Main case page (Talk) — Preliminary statements (Talk) — Evidence (Talk) — Proposed decision (Talk)

Case clerk: Dreamy Jazz (Talk) Drafting arbitrators: Izno (Talk) & Guerillero (Talk)

After considering /Evidence, arbitrators may make proposals which are ready for voting. Arbitrators will vote for or against each provision, or they may abstain. Only items which are supported by an absolute majority of the active, non-recused arbitrators will pass into the final decision. Conditional votes and abstentions will be denoted as such by the arbitrator, before or after their time-stamped signature. For example, an arbitrator can state that their support vote for one provision only applies if another provision fails to pass (these are denoted as "first" and "second choice" votes). Only arbitrators and clerks may edit this page, but non-arbitrators may comment on the talk page.

For this case there are 12 active arbitrators. 7 support or oppose votes are a majority.

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

If observing editors notice any discrepancies between the arbitrators' tallies and the final decision or the #Implementation notes, you should post to the clerk talk page. Similarly, arbitrators may request clerk assistance via the same method, or via the clerks' mailing list.

Under no circumstances may this page be edited by anyone other than members of the Arbitration Committee or the clerks.

Please submit comments on the proposed decision in your own section on the talk page.

Proposed final decision

Proposed principles

Administrators

1) Administrators are trusted members of the community and are expected to follow Wikipedia policies. Their conduct is held to a high standard as a result of this trust. Occasional mistakes are entirely compatible with this; administrators are not expected to be perfect. However, consistently or egregiously poor judgement may result in the removal of administrator status.

Support:

Izno (talk) 19:18, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Cabayi (talk) 19:20, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 19:31, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
--Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 21:28, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
SilkTork (talk) 03:03, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Beeblebrox (talk) 04:23, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Primefac (talk) 09:10, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
GeneralNotability (talk) 14:13, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
— Wug·a·po·des 21:18, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Worm^TT(talk) 11:11, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 06:16, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Administrator involvement

2) 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; however, involvement does not include prior interactions in a purely administrative role or in making minor edits that do not show bias. The sole listed exception to this prohibition is for straightforward cases, such as blatant vandalism, within which involved editors may take "obvious" administrative actions if "any reasonable administrator would have probably come to the same conclusion".

Support:

Izno (talk) 19:18, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Cabayi (talk) 19:20, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 19:31, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
--Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 21:28, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
SilkTork (talk) 03:03, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
In my experience this is the main issue in at least two-thirds of admin conduct cases. I suppose why that is is an open question as it is a very simple policy that has been around for a very long time. Beeblebrox (talk) 04:25, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Primefac (talk) 09:10, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
GeneralNotability (talk) 14:13, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
— Wug·a·po·des 21:18, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Worm^TT(talk) 11:11, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 06:16, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Vandalism

3) On Wikipedia, vandalism has a very specific meaning: editing (or other behavior) deliberately intended to obstruct or defeat the project's purpose. Even if misguided, willfully against consensus, or disruptive, any good faith effort to improve the encyclopedia is not vandalism. Even factually correct material may not belong on Wikipedia, and removing such content when it is inconsistent with Wikipedia's content policies is not vandalism.

Support:

Izno (talk) 19:18, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Cabayi (talk) 19:20, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 19:31, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
One of my central anoyances of this case is AlisonW's inability to grasp what vandalism is and is not. No matter how many times she claims it was "deletion vandalism" doesn't make it true. --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 21:28, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
SilkTork (talk) 03:03, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Again, a very basic policy that we expect pretty much everyone to understand, and it has been that way for a very long time. Beeblebrox (talk) 04:27, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Primefac (talk) 09:10, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
GeneralNotability (talk) 14:13, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
— Wug·a·po·des 21:18, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I used to spend a lot of time explaining that "vandalism" had a specific meaning. It was important that the term was only used when the edits were evidently made in bad faith, i.e. clearly and obviously designed to harm the encyclopedia. That's not the same as disputes over content and assuming such breaks a fundamental tenet of Wikipedia - WP:AGF Worm^TT(talk) 11:11, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 06:16, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Edit warring

4) Edit warring is disruptive. An edit war occurs when editors who disagree about the content of a page repeatedly override each other's contributions. Editors engaged in a dispute should reach consensus or pursue dispute resolution rather than edit war. While reverting vandalism is not edit warring, only reverting obvious vandalism—edits that any well-intentioned user would agree constitute vandalism—is considered an exception. Edits from a slanted point of view, general insertion or removal of material, or other good-faith changes are not considered vandalism.

Support:

Izno (talk) 19:18, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Cabayi (talk) 19:20, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 19:31, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
--Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 21:28, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
SilkTork (talk) 03:03, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
And, yet another basic bedrock policy that we expect everyone to understand. Beeblebrox (talk) 04:28, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Primefac (talk) 09:10, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
GeneralNotability (talk) 14:13, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
— Wug·a·po·des 21:18, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Worm^TT(talk) 11:11, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 06:16, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Rollback

5) Standard rollback is a fast way of undoing problematic edits, but it has the disadvantage that only a generic edit summary is generated, with no explanation of the reason for the change. For this reason, it is considered inappropriate to use it in situations where an explanatory edit summary would normally be expected. One of the ways in which it may be correctly used is to revert obvious vandalism and other edits where the reason for reverting is absolutely clear. Editors who misuse standard rollback (for example, by using it to reverse good-faith edits in situations where an explanatory edit summary would normally be expected) may have their rollback rights removed. Since rollback is part of the core administrator tools, an admin could be stripped of their administrative privileges entirely to remove those tools.

Support:

Izno (talk) 19:18, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Cabayi (talk) 19:20, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 19:31, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
--Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 21:28, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
SilkTork (talk) 03:03, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Beeblebrox (talk) 04:29, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Primefac (talk) 09:10, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I am supporting this as I understand it to be a reflection of longstanding policy. But I agree with GeneralNotability below that this is a rather archaic expectation and ought to be reviewed by the community. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 06:16, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

I'm sorry, but I can't support this one. I think we pay way too much attention to the permission, rather than the action itself (by which I mean we, as a community, drop the hammer on someone who uses the built-in rollback too much, but we don't seem to care as much when someone does the functionally identical action of hitting the Twinkle/RedWarn/etc. revert button without leaving a summary). I also have a hard time setting a precedent of "desysop for bad use of rollback". GeneralNotability (talk) 14:13, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have believed for some time that rollback should just be granted automatically at some point to anyone who wants it, since the same functionality is available through these other tools without having to ask for it. However, the community has rejected that idea and it continues to be treated as a powerful tool that needs a request process at WP:PERM. If ArbCom could change that situation I'd be the first in line. Beeblebrox (talk) 15:27, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Moral oppose. There's nothing factually incorrect with the principle and it quotes policy, but I personally disagree with it along the same lines as GN. I don't see myself, personally, voting to desysop based solely on use of rollback (though it could be an aggravating factor if there are other issues). The principle points out that sysop can be removed in order to remove rollback, but nearly identical tools are available to almost anyone via Twinkle/RedWarn/etc. so removing sysop isn't actually a solution if rollback is the problem. — Wug·a·po·des 21:18, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weird that you say I don't see myself, personally, voting to desysop based solely on use of rollback (though it could be an aggravating factor if there are other issues)., because the parenthetical is why I included it. Izno (talk) 21:31, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not saying that the reverse is true for others, and given the FoFs below this doesn't seem to be a rollback-only issue. My main issue is that if the problem is rollback, removing sysop isn't actually a solution. The solution would be social restrictions on the use of rollback-like tools or a technical restriction that does stop use of rollback-like tools (i.e., a block). It quotes policy and I'm fine with it passing, but it (i.e., the policy quoted) implies -sysop is a solution when it really isn't. I'd rather name the specific, underlying problems (mislabeling vandalism, failure to communicate, etc) in FoFs than abstract them all under "rollback misuse" which is what I was getting at with the "mitigating factors" bit, and the PD seems to do that already which is why I'm not strongly opposed. — Wug·a·po·des 21:53, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Given that there are identical tools, Rollback is not longer a big deal. I'm opposing for two reasons - 1) I don't think we should be concerning ourselves with Rollback in the same ways that we did 10-15 years ago and 2) I do not agree that "Since rollback is part of the core administrator tools, an admin could be stripped of their administrative privileges entirely to remove those tools. " in isolation. In any situation where we are desysoping for rollback misuse, we're actually desysoping for other reasons. Worm^TT(talk) 11:14, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain:

Comments:

Proposed findings of fact

AlisonW

1) AlisonW (talk · contribs) is an editor and administrator. Her former account name is VampWillow, which began editing in 2004 and which became an administrator in 2004 (c.f. Wikipedia:Former administrators/reason/renamed). Between the two accounts, AlisonW has made some 12,000 edits, 150 block-related actions, 800 deletion-related actions, and 100 protection-related actions (AlisonW Xtools, VampWillow Xtools). Before this case, AlisonW had last made 2 blocks in 2021, with the remainder of their block-related actions in 2012 and prior. Her other records are similar, with the previous 10 deletion log entries stretching to 2015 and the previous 5 protection log entries stretching to 2012.

Particularly, the blocks of both Pragal1983 and Sinan eraaa (the two blocks in 2021) were within administrator discretion.

Support:

Deliberately framed as within administrator discretion rather than necessarily how someone should deal with the problems these editors presented. Our policies and guidelines prescribe little in the way of minimums and maximums for block lengths (maybe nothing? I did not check everywhere) and it is indeed up to personal knowledge to know that VOAs are indeffed these days and spammers/COI users who are defying CSD are usually treated the same. (Additionally, one user did submit into evidence that Sinan eraaa was not warned prior to their block. Pragal1983 was warned, but was being more disruptive by overwriting a mainspace page.) Izno (talk) 19:23, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
--Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 21:35, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
SilkTork (talk) 03:17, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Cabayi (talk) 07:31, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Primefac (talk) 09:18, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The blocks sure looked like they were within discretion to me. I'd also like to point out that nobody appears to have brought up concerns with those blocks on AlisonW's talk page (from my admittedly quick skim of her talk archives) – and I remind everyone that "if you're concerned with something somebody did, bring it up on their talk page" is a pretty basic community norm. If these blocks were the only reason we were here, a quiet word on AlisonW's talk page would have sufficed. GeneralNotability (talk) 14:39, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Per SilkTork's comment below. — Wug·a·po·des 22:18, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 03:08, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Worm^TT(talk) 11:16, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 06:19, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

I'm afraid I disagree that the vlock of Sinan eraaa was simply suboptimal but within admin discretion. They made all of three edits over the course of an hour or so. All three edits showed a simple, indeed quite common, newbie misunderstanding of what Wikipedia is and what userpages are for, and for that they got a no-warning block. That's not ok. That's how we lose new users. Beeblebrox (talk) 04:36, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

To be frank, I'd invite you to spend some time at AIV then. Someone creating their page 3 times, and who had a clear sock in the filter log (though I don't know if AlisonW thought about that aspect), probably gets blocked there more than a few times out of 10, which is my bar for discretion here. They do probably also get a few talk page messages/warnings, but they do get a block. AlisonW is not alone in failing to warn the user about their activities. Izno (talk) 04:40, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I paused on this for a while regarding the block of Pragal1983. Blocking someone as a vandal (but with no explanation of what they had done wrong or how to appropriately edit) for only one week seemed to be inviting the vandal back after a week to carry on vandalising. Either the person was making a mistake, so should be advised rather than blocked. Or they were a vandal, so should be indeffed. However, our guidance page on vandalism-only accounts says "Occasionally, the first block implemented may be temporary, depending on the severity of the vandalism.", so a one week block for a vandal account can be within discretion.

The lack of a warning is not ideal, but is also within admin discretion: "warnings are by no means a prerequisite for blocking a vandal".

The questionable part still remained for me as to if the edits could be regarded as vandalism. Pragal1983's edits appear to be mistakes rather than vandalism - a person trying in good faith to create an article on someone they know, perhaps themself, a family member, or a friend. But then, those edits were damaging an existing mainspace article, and Pragal1983 had already reverted another admin who had restored the page. And I considered that it is not unknown for such an editor who is damaging an article to be blocked. Not ideal, but it happens. I'm uncertain that labelling the user as a vandalism-only account was appropriate, and that ties in with our principle on Vandalism; however, a short-term block without warning does appear to be within admin discretion in the circumstances. SilkTork (talk) 12:57, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Veverve

2) Veverve (talk · contribs) is an editor who started editing in October 2018. He has made over 50,000 edits to date. Prior to the incident that initiated this case, he has been blocked 1 time partially for edit warring (17 March 2022, 1 week), 3 times fully for edit warring (9 September, 1 week; 16 September, 2 weeks; 12 March 2023, 1 month) and reblocked one time for harassment, in connection to the 16 September block (30 September 2022, 2 weeks) (block log). None of these blocks were undone.

Support:

Izno (talk) 19:20, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
--Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 21:35, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
SilkTork (talk) 03:18, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Cabayi (talk) 07:31, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
While I do agree with Beeblebrox below that this is about AlisonW, the context of Veverve's editing is relevant; AlisonW has mentioned that seeing the long block log was part of the motivation for her block. Primefac (talk) 09:18, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Veverve isn't the focus of the case, but I agree that their history is important context. GeneralNotability (talk) 14:39, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
A mitigating factor worth mentioning. — Wug·a·po·des 21:30, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 03:08, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Worm^TT(talk) 11:16, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 06:19, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

The scope of this case is the behavior of AlisonW. When issuing a block for edit warring, it is reasonable to look at someone's block log to see if they have been blocked for it before, in order to know how to set the block. It is not reasonable to make up a fake criterion for blocking and block based on that, and that is what AlisonW did, so I don't see the relvance of Veverve's block log. Beeblebrox (talk) 04:41, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

behavior of AlisonW Yes, that's true. When considering the behavior of AlisonW, we should consider the set of facts she says she was thinking about in addition to the actions she took (per WP:ADMINACCT, whether or not we agree the explanation was satisfactory). His block log is one of those facts. But that's besides the fact that I think, as I've commented below, he clearly reaches for the revert button too quickly, hence the 4 separate blocks for it, and he should be on notice for that. We also ultimately didn't remove him as a party from this case.

As for her block reason, in full that was Disruptive editing: Regular massive deletions of content the editor feels are irrelevant over many articles. This is maybe a reasonable block rationale in some circumstances (not this one, per the other FOFs below), and clearly is neither made up nor a fake criterion. Someone trying to stop a page-blanking vandal, as AlisonW thought she was, could have used the same exact block log reason and we would never have heard about it, were it the fact the person was clearly here in bad faith (incidentally, that is why Veverve's edit count and tenure is included, in addition to his block log – to show that he's not a vandal nor here in bad faith). Izno (talk) 04:52, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Metatron and block timeline

3) This is a timeline of relevant edits made to the article Metatron and the actions taken by AlisonW and others in response:

18 January 2023: Veverve removes the disputed content, citing WP:TRIVIA in their edit summary. The content remains removed until 8 June (nearly 6 months).
16:40, 8 June: AlisonW reverts with summary whole section removed without explanation. Content is relevant and encyclopaedic so reinstated. Discuss on talk page if you consider it necessary. AlisonW has no apparent previous engagement with this article.
05:44, 9 June: Veverve reverts with summary I have explained each and every removal. Read my edit summaries and do not act as if I did not explain myself
05:46: Veverve comments on AlisonW's talk that what is WP:TRIVIA is not encyclopedic. AlisonW does not respond in this talk page section.
09:56: Veverve makes their last (unrelated to dispute) edit of their editing session.
14:31: AlisonW reverts Veverve's 9 June edit on Metatron using rollback
14:33–41: AlisonW comments on Veverve's talk that I can see that you have strong views about religion, however removing an entire section, "in popular culture" is unacceptable and is far from the 'trivia' you suggested on my talk page. This is not a religious text, it is a place to discover information, as such the section is entirely appropriate (emphasis original).
14:47–52: AlisonW reverts 4 more Veverve edits on 4 other pages.
14:55: AlisonW blocks Veverve, without leaving a block notice. The block summary states Disruptive editing: Regular massive deletions of content the editor feels are irrelevant over many articles. She later apologized for failing to leave a block notice.
14:57–59: AlisonW reverts 2 more Veverve edits on 2 other pages; one reversion uses rollback
15:11–16: Veverve objects to the block citing WP:POPCULT, files an unblock request
15:30–33: AlisonW follows up on unblock request. She makes no further comments on Veverve's talk page relating to this incident.
4:12, 10 June: Tamzin first places the request on hold with a question to AlisonW, and then nearly a day later (1:16, 11 June) lifts the block. 3 minutes later, Tamzin starts a discussion at AN particularly regarding whether AlisonW may have been involved.
11 June: Gråbergs Gråa Sång (re)starts a discussion on Talk:Metatron. Veverve participates twice in that discussion before attempting to remove the section again on 13 June. Amakuru reverts that edit, pointing back to the talk page. Veverve leaves a few more comments there on 14 June and then apparently disengages from the article and talk page.

Support:

Izno (talk) 19:20, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for putting this together. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 19:35, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks to Tamzin for most of this. --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 21:35, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
SilkTork (talk) 03:20, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Beeblebrox (talk) 04:41, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Tamzin, Cabayi (talk) 07:32, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Primefac (talk) 09:18, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
GeneralNotability (talk) 14:39, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Very clear and helpful, thanks Tamzin and Izno for your work on this. — Wug·a·po·des 21:26, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
One minor quibble - Point 4 states that "AlisonW does not respond in this talk page section.", and while it is true that she does not, she does respond - on Veverve's talk page (point 7). Pre-2010, that was the standard way of communication (to ensure that big ugly orange bar, as notifications did not exist) and conversations spread across two talk pages were par for the course. It might not be standard any more, but there is nothing wrong with communicating in the historic manner. Worm^TT(talk) 11:50, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 06:19, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Much credit to Tamzin for presenting the timeline like this. I made some editorial adjustments for duplication and added some context that I think rounded out the submitted evidence here, or which incorporated other evidence/comments presented. Izno (talk) 19:38, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've added a sentence editorially which I think is a fair summary of this FOF at the prompting of Thryduulf on the talk page. Izno (talk) 16:59, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Veverve's edits

4) Veverve's edits [1][2][3][4][5][6][7] which were reverted were not vandalism. They were sufficiently explained by edit summary. Lastly, they were within the bounds of editorial discretion according to at least two editing guidelines, Wikipedia:Be bold and Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Trivia sections and a policy, Wikipedia:Verifiability#Responsibility for providing citations.

Support:

Izno (talk) 19:20, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 19:39, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
--Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 21:35, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
SilkTork (talk) 03:21, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Beeblebrox (talk) 04:42, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Cabayi (talk) 07:38, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Primefac (talk) 09:18, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
GeneralNotability (talk) 14:39, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
— Wug·a·po·des 21:33, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I do support this, but I am also unhappy with the lack of discussion that Veverve's edits received from Veverve. They were Bold edits, of wholesale removal, and should have be been expected that may well be objection. Worm^TT(talk) 11:53, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 06:19, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

As we're mentioning BOLD I note (with an eye to BRD) that of the 7 relevant article talk pages, 2 have been edited by Veverve and none by AlisonW. Cabayi (talk) 07:38, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

AlisonW and rollback

5) As Veverve's edits were not vandalism, AlisonW misused rollback twice.

Support:

Izno (talk) 19:20, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 19:39, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
--Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 21:35, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
SilkTork (talk) 03:23, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Beeblebrox (talk) 04:43, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Cabayi (talk) 07:38, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Primefac (talk) 09:18, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
True, but per my comments in principles, I don't like setting up misuse of rollback as a desysop reason. GeneralNotability (talk) 14:39, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Per GN. — Wug·a·po·des 21:33, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 06:19, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

True on the face of it, but given my comments regarding rollback above, I will abstain on this point. Worm^TT(talk) 11:53, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

Content dispute

6) The incident inciting this case was a content dispute.

Support:

Izno (talk) 19:20, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 19:39, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
--Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 21:35, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
SilkTork (talk) 03:23, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Beeblebrox (talk) 04:44, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Cabayi (talk) 07:39, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Primefac (talk) 09:18, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
GeneralNotability (talk) 14:39, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
— Wug·a·po·des 21:33, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Worm^TT(talk) 11:54, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 06:19, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

AlisonW and involvement

7) As Veverve's edits were neither vandalism nor outside discretion, AlisonW made a block while involved in a content dispute. Even if AlisonW had not been involved, a unilateral block was not warranted for Veverve's behavior in this instance.

Support:

Izno (talk) 19:20, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 19:39, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
--Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 21:35, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Beeblebrox (talk) 04:44, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Cabayi (talk) 07:39, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Primefac (talk) 09:18, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
GeneralNotability (talk) 14:39, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
SilkTork (talk) 15:44, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
— Wug·a·po·des 21:33, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Worm^TT(talk) 11:54, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 06:19, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

AlisonW's justifications

8) AlisonW's first response on Veverve's talk page was content-motivated[8], as is her comment in response to the unblock request.[9] She was later inconsistent about whether the dispute was content-motivated, with a comment agreeing at AN (apparently sarcastically) that it was[10], and elsewhere that the dispute was not content-motivated.[11][12][13] In the case request she appeared to accept that she was involved and suggested future alternatives on her part to her actions here, an indication that she has received and processed the feedback provided.[14]

She repeated several times that she believed that this case was (page-blanking) vandalism and that the removals were unexplained.[15][16][17][18]

Regarding her belief about the block, at first, she "stands by" her decision to block at AN.[19] She first apologized for her actions and appeared to recognize that what she did was wrong in the case request.[20] She again apologized in case evidence for the incorrect procedure but then backtracked on whether it was correct to block Veverve.[21]

These comments satisfy the requirement to explain her actions.

Support:

Alison's apparent inability or unwillingness to acknowledge the obvious violation of INVOLVED is the crux of this whole case as far as I am concerned. I find that her comments do satisfy ADMINACCT, but also revealed a startling lack of basic policy knowledge. Beeblebrox (talk) 04:47, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Primefac (talk) 09:18, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Per Beeblebrox, AlisonW satisfied ADMINACCT in that they explained why the actions were performed, but that doesn't mean that the actions were correct. GeneralNotability (talk) 14:39, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Per comments below. Izno (talk) 17:11, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Per Izno. I would also support a revision that adds a statement that we were not satisfied that WP:ADMINCOND or WP:INVOLVED were met per SilkTork's comments. — Wug·a·po·des 22:38, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Was debating this but Beeble said it really. I praise AlisonW for responding in a relatively timely manner, as not all admins put under the scope do this. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 03:40, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Worm^TT(talk) 11:59, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Per Izno. KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 06:19, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

While these comments satisfy the requirement to explain her actions, they do not necessarily meet the bar required by WP:ADMINCOND: namely that there should have been a much earlier recognition that she had committed a rather sizeable misstep. I left the question of ADMINCOND to the proposed remedies. I do not really know if this FOF captures everything I would like in a way that is necessarily approachable. Izno (talk) 19:29, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A large part of my reason for supporting a desysop is because of AlisonW's poor response and continued lack of understanding. AlisonW did give reasons; however, I find I can't agree that AlisonW did "justify their actions when requested". My understanding of "justify" is to show that the action was appropriate. I'm not seeing that AlisonW did show that the action was appropriate. If this finding said "These comments did not satisfy the requirement to justify her actions", I would support. SilkTork (talk) 15:38, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think the more correct use in our policy there is to defend ... as warranted or well-grounded (definition 2 at dictionary.com). The paragraph in which that word appears is
Administrators are accountable for their actions involving administrator tools, as unexplained administrator actions can demoralize other editors who lack such tools. Subject only to the bounds of civility, avoiding personal attacks, and reasonable good faith, editors are free to question or to criticize administrator actions. Administrators are expected to respond promptly and civilly to queries about their Wikipedia-related conduct and administrative actions, especially during community discussions on noticeboards or during Arbitration Committee proceedings. Administrators should justify their actions when requested.
The sense of that paragraph is that an administrator must provide reasoning when questioned, not that they must be right when they do so.

Incidentally, it's why I used the framing of "she explained herself", rather than quote directly, just to make it very clear in the FOF what the point of the statement was. Izno (talk) 16:21, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Old evidence of similar behavior

9) AlisonW has had at least two relatively old instances of the behaviors exhibited in this case.[22][23]

Support:

Oppose:

I dislike these laundry list FoFs. --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 21:35, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The Committee largely has held to the idea that digging up ancient history is often not useful, so I do not see the point in mentioning this when it will likely have no bearing on these proceedings. Primefac (talk) 09:18, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Too old to be helpful. Cabayi (talk) 11:31, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
GeneralNotability (talk) 14:39, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
13 years and 17 years ago? No. Worm^TT(talk) 11:59, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain:

Factual statement so I won't oppose; however without ongoing evidence across the years I find that this is not substantial enough to support. SilkTork (talk) 15:41, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Per SilkTork. Izno (talk) 16:13, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Per SilkTork. — Wug·a·po·des 22:03, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think there's an issue with remedies going over old conduct in order to establish a historical pattern, but in this case it feels too old (I wasn't even in kindergarten in 2006), I'm not sure it shows a strong pattern of issues-- although that could be due to AlisonW's low edit count over the years. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 03:08, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Per above. KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 06:19, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

These were brought up at the AN discussion and I think do illustrate that this isn't the first time that AlisonW has made missteps on the discussion proposed in this case, but it is atypical in this day and age for various reasons to comment on ancient behavior at arbitration. Izno (talk) 19:30, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed remedies

Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.

AlisonW desysopped

1a) For failure to meet the conduct standards expected of an administrator, AlisonW's administrative user rights are removed. She may regain them at any time via a successful request for adminship.

Support:

Only choice. As I have said many times, we all make mistakes, it is what we do when they are pointed out that is the true test. AlisonW responses to this affair demonstrated a severe lack of knowledge of best practices and policy, including bedrock policy that has been common knowledge for a a very long time, along with a level of arrogance and condescention that is simply not acceptable from an administrator. Beeblebrox (talk) 04:52, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Once again, we find ourselves in a situation which could have been avoided if an administrator had responded to concerns about their behavior by stopping, apologizing, and reflecting, and once again all of the possible off-ramps in this process were missed. AlisonW's understanding of policies and community norms are below the standards I would expect for an administrator, and more importantly her reactions to criticism and concern were below those standards. GeneralNotability (talk) 14:54, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Using an admin tool in a questionable block may not, by itself, be an automatic desysop. However, the slow and generally inappropriate responses, and the continued reluctance to see where they went wrong, indicate to me an admin who is not up to date on the responsibility of the tools, so the tools should be removed until such time as AlisonW can demonstrate to the community (via RfA) that they are up to date on admin responsibility and policies. I'm not seeing this as a desysop for malicious abuse of the tools, merely one of lack of understanding of where we are today. I have been impressed by AlisonW's long term commitment to the project, and to the early work done on forming the appropriate community to see this project through, so it is sad to reach this conclusion, and it must be underscored that this sanction is not implying that AlisonW is no longer welcome on Wikipedia. Indeed, I hope that AlisonW stays. SilkTork (talk) 15:23, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
~~Unforuantly per those above, equal choice with admonishment. I feel pretty sour supporting this frankly, so I won't have some extended rationale. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 04:18, 11 July 2023 (UTC)~~ Second choice to 1b. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 13:13, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sympathetic to Primefac's efforts efforts in his alternative remedy below. In a less pressured situation, with a more active participant, it would be great to have The Talk, "Do you intend being active with the tools? Are you up-to-date with the policy? Are you sure you can use the tools in compliance with policy as it is currently understood and implemented?". But, we have a reply to that question in Alison's edit summary. I see no point agonising over the hair-splitting distinction between a desysop or a resignation-under-a-cloud, especially while AlisonW has more pressing real-life issues to handle. Cabayi (talk) 10:09, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think I saw anything to indicate we were treating that edit summary as a serious request to remove the permission. I certainly didn't treat it so. (Else I think we would have walked it to BN ourselves a week ago.) Izno (talk) 22:26, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The evidence submission during the case is ultimately what tips me here per She again apologized in case evidence for the incorrect procedure but then backtracked on whether it was correct to block Veverve. She does not understand that it was wrong, doubly-so, to block Veverve. I'd otherwise have gone for the probation as a first choice that sprung up last night, because as the FOF says above, In the case request she appeared to accept that she was involved and suggested future alternatives on her part to her actions here, an indication that she has received and processed the feedback provided. I think if she were to become active enough to run for RFA again, and showed improvement on the specific points of policy that were missed here, she could be one of the few successful re-RFA candidates. Izno (talk) 22:26, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
First choice, broadly per Izno and GN. Occasional mistakes are entirely compatible with adminship (WP:ADMINCOND). But even the occasional mistake carries real costs: for the directly affected users (who in other circumstances might give up on Wikipedia entirely), for the administrators who review the action, for the discussions at ANI and ArbCom and so forth. So we expect administrators to learn from those mistakes—not only about the specific incident and the specific policies related to the mistake, but also to get enough familiarity with contemporary policies and norms to know that they might be doing something controversial or ill-advised, and to take a beat before it happens. AlisonW's current level of policy knowledge, as shown in their evidence submission and as noted above, isn't compatible with adminship.
And that's OK! Editors don't need to be admins to contribute well, especially as occasional editors, and I have every hope that AlisonW will continue contributing when she feels like it as she has done over the last 18 years. And, should her interest in the administrative work be re-piqued, I agree with my colleagues above that she seems to have a great shot at re-RfA with policy/norm refreshers.
My big concern with this vote, of course, is that it rests upon some pretty idealistic (and perhaps factually inaccurate) principles. I know that a desysop stings, even if it doesn't practically affect that much of what one does on Wikipedia. This is outside the remit of ArbCom, of course, but I wish we were able to confer an "administrator emeritus" title in appreciation and respect for the work that our former administrators have done, and the deep historical knowledge and expertise they continue to bring to the table. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 07:48, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

I believe I fall here, but weakly. As I said, AlisonW does appear to be significantly out of touch with community norms, especially around what constitutes vandalism. If Veverve's edits were vandalism, much of the rest falls into place, everything subsequent would have been within administrator discretion. As such, I do not believe this single incident rises to the level of a desysop, but rather a severe admomishment, and perhaps something with a bit more teeth, as per 1b. Worm^TT(talk) 08:43, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I prefer 1b due to this being a one-off lapse of judgment rather than a pattern. Her statement on the talk page swayed me. --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 20:20, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Per my comments on 1b as well as those opposing above me. Primefac (talk) 08:05, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I interpret her most recent comments to indicate she will take sufficient care with policy in the future. Also per Worm, and per Wug on 1b, which is my preference. Enterprisey (talk!) 15:02, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain:

Comments:

I'm in two minds about a desysop. On the one hand, AlisonW blocked while involved and has shown by her reasoning that she is significantly out of touch with community norms. However, on the other hand, the individual on the other side of the dispute has been blocked multiple times for edit warring. I am particularly concerned that they again removed the content wholesale soon after being unblocked. I know this case is not about Veverve, but the disregard for the dispute resolution process is relevant in my opinion. Combine this with the fact that Alison did engage at ANI and I'm on the fence. I need to think more on this one, I certainly prefer Primefac's suggestion below to outright desysopping. Worm^TT(talk) 12:11, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

AlisonW put on probation

1b) For failure to meet the conduct standards expected of an administrator, AlisonW is warned that the use of the administrator toolset must conform to the policies set by the community. She should especially take note of WP:ADMINACCT, and remember that the toolset is not to be used to further content or policy disputes. If there is further misuse of the toolset within a two-year period, a request may be made to this Committee at WP:ARCA to consider whether further action, up to desysopping, is necessary.

Support:

I am not 100% convinced that a desysop is necessary. Primefac (talk) 08:46, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I would support this. Worm^TT(talk) 12:00, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
First choice, per Primefac I'm more sympathetic to keeping AlisonW's tools given her engagement in discussion at the time. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 13:17, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Can we call this "put on probation" since "warn" means something specific in the arbcom context --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 20:16, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I had to take some time to consider Izno's point below because I was considering opposing along the same lines as him. Ultimately I fell on this side, and I think what sets this apart for me is (1) the core issue here is tool misuse due to lack of policy knowledge and (2) no pattern to suggest that this won't be quickly and easily remedied. Civility issues are fixable too, but they're more pernicious because they erode trust that's central to the position. By contrast, to the degree that trust in AlisonW has been lost, it's in her knowledge of policy, and the path to building back that trust is a lot more clear: read contemporary policies, be more careful, and ideally become more active. Demonstrating that change is hard to do without the tools, and if something goes wrong, policy compliance has pretty clear bright lines that make it easy for us to adjudicate. The alternative, removing sysop and kicking to RfA, seems like a large imposition (on her and the community) for just evaluating whether she won't violate INVOLVED or the rollback policy again. To me, it seems to be a RTFM or lurk moar problem that we see from time to time when people move into new or return to old domains, and I think probation is a good tool for that exact problem in a way that it might not always be for civility issues.
Unrelated, I agree with Guerillero on preferring "probation" over "warn". — Wug·a·po·des 21:44, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have updated the header accordingly. Primefac (talk) 08:06, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Per Wug. Enterprisey (talk!) 15:02, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

I don't fault anyone for this choice, but I think this is the wrong case for it. (Without having inspecting the specifics of Scottywong, I anticipate that one would have been a better choice to go with a "show improvement or be defrocked" remedy to start, as the issues there from my surface understanding pertained more to civility than they did core understanding of the permission.) Izno (talk) 22:28, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The community has a discomfort with long term (or "legacy") admins who use the tools in a manner that is not appropriate, and especially when those admins, even after explanations have been given, don't quite "get" why the tool use has been inappropriate. Blocking someone because you don't like what they are doing, and then arguing that they were in the right when numerous people point out their mistake, is not something we would like to see in a newly qualified admin, much less in one with many years experience. My preferred scenario for this incident is that when the block error was spotted, that AlisonW was approached, had the mistake pointed out, and AlisonW had digested carefully what was said, and then realised the error and apologised. AlisonW's reluctance to accept the error, and even after an AN discussion in which people universally felt the block was wrong, but once AlisonW had accepted the mistake things would move on, and a Case Request in which Arbs waited for an explanation and/or appropriate apology, and an actual Case being opened, AlisonW still argued that they were in the right: [24], I find it very difficult to accept that the community has to wait for another user to be blocked before removing the tool kit. If we had evidence that AlisonW understood why the block was wrong, then this remedy could be considered, but without that evidence this has to be a desysop in order to protect the project and the community from future mistakes. SilkTork (talk) 01:14, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Largely per ST's comments above. The community asked us to deal with this, and this feels like putting it back on them. the level of refusal to listen that we have seen from this user gives me little to no confidence that this would work, and I'm the one who wrote WP:ROPE. Beeblebrox (talk) 02:05, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Per SilkTork. I have to disagree with Wugapodes's comments above; the problem isn't that AlisonW is out of date on policy, it's AlisonW's doubling down on the correctness of her actions when the relevant policies were pointed out. As SilkTork said above and I think I said elsewhere, the correct response to having the error pointed out would have been to stop, apologize, and go re-read the relevant policies. If she had done that from the start, this would be a normal admin mistake and we would not be here. GeneralNotability (talk) 03:01, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Per GeneralNotability and SilkTork. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 06:56, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
[Per just about everybody on both sides of this remedy] My rule of thumb for granting/holding permissions is not so much knowing when to use the tools but when not to use them. AlisonW has misjudged that. By her own words she has had little interest in using the tools for a decade, and there is no indication that there would be an increase in activity in order to regain a working knowledge of policy.
If admin were just an honorific I could vote for this, as access to a set of tools I cannot. Cabayi (talk) 10:21, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain:

Comments:

I am adding in an extra level of motion, per the Timwi case request as well as an unsuccessful Scottywong motion. I am not opposed to a tweak of the header or wording. Primefac (talk) 08:46, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think the point of this remedy is really the two-year period, which I would call a "probation" in the header rather than a warning. It's not just words here, which are often what warnings, cautions, reminders, and admonishments are today. Izno (talk) 21:34, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've gone back and forth on this largely because of what Izno points out, and I think it's worth saying why I came to a different conclusion. I don't want to get too into the weeds, but — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wugapodes (talk • contribs) 21:44, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I really, really don't like the idea that an admin can avoid a desysop by commenting on the PD talk page, when they failed at every previous opportunity to acknowledge their error. It's too late for that in my opinion, and this sets a terrible precedcent. I also am alarmed at a return to the outdated and utterly dysfunctional concept of admin probation. Our job is to "break the back" of a problem, not to kick the can down the road. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:11, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Beeblebrox I'm someone who's against "kicking the can down the road" solutions (and I never thought I would vote opposite of you on an issue like this!) but I am supporting this because I don't think it's one of them. In this case, I think AlisonW has been sufficiently warned and admonished by both the community and the committee that future misbehavior is even less likely given generally low activity. Compare the similar case with Timwi (which I filed); also a less active long term admin, who received serious admonishment from both the community and the committee, who then went on to keep a low profile. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 20:43, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

She did acknowledge the error? We point to a number of such cases in FoF 8 such as her case statement where she says Do I consider myself 'involved'. Difficult. I had no interest in their content. Process and policy have clearly moved on since I was majorly active and I'm not sure I consider it all for the better, but it exists as it exists now so clearly I was wrong in my belief last week. and her evidence submission where she says Yes, I apologise for bypassing policy on the matter under discussion. I took administrative action (reverts / rollbacks) because I saw what I believed to be deletion vandalism and it has been suggested by many that I over-reached in my choice to then block the editor concerned and I concur that at first sight that view appears to be accurate.. I'm not going to say that Alison has been a shining example of how to deal with controversy as an administrator, but from this and other arbitrator comments, I feel like we're ignoring evidence to create a narrative that makes a desysop more palatable.
I think it sets a worse precedent if we seem like we won't actually look into an issue and will just slap a desysop on anyone who pisses off the community and doesn't grovel sufficiently. That's quite literally why the community hasn't moved to a direct recall system and instead entrusted us with this duty. If our job was to just vote to desysop anyone the community doesn't like, then why did we waste everyone's time with a case? I think it's possible to say both "AlisonW messed up" and "nothing here is so extraordinarily bad as to warrant a desysop". There are decisions I've made that the community has rejected but which I think were correct nonetheless. There are policies I also disagree with, vocally, but still agree to follow. Here, though, we seem to be faulting Alison for voicing her own disagreements even if she agrees to abide by the policies (she said, quite literally, Would I jump in again? No. I'll probably continue to look at recent changes and my watchlist but without going through all the current policy documents first I won't be doing any blocking, and the likelihood of rollbacks/reverts other than immediately after the edit concerned is very unlikely. which goes against the claim that a desysop is necessary to "protect" or "prevent" harm or that she hasn't learned). Genuinely, I worry there's already an outcome in mind that we're working towards rather than trying to find the best solution consistent with the evidence. If that's the case, then we should not be entrusted with desysops because a Starr Chamber is far worse than a direct recall. — Wug·a·po·des 23:11, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

AlisonW admonished

2) For failure to meet the conduct standards expected of an administrator, AlisonW is admonished.

Support:

At a minimum. Izno (talk) 19:55, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Assuming that Remedy 1 does not pass, as if it does this will be somewhat unnecessary. Primefac (talk) 09:29, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Second choice to 1. GeneralNotability (talk) 14:54, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Second choice to 1. SilkTork (talk) 15:43, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
~~Equal choice to desysop. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 03:49, 11 July 2023 (UTC)~~ second choice Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 13:17, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Second choice to 1. Cabayi (talk) 10:11, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Worm^TT(talk) 12:00, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Enterprisey (talk!) 15:02, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Insufficient. Beeblebrox (talk) 04:52, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Per my vote in 1b. KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 06:56, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain:

Comments:

AlisonW rollback prohibition

3) Should AlisonW retain the sysop permission, AlisonW may not use standard rollback for any future reverts or any tools that require access to the permission.

Should AlisonW be desysopped, she may regain the rollback permission only via a successful request at Wikipedia:Requests for permissions with disclosure of this case.

Support:

~~Beeblebrox (talk) 04:54, 10 July 2023 (UTC)~~[reply]

Per Izno's reply below, specifically I want[] to guarantee down the road that an administrator receiving a request at WP:PERM knows the backstory for AlisonW and can choose to go forward from that. I think the second clause is most valuable, but I also like the first clause per my comments on principle 5. — Wug·a·po·des 22:25, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Izno (talk) 05:45, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Overly-specific, and see my other comments in this case about our obsession with the rollback technical permission. GeneralNotability (talk) 14:54, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You know what, GN, I think you changed my mind. It doesn't track for me to agree with you that rollback is not as big of deal as we make it out to be, and then revoke the permisssion for two errors. If rollback misuse is a serious issue with this user going forward, any admin can rectify that by revoking it on their own, but I would hope and expect that that is not neccesary. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:23, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm actually rather less interested in this motion's "she can't use the tool if she keeps the broader toolset" but rather what happens if she is desysopped. I wanted to guarantee down the road that an administrator receiving a request at WP:PERM knows the backstory for AlisonW and can choose to go forward from that. That may or may not be evident in any number of places that PERM admins check, but I don't personally know that all of them do for every request that's made there. Or for what is often referred to as one of the permissions given out like candy (despite that I've seen a fair few rejections for this specific user permission due specifically to failure to understand what vandalism is, which is an issue we have here). Izno (talk) 17:16, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think we all agree that there was a failure to recognize what vandalism is and is not here, but what we haven't seen is evidence that this is a common occurence from this user. It can be noted in the user rights log that she was desyoped for cause by the commmittee, in the now-likely event that that is the outcome. As an admin who has worked PERM quite a bit, I'm certain that would make me carefully consider any request for new permisssions. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:37, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Per GN and Beeble, while Rollback was misused and it's worth noting that, I don't think this sanction really accomplishes much of anything, this is more of an INVOLVED issue in my opinion. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 03:36, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This was a singular instance of misuse of rollback. Barring her from ever using it in the future (should she stay an admin) is overkill, and the second clause is somewhat unnecessary as PERM admins regularly go through an editors history anyway. Primefac (talk) 08:40, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Candour is common sense behaviour for any user's PERM request. It doesn't need any Arbitration Enforcement fairy dust sprinkled over it. Cabayi (talk) 08:54, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Worm^TT(talk) 12:12, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 06:57, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain:

Comments:

I am not quite sure I see the purpose of this remedy. While I do agree that rollback was misused, the crux of this case lies in AlisonW's replies to concerns of being involved in a content dispute. Primefac (talk) 09:29, 10 July 2023 (UTC) Striking for now, this did not come across as I had intended and I am not sure the best way to phrase it. Primefac (talk) 12:04, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm thinking there there may be a number of things that it may be appropriate for ArbCom to list as prohibited - using admin tools when involved, reverting good faith edits, blocking good faith editors.... As such it may may well be more appropriate to remove the tools until such time as AlisonW can assure the community they fully understand how they should be used. However, it can be troubling to remove the tool kit from a long term good faith admin. We tend to apply a lot of weight to the "status" of being an admin, such that removing the admin status of even long term inactive admins can be an emotional and unpleasant experience for the individual. Many of us invest a lot of ourselves in this project, and feel pride in our involvement - of which adminship is frequently taken as a badge of honour, showing the respect and trust of the community. Even Jimbo when relinquishing all advanced permissions requested that he be able to keep the Founder flag - just the flag, not any benefits associated with it. It may be kinder for us when removing tools from inactive admins and admins who have inadvertently misused the tools (ie, not in a malicious way, but in a misunderstanding of policy), that we remove the tools but allow the users to retain a flag that says "Admin (former)". SilkTork (talk) 15:01, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Veverve 1RR restriction

4) Veverve may make only 1 revert on any page in any given 24 hour period. This restriction may be appealed twelve months after the enactment of this remedy, and every twelve months thereafter.

Support:

Oppose:

As the arb who already expressed an objection to this, I do oppose it, but not just for reasons of the scope, I also feel like a 1RR is something the community can apply if it is needed. Beeblebrox (talk) 04:55, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think "the community hasn't exhausted themself with this user" is a pretty fair objection given the facts of this case. Izno (talk) 05:05, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I agree more with the lack of community discussion (i.e. "prior dispute resolution") than an overreach in scope, but either way I do not find this remedy strictly necessary. Primefac (talk) 09:29, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
per PF --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 11:05, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Any concerns regarding Veverve can and should be dealt with by the community. SilkTork (talk) 14:31, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Per all of the above, I do not think that Veverve's edit-warring history needs our attention – we're here because of concerns about use of the admin toolset, not because somebody hits rollback too often. If the community is concerned about Veverve, this is something they can handle themselves. Further, this wasn't really touched on in the case request or evidence, and so I do not think it's something the community wants us to handle. GeneralNotability (talk) 14:54, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Out of scope and can be handled without our intervention. — Wug·a·po·des 22:27, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sympathetic to the argument about our scope limiting us, but I think this is overly harsh all things considered. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 03:26, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Out of scope / in the community's remit. Cabayi (talk) 08:54, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have significant concerns about Veverve's behaviour, which I've alluded to elsewhere, but this is not the place for them. Worm^TT(talk) 12:13, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 07:00, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain:

Comments:

This proposal and the next are included because I think there is a valid concern here that Veverve reaches for the revert button too often. I personally did not spend a lot of time reviewing the causes of the blocks for edit warring, only observed that they had happened as in FOF 2. One arb was concerned this was outwith the scope of the case (presently the 'Conduct of AlisonW'). I see that concern as reasonable. I offer two comments in response: 1) that Veverve remained a party, and 2) that I'm personally coming around to the idea that 'scope' should not necessarily limit remedies. ArbCom has limited itself of late to remedies within the scope of the case, such as in ARBDEL, and I think that has been to the negative for the wiki in some cases. Izno (talk) 19:36, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What do you see as the purpose of the scope? I would also be interested in hearing your ARBDEL analysis but that might belong better at one of our talk pages than here. Barkeep49 (talk) 06:22, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

On the broader question, I honestly don't know. Its utility is ostensibly to limit the evidence we receive so that we don't get the kitchen with the sink too. But it has prevented us from receiving likely relevant evidence in some cases in my tenure. As it serves to limit the evidence, to me ArbCom has felt hamstrung because its seen as kosher to remedy only that evidence it receives. This feels like a miss, and one you wouldn't see in the earlier days of ArbComming. (When there was a lot less evidence to throw at a wall and when the issues considered were, in these days, ones that AN can and will take care of.) Some of that may perhaps be explained by an unwillingness to change the scope once the case has started (or forgetting to do so when facts indicate that it should change).

Besides that of course, ArbCom has acted outside the scope in some cases, so comments here and elsewhere in relation to this case seem to miss that ArbCom does have this power and has exercised it. Most recently, it acted in the area of EE when the scope of HJP was only WW2 or Poland, not the wider area, in the form of remedies 11a and 12, and is more than willing to pass remedies that do have an impact wider than the area of interest by not considering the area of interest in the remedy itself, such as in remedy 5.2 and other interaction ban remedies. Izno (talk) 17:27, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Veverve warned

5) Veverve is warned for their edit warring behavior.

Support:

At a minimum, per above comment. Izno (talk) 19:56, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
~~Primefac (talk) 09:29, 10 July 2023 (UTC)~~[reply]
Per Izno. I think this strikes a good balance on how to handle issues that are tangential to the case scope. As others point out, Veverve isn't the subject of this case, and I honestly cannot say that I've looked into their history extensively since that's not the scope.On that basis, I don't feel comfortable passing a strong restriction like in 4. But based on what I have seen from evidence that is in scope, Veverve's conduct has not been ideal, and I don't think we should give that a pass just because their name isn't in the page title. Handing out a warning and leaving the rest to the community seems like a good route to take. — Wug·a·po·des 22:34, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Morally support, to drive my point home. Veverve, you need to move away from that revert button and focus on discussion when editor disagree with you. Worm^TT(talk) 12:15, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Unnecessary, out-of-scope, and something that the community can deal with themselves. GeneralNotability (talk) 14:54, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I feel like this is really is just not one of the core issues of this case. Also, the community is more than able to deal with low-level problems like edit warring. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:32, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Out of scope / in the community's remit. Cabayi (talk) 08:54, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Per recent expressed opinions. Primefac (talk) 09:05, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
they should still stop edit waring or they are going to be shown the door by the community --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 20:28, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Insufficiently addressed in evidence and FoFs to justify this. KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 07:00, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain:

I am not opposing this warning, as it is appropriate, however I feel that any concerns regarding Veverve can and should be dealt with by the community, so I am abstaining. SilkTork (talk) 14:34, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Per SlikTork and also Tamzin on the talk. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 03:26, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

Proposed enforcement

Enforcement of restrictions

0) Should any user subject to a restriction in this case violate that restriction, that user may be blocked, initially for up to one month, and then with blocks increasing in duration to a maximum of one year.

In accordance with the procedure for the standard enforcement provision adopted 3 May 2014, this provision did not require a vote.

Appeals and modifications

0) Appeals and modifications

This procedure applies to appeals related to, and modifications of, actions taken by administrators to enforce the Committee's remedies. It does not apply to appeals related to the remedies directly enacted by the Committee.

Appeals by sanctioned editors

Appeals may be made only by the editor under sanction and only for a currently active sanction. Requests for modification of page restrictions may be made by any editor. The process has three possible stages (see "Important notes" below). The editor may:

ask the enforcing administrator to reconsider their original decision;
request review at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard ("AE") or at the administrators’ noticeboard ("AN"); and
submit a request for amendment at "ARCA". If the editor is blocked, the appeal may be made by email through Special:EmailUser/Arbitration Committee (or, if email access is revoked, to arbcom-enwikimedia.org).

Modifications by administrators

No administrator may modify or remove a sanction placed by another administrator without:

the explicit prior affirmative consent of the enforcing administrator; or
prior affirmative agreement for the modification at (a) AE or (b) AN or (c) ARCA (see "Important notes" below).

Administrators modifying sanctions out of process may at the discretion of the committee be desysopped.

Nothing in this section prevents an administrator from replacing an existing sanction issued by another administrator with a new sanction if fresh misconduct has taken place after the existing sanction was applied.

Administrators are free to modify sanctions placed by former administrators – that is, editors who do not have the administrator permission enabled (due to a temporary or permanent relinquishment or desysop) – without regard to the requirements of this section. If an administrator modifies a sanction placed by a former administrator, the administrator who made the modification becomes the "enforcing administrator". If a former administrator regains the tools, the provisions of this section again apply to their unmodified enforcement actions.

Important notes:

For a request to succeed, either

(i) the clear and substantial consensus of (a) uninvolved administrators at AE or (b) uninvolved editors at AN or

(ii) a passing motion of arbitrators at ARCA

is required. If consensus at AE or AN is unclear, the status quo prevails.

While asking the enforcing administrator and seeking reviews at AN or AE are not mandatory prior to seeking a decision from the committee, once the committee has reviewed a request, further substantive review at any forum is barred. The sole exception is editors under an active sanction who may still request an easing or removal of the sanction on the grounds that said sanction is no longer needed, but such requests may only be made once every six months, or whatever longer period the committee may specify.
These provisions apply only to contentious topics placed by administrators and to blocks placed by administrators to enforce arbitration case decisions. They do not apply to sanctions directly authorised by the committee, and enacted either by arbitrators or by arbitration clerks, or to special functionary blocks of whatever nature.
All actions designated as arbitration enforcement actions, including those alleged to be out of process or against existing policy, must first be appealed following arbitration enforcement procedures to establish if such enforcement is inappropriate before the action may be reversed or formally discussed at another venue.

In accordance with the procedure for the standard appeals and modifications provision adopted 3 May 2014, this provision did not require a vote.

Comments:

Discussion by Arbitrators

General

Motion to close

Implementation notes

Clerks and Arbitrators should use this section to clarify their understanding of the final decision—at a minimum, a list of items that have passed. Additionally, a list of which remedies are conditional on others (for instance a ban that should only be implemented if a mentorship should fail), and so on. Arbitrators should not pass the motion to close the case until they are satisfied with the implementation notes.

These notes were last updated by Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 11:23, 15 July 2023 (UTC); the last edit to this page was on 18:05, 16 July 2023 (UTC) by Dreamy Jazz.[reply]

Proposed Principles
Number	Proposal Name	Support	Oppose	Abstain	Status	Support needed	Notes
1	Administrators	11	0	0		·
2	Administrator involvement	11	0	0		·
3	Vandalism	11	0	0		·
4	Edit warring	11	0	0		·
5	Rollback	8	3	0		·
Proposed Findings of Fact
Number	Proposal Name	Support	Oppose	Abstain	Status	Support needed	Notes
1	AlisonW	10	0	0		·
2	Veverve	10	0	0		·
3	Metatron and block timeline	11	0	0		·
4	Veverve's edits	11	0	0		·
5	AlisonW and rollback	10	0	1		·
6	Content dispute	11	0	0		·
7	AlisonW and involvement	11	0	0		·
8	AlisonW's justifications	8	0	0		·
9	Old evidence of similar behavior	0	5	5		Cannot pass
Proposed Remedies
Number	Proposal Name	Support	Oppose	Abstain	Status	Support needed	Notes
1a	AlisonW desysopped	7	4	0		·	One vote second choice to 1b
1b	AlisonW put on probation	6	6	0		Cannot pass
2	AlisonW admonished	8	2	0		Cannot pass	Four second choice votes to 1. One vote second choice to 1b. As 1(a) passes, 4 support votes are removed which means there is no majority for 2 to pass.
3	AlisonW rollback prohibition	2	7	0		Cannot pass
4	Veverve 1RR restriction	0	11	0		Cannot pass
5	Veverve warned	3	6	2		Cannot pass
Proposed Enforcement
Number	Proposal Name	Support	Oppose	Abstain	Status	Support needed	Notes
0	Enforcement of restrictions	0	0	0		·	Passes by default
0	Appeals and modifications	0	0	0		·	Passes by default

Notes

Vote

Important: Please ask the case clerk to author the implementation notes before initiating a motion to close, so that the final decision is clear.

Four net "support" votes (each "oppose" vote subtracts a "support") or an absolute majority are needed to close the case. The arbitration clerks will close the case 24 hours after the fourth net support vote has been cast, or faster if an absolute majority of arbitrators vote to fast-track the close.

Support

We now have a clear outcome. We've ended up with an admonishment and a desysop. I'm not sure we need both, as such I will oppose the admonishment on the condition the desysop passes; but I feel we need to bring this case to a close now, so I don't think it appropriate to hold up any longer while waiting to see if others also wish to remove their admonishment votes. SilkTork (talk) 11:23, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Looking again I note that four votes are secondary to 1, so the admonishment won't pass. SilkTork (talk) 11:26, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
GeneralNotability (talk) 15:08, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 15:36, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Izno (talk) 15:57, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Beeblebrox (talk) 16:02, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Worm^TT(talk) 16:09, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Cabayi (talk) 16:11, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

Comments