Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 22:44, 29 August 2012

Requests for arbitration

Request name	Motions	Initiated	Votes
EncycloPetey		29 August 2012	{{{votes}}}

[edit]

Open cases

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

[edit]

Recently closed cases (Past cases)

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

Clarification and Amendment requests

Request name	Motions	Case	Posted
Amendment request: Palestine-Israel articles (AE referral)	Motion	(orig. case)	17 August 2024
Arbitration enforcement referral: Nableezy, et al	none	(orig. case)	7 November 2024
Clarification request: Referrals from Arbitration Enforcement noticeboard to the full Committee	none	none	7 November 2024

Arbitrator motions

No arbitrator motions are currently open.

EncycloPetey

Initiated by Fut.Perf. ☼ at 10:26, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Involved parties

Future Perfect at Sunrise (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA), filing party, otherwise uninvolved
EncycloPetey (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
Floquenbeam (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) (was apparently considering filing this in parallel, otherwise also uninvolved)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

EncycloPetey: [1]
FloquenBeam: [2]
General notification at ANI: [3]

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

Repeated ANI threads (current, in March)
User talk [4]

The facts of the matter have been established clearly enough, and EncycloPetey has repeatedly shown that he is unwilling to recognize a problem in his actions ([5] March 2012; [6][7] August 2012). Further formal dispute resolution steps therefore appear moot. (Not to arbs: if you insist on a prior User RFC, you will be responsible for a bruise on Floquenbeam's forehead [8], so don't do that.)

Statement by Fut.Perf.

The recent ANI thread has brought to light that admin EncycloPetey has a rather worrisome pattern of using blocks and protections against other editors in disputes in which he is himself involved.

Instances of misuse of admin tools

3 April 2010, on Marchantiophyta, protected page after an extensive edit-war between himself and Nadiatalent (talk · contribs) [9]. EncycloPetey himself made 11 reverts in the space of 5 days, breaking 3RR at least once. Disagreement was about a reference to an alternative botanical term in the article lead. Discussion thread, clearly demonstrating the nature of a legitimate content dispute, here.
16 Jan 2012, on Thiamine pyrophosphate, protected article [10] after edit-war against Drphilharmonic (talk · contribs). Disagreement was over some trivial copyediting and grammar issues.
17 Jan 2012, on Brassicaceae, after an edit-war with the same editor, Drphilharmonic [11]: blocked for 3RR and alleged sockpuppetry [12]. Disagreement was over misdirected but good-faith attempt by Drphilharmonic to fix a grammar problem. Sockpuppetry charge was about some edits during the revert-war where Drphilharmonic had been accidentally logged out.
12 March 2012, on Book of Habakuk, blocked WP Editor 2011 (talk · contribs) [13] after an edit-war between himself and that editor over WP:ERA date formatting [14] (ERA history: article had "BC" in its earliest version; over time an inconsistent state had arisen with both forms side by side; EncycloPetey had regularized towards "BCE" during a large rewrite in December 2011 [15]; WP Editor 2011 claimed that WP:ERA demanded going back to "BC".) Review thread at ANI, leading to overturn of block, unanimous criticism of EncycloPetey but refusal of the latter to admit any wrong.
16 August 2012, on Antonie van Leeuwenhoek: semiprotected page after an edit-war between himself and an IP editor, 89.79.88.109 [16]. Disagreement was about the correct way of transcribing a Dutch name in IPA. The opposing IP editor was knowledgeable and obviously acting in good faith, though spoiling his case through some intemperate language. (Full disclosure: in the meantime I have opined that the IP editor was right about the content [17].)
28 August 2012, same page: reimposes semiprotection after another revert against the same IP editor in the same matter [18]. Angry protest by the IP editor leads to current ANI thread.

Statement by uninvolved user Fram

His protection of Amborella in February 2012 also was a dubious decision, and the disputed edits were clearly not "persistent vandalism" but a (perhaps misguided) attempt to solve interwiki conflicts (in part caused by EncycloPeteys history merge of Amborella and Amborellaceae here). His create-protection of Category:Rosa (after a single creation) can also be debated.

Considering that these dubious or clearly involved protections are not a small drop in a great amount of admin work, but make up an important part of his use of the admin tools during the past 12 months, and considering that neither the previous ANI discussion nor the current one seem to make any impression, I believe that simply desysopping EncycloPetey is the logical conclusion. Fram (talk) 11:02, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by uninvolved user Dennis Brown

This is an admin that received the bit in 2007 [19], at a time when our WP:INVOLVED policy was well enough developed that this type of action should be known to be improper. This type of abuse is responsible for some of the animosity between non-admins and admins and is detrimental to keeping quality editors here because it reinforces the negative stereotype of the "abusive admin" by virtue of proving it correct. Had this been a couple of incidents over the years, or had Petey shown an understanding of how completely improper this type of action is, we would not be here. Sadly, the lack of acceptance in the current and previous ANI discussion demonstrates that EncycloPetey having the admin bit is a detriment to the greater Project, an unfair editorial position for non-admins, and a liability for other admins who must deal with the ill will generated by such ham-fisted and improper use of the tools. Desysopping would appear to be the only logical conclusion to minimize damage to the Project and restore faith from the community that we have chosen to serve, by a strong and clear showing that we will not overlook brazen breaches of policy by our fellow administrators. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 11:19, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Per Floq, blocking or banning is not warranted nor should it be considered as the only issue at hand is the use of the admin tools, not their editing independent of the tools. The solution isn't removal of the editor, only the bit. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 16:06, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Nobody Ent

Desysop as incompetent to be admin; just doesn't get the distinction between editing and admin work. Nobody Ent 11:41, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@ed17 There's a really good reason to skip RFC/U -- not bureaucracy is a pillar. There's nothing an RFC/U would do the ANIs haven't already addressed. (Do concur with the hold, though, no rush as long as EP doesn't continue to misuse the mop.) Nobody Ent 21:11, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by uninvolved user Ritchie333

I have investigated the history of the blocks reported both in the recent ANI conversation here, and with those prior as reported by other users, and a worrying aspect of them is a general lack of empathy and awareness from EncycloPetey that his actions, even though they may be backed up with policies, have the ability to alienate people. That said, I think bringing this case to ArbCom is premature - I feel that sometimes people overreact a bit to faults, and just taking our time to sort something out calmy and rationally first is a better option. I notice the IP in the most recent ANI case has actually started a case to resolve the content dispute here, so I don't think there's a direct and immediate risk of EP's actions causing an editor to jump ship. --Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 11:43, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Cube lurker

Using administrative tools to prevail in content disputes strikes at the core of the agreement between administrators and community. This inability or unwillingness to accept just how wrong these actions are disturbs me greatly. The only thing more disturbing is that it's gone on so long. The tools must be removed from any administrator who feels that blatently abusing their position is acceptable.--Cube lurker (talk) 12:12, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@EncycloPetey if that's how you feel, how do you think all those that you've abused with your involved tool usage felt.--Cube lurker (talk) 14:43, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A delay to allow EncycloPetey to be convinced to step down with honor may be a good thing. A delay should not be used to push this under the rug and allow someone who's repeatedly abused the tools to continue on abusing the commuity.--Cube lurker (talk) 21:05, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by uninvolved Boing! said Zebedee

I can see two possible courses of action here...

EncycloPetey finally accepts that he was wrong, and agrees not to abuse the admin tools further.
Removal of admin tools, and a requirement to apply at RfA if he wants them back.

I think 1 would be wrong, because it would be an abuse of the general editing community who would almost certainly never have granted admin rights in the first place if they knew EncycloPetey either didn't understand WP:INVOLVED or was not prepared to abide by it, and would refuse to listen even after several incidents and several explanations. (It would also strengthen the feeling that admins will forgive "their own" while being hard on non-admin abuse of policy, and would bring us further into disrepute, but that is of lesser concern - the actual abuse of non-admin content editors is the real issue). Community confidence has been lost, and only a new RfA could restore it now. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:35, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@AGK: Even if some sort of community coaching would work now, it would be the wrong way round. When tools are repeatedly abused, they should first be removed, and then coaching/learning can commence with a view to the ex-admin re-applying via RfA at some future stage and allowing the community to decide. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:45, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
@AGK: Ah, understood. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:16, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Update: I just want to add that none of my comments above reflects in any way on EncycloPetey's contributions as an editor. He has contributed a lot of terrific content since he's been here, and has greatly improved the encyclopedia - and I think the respect he has earned as a contributor should be noted in any resolution. But to echo the words of Kurtis, below, there are plenty of good editors who just don't make good admins - and a good editor is worth far more to Wikipedia than a good admin. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:42, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by uninvolved Hammersoft

Do I have this right? Two WP:AN/I threads separated by nearly half a year and a user talk page discussion and we're blowing this up to ArbCom? If that's the metric for pushing stuff before ArbCom, we're going to need an ArbCom several times the size it is just to sift through the enormous amount of cases. At the risk of Floquenbeam suffering a bruise, this case should be rejected. There is a reason other steps in the dispute resolution process exist. EncycloPetey has been an administrator for nearly five years. He's never had an RfC with him as the subject, and never been blocked. Start an RfC and give the community an opportunity to bring weight to bear. There is no urgent crisis that demands his removal from adminship. Arbitration is a last resort, not a testing ground for whether we need a community driven de-adminship process. --Hammersoft (talk) 12:52, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@Elen: Pots and kettles. You used your tools while involved and were being grossly demeaning and insulting to boot. Yet, you still have your admin bit, sit on ArbCom, and seem to feel fit to stand in judgment against EncycloPetey? Really? --Hammersoft (talk) 13:10, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
@Elen: I have never interacted with EncycloPetey before, and do not support him or oppose him. Your statement is a non-sequitor. I do not think I am spending my time poorly bringing to light absurdities in the ArbCom process. --Hammersoft (talk) 13:36, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (involved) Floquenbeam

As FP@S notes, I was in the process of stumbling through creating an RFAR in my sandbox myself, which is the only reason to consider me "involved". I believe EP's response to the two ANI threads about this issue indicate a clear refusal to acknowledge the concerns of other editors. Thus, I believe an RFC/U would be pointless. It is not necessary to have an RFC/U to determine the community's opinion, that has already been made crystal clear.

The way we are currently set up, there is no other method to get an admin to follow WP:ADMIN besides an ArbCom case. We already tried (a) discussion, and (b) dropping it in the hope it would go away, in the ANI thread from March; this is all that is left. Whether by motion, or a full case, shouldn't matter too much; I don't imagine a full case dragging on for long, as the facts are easy to document and pretty clear.

At this point, I favor desysopping, with the option of a new RFA if desired, rather than issuing a strongly worded warning not to do it again. I guess the time for expanding on why I think this would be when/if the case is accepted, so I'll wait until then unless it would be useful now. --Floquenbeam (talk) 13:23, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I note that on EP's talk page, Hammersoft has suggested that a ban or block is also a possible result. To be clear, I don't support anything other than desysopping, and I have never seen anyone suggest more than desysopping, and such attempts to muddy the waters can be safely ignored. --Floquenbeam (talk) 13:56, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by EncycloPetey

Wow! Offline for a few hours only, and an ANI discussion that I first saw last time that I was logged in has already been closed and taken to ArbCom, before anyone else had a chance to weigh in. I feel railroaded and surrounded by hungry sharks, even if that is an impossibly mixed metaphor. If the community is this eager to drive people away, over what several stements here have called "trivial" editing issues, then that will probably happen. I don't have lots and lots of time in each day to edit. I certainly don't have time to make speeches defending myself. If ArbCom is willing to let some of the people best familiar with me at WP:PLANTS respond, then some of them may have time. If, on the other hand, a simple page protection is now becoming an ArbCom case, and speedy cowboy justice prevails on Wikipedia, then so be it. I come here to help the encyclopedia, because it helps the world at large and because it's fun. This isn't fun anymore. Accusations by admins posted on my Talk page (instead of in the forums set aside for that); accusations in edit comments (by other admins, who should know better); and a community with a cabal more focussed on hunting down and killing admins than on writing articles. I've seen this happening more and more lately, and it saddens me. If the cabal really wants me out, they'll have a lot more time and energy to make that happen that I could ever invest to defend myself. I'm sure that, sooner or later, we'll just abolish adminship for everyone. "Four legs good; two legs better." --Snowball, ...er EncycloPetey (talk) 14:31, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Tijfo098

Sadly, EncycloPetey still doesn't understand that thinking he is right about some obscure MOS/style matters doesn't give him the right to use administrative tools against those who disagree with him in various such disputes. A snowball case if there ever was one. Tijfo098 (talk) 14:56, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by uninvolved user Sjones23

As an uninvolved user, I am concerned over EncycloPetey's use of administrative privileges. In the recent discussion at ANI, EncycloPetey unfortunately does not get the distinction between his editing and administrative work. At this point, we have lost all community confidence and I feel that desysopping would be the logical conclusion to restore faith in the community and minimize the damage to Wikipedia. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 17:10, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by uninvolved admin BD2412

EncycloPetey is and has been a consistently productive editor and adminstrator here for many years. That is, quite frankly, a hard thing to come by. If I reverted a dubious IP edit to a frequently vandalised page, and the IP editor restored that content with an edit summary beginning "Learn to read.", I'd be sorely tempted to warn that editor for incivility. Obviously, there are many different paths by which situations like those in which EncycloPetey acted can be handled, and it may be a better practice in general for admins to consult with other admins before instituting blocks or page protections, but that practice also leads to cabal accusations. Doing too much against questionable edits may discourage such editors from participating, but doing too little surely encourages insitigators to introduce just enough error to provoke an admin response, and to use that response to attack the administrator in a forum like this one.

In this case, we have a wide range of options adequate to address these concerns with measures short of desysopping. I would allow EncycloPetey to continue using his admin tools for uncontroversial page moves and page deletions (which constitute the bulk of his admin activities), and for blocking of blatant vandals, while imposing some limitation on his use of page protection and imposition of blocks in situations other than blatant vandalism. bd2412 T 17:11, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Kurtis

This is definitely a sad situation if ever there was one. EncycloPetey has been a huge asset to the Wikimedia community as a whole, especially over at Wiktionary, where he's uploaded numerous audio files delineating the correct pronunciation of several words and phrases. He speaks with a very clear, precise voice in the recordings he submits, and I myself have found them to be quite useful. Nevertheless, not everyone with a great deal to offer is necessarily suited to being an administrator on the English Wikipedia. Now, I won't go so far as to say that EncycloPetey is arrogant, as I truly do not believe that to be the case, but I do get the sense that he may not realize the perception he gives off to others without +sysop when he refuses to initiate discussion before taking action. It leaves the impression that administrators are permitted to enforce policies, and are given more leeway when it comes to their conduct. This is something that must be reversed. I know by today's standards, a lot of people will disagree with me when I say this, but adminship is no big deal. It is something that I personally would entrust to almost anyone who has demonstrated a lasting commitment to the project and its principles, and I think it needs to be made very clear that even those granted the "mop" can have grievous misunderstandings with regards to policy. I also think that in cases where having a certain user in possession of +sysop has proven to be a negative for the project, it should be revoked. This was true in 2007; it remains true today. Unless EncycloPetey rectifies his approach to content disputes and realizes that MOS is an unenforcable guideline (ie. not meriting the use of semiprotection), removal of the tools may be imminent in this case. Kurtis (talk) 17:22, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Kumioko

I personally haven't had much intereaction with EncycloPetey but I think that we need to use the process before escalating it straight to Arbcom where the result is pretty much predetermined as a desysop, a ban of some duration or a combination of the 2, after multiple users spend the next month in serious debate. None of which IMO is in the best interest of the pedia. If the desire is to desysop him then thats fine but I am of the opinion that before this goes to Arbcom we should do an RFC, mediation or some other venue to desysop him if that is what needs to be done. If that doesn't work for some reason then we can bump it to Arbcom. Kumioko (talk) 19:31, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Brief comment from uninvolved The ed17

No sufficient reason has been put forward for bringing this to Arbcom without an RfC/U. This is a long-term and productive editor, and we all know of the lynchmob mentality inherent at ANI. I would decline this in favor of an RfC/U in the hope that EncycloPetey's issues can be worked out at that level first. That is the reason we have it, after all. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 20:44, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Brief comment by Wehwalt

I could be sarcastic here, and in fact considered being so. No need. The comments of individual arbs in this case in invoking the urgent need for this committee to review abusive administrative actions are very inconsistent with your very recent refusal to consider reviewing such actions when they were committed by Raul654 and brought to the attention of this committee. Such wild inconsistencies erode the community's respect for this committee.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:42, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from Ched

I won't opine one way or the other on what should or should not be done. But one thing that does stick in my mind is a comment that Risker made back in the Will Beback case. Times change, and what was acceptable in the past often quickly changes. I'd like to think that we are becoming a kinder and more gentle project. I'd like to think that talking things out can resolve things. It's hard to keep up with the changes in the world - Wikipedia is no different. Education and discussion I think is far better than slaps, block, and bans. Just my passing thoughts. — Ched : ? 22:39, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk notes

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

Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (7/0/0/3)

Awaiting EncyclopPetey's statement, but I'm minded to accept this case. EP's apparent inability to recognise that he is involved, and his consistently poor judgement, lead to me conclude that this issue would probably not be resolved by continued community coaching (whether by yet more AN threads or through a RFC). AGK [•] 11:24, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Boing! said Zebedee: Absolutely, and that's precisely what I implied. AGK [•] 13:56, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Accept The contested administrator actions enumerated above warrant a case. I don't see us handling this via motion, but nor do I see any way that EncycloPetey's presumably forthcoming statement would forestall such a case opening. Jclemens (talk) 12:41, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Accept reviewing tool use by admins is one of our jobs and looks necessary here. Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:42, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Accept. As this type of review is almost entirely restricted to Arbcom purview, and there is clear evidence of the community attempting to resolve the issue prior to bringing it here, I believe the case should be accepted, despite the fact that we have not yet heard from EncycloPetey. Risker (talk) 12:46, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Concur with the request to hold this for a few days. While certain options for resolution are available only through Arbcom at this point, a satisfactory resolution developed between EncycloPetey and members of the community would be preferable. Risker (talk) 20:31, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Accept. Per Risker, despite EncycloPetey not having responded yet. I believe this case could be handled by a direct Arbcom review of EncycloPetey's admin actions - they are all in logs, the definition of WP:INVOLVED is clear, and we don't have to work out who is "right" in the content dispute, only whether it was a content dispute. That would save everybody time and effort if it was agreeable with the community. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 12:57, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@Hammersoft, it is often the case than when one finds out someone has been fiddling the books, one also realises that they have been doing it for some time without detection. Admins are expected to sign up to WP:ADMIN when they get the bit, and this admin has already had warnings about the issue and not taken them to heart. Elen of the Roads (talk) 13:02, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@Hammersoft, haven't you got anything better to do than end up getting another admin into trouble with your "support". Elen of the Roads (talk) 13:31, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No problem with NYB's request for a hold. This is only an issue with the use of tools - EncycloPetey appears to be a good editor. I don't think an RFC/U would be any better - there is enough serious momentum that it was bound to end at RfAR - but there may be other opportunities to settle this. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:44, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Awaiting statement from EncyclopoPetey. The only thing that might stave off the need for a case would be a clear commitment from EncycloPetey that he will not use administrator tools in matters where he is involved in a dispute, and particularly that he will not protect pages he has actively edited. Without prejudging any case, my preliminary impression is that EncycloPetey has not kept up with the tightening of the community's (and this Committee's) expectations that administrators will not use the tools when they are "involved" in a dispute, that has occurred since he became active in the project. EncycloPetey needs to abide by the current policies in this area, even if he personally (per his comment in the ANI thread) finds them to be bureaucratic or unwieldy, and even in instances where his real-world subject-matter expertise is greater than that of a non-administrator with whom he has a content disagreement. I understand the frustration that administrators in this situation may feel sometimes, and have shared it in some circumstances myself, but the "involved" policy, construed reasonably, is not merely a bureaucratic obstacle to quality control but serves important purposes that should be respected. Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:04, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Hold for a couple of days. It appears the EncycloPetey is thinking of leaving the project altogether because of the likelihood that this case is going to be accepted. I fear that EncycloPetey has overlooked the multiple statements in the ANI thread, as well as my comment above, that it would have been helpful if he had simply stated that he won't page-protect articles he is editing any more. I also fear that he's at the point where this dispute is taking all the fun out of not only administrating but editing for him, as he says, and that if we open the case right now the chances of losing him as an editor as well as an admin will increase. I think it might make sense to put the case on hold for a couple of days to see if there might be a better answer here than opening a case that, unless something significant changes, has an obvious outcome. Of course, I would expect EncycloPetey to refrain from using admin tools during that period. As a sidenote, I don't think I agree with either the reference to snowball or the reference to Snowball. Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:07, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Accept Allegations of administrative misuse go to ArbCom, so in the face of apparently valid evidence there really isn't much other option to take. Furthermore, EncycloPetey's statement contains none of the assurances that NYB was looking for, and in fact seems to indicate that he doesn't believe this is a problem at all, and certainly not as large as alleged ("a simple page protection," when five this year are noted in the opening statement), making other dispute resolution worthless as noted by the filer. If this does turn out to be a case of inappropriate tag-teaming as EncycloPetey alleges, then I'm sure that will come out in evidence. Hersfold non-admin^(t/a/c) 14:45, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Accept per Hersfold. The statement by EncycloPetey doesn't allay concerns, and so a case is needed. PhilKnight (talk) 16:16, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Accept Courcelles 16:30, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- No objection to NYB's request that this hold here for 24-36 hours. This case is a fairly predictable pattern in front of it; there will be a lot of drama, a lot of talking, and in a few weeks, we'll be voting on whether or not to desysop EncycloPetey. I'm not sure at all how that vote would go, but we are absolutely on a course to it -- and it isn't an optimal outcome at all. So, let's take 24 hours and let everyone sleep on this. Courcelles 19:11, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think we have enough evidence to deal with this by motion. This is either a reminder, an admonishment or a desysopping, depending on one's view.

I empathise with EncycloPetey's statement in which he expresses that he finds this situation unenjoyable. There are aspects of editing Wikipedia which are stressful - and, certainly, being questioned about one's decisions and actions are one of those. We tend to expect of admins that they deal with these questions in a responsible manner, difficult though they are. Sometimes it seems that we expect too much of our volunteer admins who are largely doing this for fun in their spare time, and with little or no thanks when they get it right, but criticism for when they get it wrong. However, this project is also more than just a hobby - it is a serious endeavour in which we are building something very significant. Sometimes it is hard to keep the balance right, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't try. We want to keep people engaged, happy and involved - but we also want to make sure that those who are involved are fully aware of our guidelines and policies which are designed to keep the project not just on track, but also fun for everyone. Being blocked isn't fun. Being blocked for having a different point of view to an admin is the least sort of fun it is possible to have on Wikipedia, and a cause of concern to the community.

The blocking of WP Editor 2011 appears from what I have seen to be a misuse of admin privileges; that it is not an isolated incident, and that EncycloPetey does not accept that they have acted inappropriately, gives - to my mind - sufficient cause for a serious sanction, certainly more than a reminder. A considered statement by EncycloPetey which shows awareness of why the community are concerned, and outlines how they intend to handle things in future, may mitigate any sanction.

To allay any possible concerns that EncycloPetey may have - we would not be looking at blocking or banning. EncycloPetey has made some valuable contributions (including a number of Good Articles and a Featured Article), and does not appear to be a disruptive user. We would only be looking at the use of the admin tools, and of sanctions related to their use. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 21:35, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 104: / Line 104: @@
 === Brief comment from uninvolved The ed17 ===
 No sufficient reason has been put forward for bringing this to Arbcom without an RfC/U. This is a long-term and productive editor, and we all know of the lynchmob mentality inherent at ANI. I would decline this in favor of an RfC/U in the hope that EncycloPetey's issues can be worked out at that level first. That ''is'' the reason we have it, after all. [[User:The ed17|Ed]]&nbsp;<sup>[[User talk:The ed17|[talk]]] [[WP:OMT|[majestic titan]]]</sup> 20:44, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
+=== Brief comment by Wehwalt ===
+I could be sarcastic here, and in fact considered being so.  No need.  The comments of individual arbs in this case in invoking the urgent need for this committee to review abusive administrative actions are very inconsistent with your very recent refusal to consider reviewing such actions when they were committed by Raul654 and brought to the attention of this committee.  Such wild inconsistencies erode the community's respect for this committee.--[[User:Wehwalt|Wehwalt]] ([[User talk:Wehwalt|talk]]) 22:42, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
 === Comment from Ched ===