end of a case, not the beginning. Leaving the project in the face of an Arbcom case is by no means a new or unique event, but simply taking a break is not a free pass to avoid scrutiny or sanctions. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:09, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

For some time I've shared NE Ent's concerns about this administrator, and agree that a reckoning is needed here. If more arbitrators agree, I would propose H.'s motion suspending this case until Toddst1's return or a year (whichever comes first, though I suspect the former will). Such a suspension would not require the rigmarole of opening empty case pages: I'd merely have us confirm we'll look into this at Todd's return. AGK [•] 11:10, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have drafted a motion off-wiki, but will not present it until Toddst has had the opportunity to respond by e-mail or proxy. (I've just emailed him.) AGK [•] 12:44, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Editors should be given the chance to participate in ArbCom cases concerning their conduct; however, their refusal to do so should not prevent us from doing the needful. That said, I don't particularly like Hasteur's solution, in that it assumes guilt; I'd rather we heard a case in absentia, evaluating all the available evidence and deciding whether it warrants the imposition of a remedy. $Salvio$ ^{Let's talk about it!} 13:29, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I would also support the motion to suspend the case to be immediately resumed on Toddst1's return, and instructing Toddst1 not to use the tools until the case had been addressed. I don't see any need for an actual desysop at this point as I don't see any reason to believe Toddst1 would not heed those instructions. If and when Toddst1 returns, we can take the time and consideration of a full case to determine how to proceed from there. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 21:02, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that a motion to accept and suspend a case pending Toddst1's return is the best way to proceed here (this has been done in the past before, with varying conditions attached). Per Seraphimblade, no automatic desysop needed now or in the future. I think the tools would be removed for inactivity at some point anyway - re-examine at that point to ascertain whether such removal is under a cloud or not. On a related note, if an admin hands in their tools before going on such a break, would we have to determine whether they can ask for them back as usual at the bureaucrat's noticeboard? Carcharoth (talk) 23:35, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
OK with a motion to accept and suspend a case, and to instruct Toddst1 not to use the tools until the case has been addressed. I don't see a need for temporary desysop right now. T. Canens (talk) 08:22, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think it makes sense to suspend the case, pending Toddst1's return. I will refrain from voting on the motion until Toddst1 is given some time to respond. GorillaWarfare (talk) 15:13, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Motion 1

For this motion there are 13 active arbitrators. With 0 arbitrators abstaining, 7 support or oppose votes are a majority.

The "Toddst1" request for arbitration is accepted, but a formal case will not be opened unless and until Toddst1 returns to active status as an administrator. If Toddst1 resigns his administrative tools or is desysopped for inactivity the case will be closed with no further action. Toddst1 is instructed not to use his admin tools in any way while the case is pending; doing so will be grounds for summary desysopping.

Support

Beeblebrox (talk) 23:00, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding the previous wording: I deliberately chose "asked" as we have not actually decided that there is any need to sanction at all and if Todd were to return his compliance with this request would have been a good barometer of his overall attitude toward these concerns, but I understand the concern that it will just give people something to fight about if he should come back and do even a simple, uncontroversial admin action, so I'll leave it as worded now. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:30, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Moved from oppose. AGK [•] 23:38, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
~~Waiting for Toddst1 to signal his intentions (as I've said all over the place today!). AGK [•] 23:07, 20 February 2014 (UTC)~~[reply]

Copyedits: changed "asked" to "instructed" and added "; doing so will be grounds for summary desysopping". Revert if you disagree. AGK [•] 23:08, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@WJBscribe: This type of motion actually has been done before. If the subject violated the "instructed not to use his admin tools" clause, it is likely the bureaucrats would be authorised to desysop after a Level II hearing (that is, by a show of hands on the mailing list to desysop him). AGK [•] 11:42, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
As stated below, willing to support this approach. The bit about not normally restricting admin tools is a valid one, but I don't sense sufficient support from the rest of the committee to put up an alternative motion. Carcharoth (talk) 22:07, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
LFaraone 00:44, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
T. Canens (talk) 01:12, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

Abstain

Kommentare

Waiting another couple of days before voting, as the Committee has reached out to Toddst1 to make sure he's aware of this request. Given his break, I'm willing to give him a couple more days to see if we get a reply and if so what it is. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:38, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I am presuming from AGK's switch from oppose to support that nothing had been heard from Toddst1. I'll double-check that and if nothing had been heard, will then support the motion as the couple of days Newyorkbrad mentioned has now passed. Carcharoth (talk) 17:33, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Abstentions	Support votes needed for majority
0–1	7
2–3	6
4–5	5