Note this comment from Nightscream which precipitated the closure of the thread: " I'll make it a point from now on not to mix conflict participation with administrative actions. I apologize for failing to do so up until now. Nightscream (talk) 03:04, 23 April 2008 (UTC)"
A very long discussion of a block issued by Nightscream in a situation where they were involved. Partial quote (the discussion is very much in TLDR territory):"I not only do not find the opinion that involved admins are preferred not to be the blocking admins in such disputes, but I explicitly stated that I agree with it...Nightscream (talk) 17:49, 13 February 2009 (UTC)"
Note this closing comment from Nightscream regarding the involved admin policy: "I will make sure to read over that policy more carefully. Thanks to everyone here, and you especially, xeno. Nightscream (talk) 01:56, 3 September 2009 (UTC)"
While reviewing unblock requests a few days ago I came across a block placed by Nightscream on User:Rtkat3. The block was for their edits to the article Gotham City. They edited the page on 7 November. Nightscream edited the page themselves, and then issued a two week block on 6 December. I should think it would be obvious what is wrong about that as there is little preventative purpose to issuing a block a month after an action, and Nightscream was involved in editing the same article so blocking at all for anything but obvious vandalism is completely inappropriate. When I went to speak to Nightscream about this I found that they were also blocked at that time for edit warring at the article Jessica Nigri. A close look at the page history reveals that the final edit before the block was made after the page had already been protected by another admin and Nightscream edited through protection in order to restore their preferred version. It is true that the protecting admin another admin also reverted, to a pre-edit war version, after the page was protected corrected per Salvidrim but that does not seem particularly relevant. Any responsible admin will never make substantive edits to a fully-protected article, and especially not to one they were already involved with in an editorial capacity.
If these were isolated, one-off incidents that would be one thing, but a search of AN and ANI archives quickly reveals a long-term pattern of ignoring WP:INVOLVED going back at least five years. Additionally, they seem to believe that if they perceive a violation of any Wikipedia policy that their subsequent actions related to that content are not subject to the edit warring policy. This would be bad enough in a "regular" user, it is a dangerous and destructive attitude when coming from an administrator. Above are just a few examples demonstrating this pattern, but this is by no means an exhaustive list.
In short, I do not believe Nightscream should continue to be permitted to serve as an administrator as they do not respect important policies regarding both editorial and administrative actions, they have repeatedly abused thir position of trust in the community, and in recent times have been utterly unrepentant and refused to even acknowledge their errors in judgement. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:13, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
In light of some of the comments below, I would like to emphasize that the recent incident is just the latest indicator. I believe if you look at the evidence submitted above that it is pretty clear that this is an established pattern going back several years, that Nightscream has repeatedly promised to abide by the involved admin guideline when called on it previously, and that he nonetheless continues to ignore it when it suits his purposes. Same goes for the edit warring issue, which doesn't always involve the use of admin tools but nevertheless is conduct unbecoming an admin. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:35, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
One thing I discovered when researching his history is that he and Alansohn have been feuding for some time. It seems clear from his recent activity that he is more interested in continuing that antagonistic relationship and making other edits than in responding to this case. This is not complicated, and as he is obviously familiar with his own history there is no need for him to research it. This "I need more time" excuse appears to be a delaying tactic. I think a simple motion to desysop should be considered at this point. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:30, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
@Carcharoth: While I wouldn't expect the committee to sanction anyone for actions they made several years ago I believe the prior incidents are important evidence in that they indicate that these recent events are neither isolated incidents nor innocent mistakes. Beeblebrox (talk) 15:23, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I was involved in the latest issue, as mentioned above by Beeblebrox, but had had no previous interaction with Nightscream and as such have little insight to bring forward as to the pattern of editing other than what I can see from the history presented above. See this section on my talk page for more details about my view of what happened in the past few days. I'd also like Beeblebrox to clarify in his above statement that the protecting admin at Jessica Nigri was not the one that reverted to the last pre-war version; if I hadn't stepped in to revert to the last pre-war version in an administrative decision, Nightscream would not have had the opportunity to revert to his preferred version in an editorial decision, and would have stopped just short of violating WP:3RR. That does not excuse edit warring, nor the attitude surrounding the heated denials that edit warring took place, and obviously does nothing to alleviate concerns brought on by the history of such warring and denial cases, but it's important context for the latest issue in my eyes. Since I know my own block of Nightscream will, clearly, be the subject of scrutiny, I thought it better to come out right away and offer some explanation. Make of that what you will. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 23:22, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
@PinkAmpersand: I agree 100% with what you're saying. Also, thanks for the link to m:The Wrong Version, I had looked all over Wikipedia-space for this as I felt it was highly relevant, but couldn't find it... should've peeked over at Meta! ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 00:07, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'll also take the liberty of pinging User:Fluffernutter, because while they're completely free not to comment if they don't want to, I think their insight could be relevant, considering they declined Nightscream's initial unblock request for behavioural reasons. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 00:11, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. I hope I'm placing this in the right spot. If I'm not, please let me know. Although I received Beeblebrox's yesterday, I did not see the case here that had been started begun with respect to me; I must've screwed up the search for it somehow. I'll need some time to compose a proper response, which must be juggled with other things going on in the non-virtual world, so please be patient. Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 19:10, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, everyone. First let me apologize for not having been able to provide my full response here sooner. The research needed to comb through all the relevant edit histories and diffs, coupled with some issues that I’m experiencing in the non-virtual world prevented me from doing so sooner. I understand the related guideline that requires admins to respond to Arbitration cases “promptly”, though I don’t know why this was interpreted by some here to mean that my earlier message here was not prompt enough, or that my full response now was insufficiently prompt. Is that guideline defined somewhere to mean “within 48 hours”? The need for promptness or not, the posts that need to be composed here are not those that can necessarily be produced within a day or two of their demand. This does not apply to the minor edits I’ve made since I was notified, nor to the ANI post, which required only the summary of things I had bookmarked in a single folder, and was brought about by the fact that the admin who suggested I post in that thread did so at the last minute, after much had already been said in that thread, and when the window for me to get my two cents in edgewise there may have been closing. In any event, SilkTork’s attempt by play Thought Police by claiming to know what I “take seriously”, and Beeblebrox’s unsubstantied accusation that I have engaged in a “delaying tactic” are unwarranted, and are violations of WP:AGF. Simply put, you don’t know me, you don’t know anything about my state of mind or what’s in my heart, and you don’t know anything about how long it took to comb through various edit histories to find the diffs and other material I needed to compose my response here. Putting aside that I have never been accused of this in any of the ANI cases or any other matter in which my response has been required, and the fact that I have a tendency to be comprehensive (so much so that I placed my 2010 evidence against Asgardian on its own page), just because my speed doesn’t match your arbitrary and whimsical time limits doesn’t mean you can gauge anything else about me. That you, SilkTork, would act this way despite being a member of ArbCom is astonishing to me. Let’s hope cooler and more well-reasoned heads prevail here.
Because of the various different accusations and arguments that have been brought up here, my response has grown too large to place here on this page, so much as I did with my evidence in the 2010 Asgardian Arbitration case, I placed it on its own page, divided into the three main areas that have been brought up against me, along with the Conclusion. I apologize for its length; but its in my nature to be comprehensive in matters like this, and I honestly don’t know how to compose such responses more succinctly without sacrificing what may be vital information. Nightscream (talk) 04:39, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I was not able to compose a more condensed version before the "within 24 hours" request by Newyorkbrad expired, but if those here would prefer that I do so now, I can do so. Let me know. Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 16:41, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).
Tim's vote at 21:34, 13 December 2013 (UTC) marks net 4. --Rschen7754 10:54, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nightscream: Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter <7/0/0/3>[edit]
Vote key: (Accept/decline/recuse/other)
Awaiting statement from User:Nightscream, who has edited at least since the notification was placed so is presumably aware of the arbitration request. Carcharoth (talk) 23:37, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Accept, though we seem to have a surfeit of administrator conduct case requests at the moment. Why now and not earlier in the the year, I'm not entirely sure. The scope, as per usual, should be limited to firstly the specific incidents that prompted the requests, and then (if warranted) to recent events (e.g. the past year) as we don't want to spend a long time looking at conduct over the course of many years. Carcharoth (talk) 12:52, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Also awaiting a statement from Nightscream. By way of disclosure, I have met him at New York area meet-ups three or four times. We haven't collaborated on anything either on or off wiki, and I don't believe mere acquaintanceship warrants recusal, but I thought I'd mention the fact. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:45, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
At this point I think it is reasonable for us to ask that Nightscream post his statement within the next 24 hours, please. Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:45, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Noting that Nightscream has now posted his statement (see above and link there), which I am reviewing. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:50, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
My position on misuse of tools is that once may be a mistake / temporary rush of blood to the head, twice is cause for concern and worth looking into, thrice is a bright line for desysopping. We appear to have two incidents here, so worth looking into - though I'd be interested to see what explanation Nightscream has before formally accepting the case. That there are previous concerns is disturbing, even though these date from four years ago, as they appear to relate to the same concerns being raised now. I suspect that as there were two posts on Nightscream's talkpage that occurred when he was offline, and he removed the second one when he logged back on, so clearing the alert, that he may not be aware of this case request. I'll ping him. SilkTork✔Tea time 09:54, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Waiting for Nightscream's comment, but I'm certainly minded to accept this case given the history and the recent situation. WormTT(talk) 10:35, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Having read through Nightscream's comment on the matter, I am persuaded that a case should be heard here. AcceptWormTT(talk) 09:21, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nightscream has indicated he is drafting a statement. Waiting to read it before deciding whether we need to open a case about his administrative actions. AGK[•] 23:19, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No longer awaiting statements: as @Nightscream appears to have had time to make a long ANI post and several other edits on unrelated matters, I will now evaluate the situation and cast my vote. AGK[•] 13:17, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Awaiting Nightscream's statement. Courcelles 05:24, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Accept the issues raised are significant and bear looking into, and both AGK's and Newyorkbrad's prodding have failed to produce a statement from Nightscream, despite him making other edits. Courcelles 01:35, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
1) Administrators are trusted members of the community who, after being vetted by the community, have been granted access to a certain set of tools, including the ability to effect blocks and unblocks and to protect and unprotect pages from being edited.
Within the boundaries set by policy, administrators are allowed to exercise their discretion in using said tools for the purpose of maintaining the encyclopaedia and protecting its integrity; however, abuse of tools or their repeated misuse may lead to sanctions, up to and including a desysop.
2) With few exceptions, editors are expected to not act as administrators in cases where, to a neutral observer, they could reasonably appear involved. Involvement is generally construed very broadly by the community, to include current or past conflicts with an editor (or editors), and disputes on topics, regardless of the nature, age, or outcome of the dispute.
While there will always be borderline cases, best practices suggest that, whenever in doubt, an administrator should draw the situation to the attention of fellow sysops, such as by posting on an appropriate noticeboard, so that other sysops can provide help.
3) Administrators are generally expected to know policy and to keep abreast of its developments.
Occasional errors or deviation from community expectations in the interpretation or application of policy are to be expected, and are not incompatible with adminship provided that the admin is willing to accept community feedback when the situation arises, and modify his or her conduct accordingly. However, serious or repeated breaches or an unwillingness to accept feedback from the community may be grounds for the removal of administrative tools.
During the course of this case, Nightscream has also made assurances that, if allowed to keep his administrative privileges, he would conform to the current interpretation of the policy in question (see Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Nightscream/Workshop).
All remedies that refer to a period of time (for example, a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months) are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.
1.1) For repeatedly violating the policy on administrator involvement, Nightscream (talk·contribs)'s administrative privileges are revoked. Should he wish to regain administrator status in the future, he may file a new request for adminship.
Any block, restriction, ban, or sanction performed under the authorisation of a remedy for this case must be logged in this section. Please specify the enforcing administrator, date and time, nature of sanction, and basis or context. Unless otherwise specified, the standardised enforcement provision applies to this case. Notifications given pursuant to a remedy (most commonly, discretionary sanctions) should be logged below; the required information is the user who was notified, the date they were notified, and a diff of the notification. Sanction log entries should be followed by your signature, but do not append your signature when logging a notification..
