The Evidence phase for this case is closed. Any further edits made to this page may be reverted by an arbitrator or arbitration clerk without discussion. If you need to edit or modify this page, please go here and create an edit request.

Wikipedia Arbitration
About arbitration Talk Arbitration policy (CU/OS) Guide to arbitration Noticeboard + Talk Search archived proceedings Ban appeals Report
Open proceedings All open requests Case requests Clarification and Amendment requests Arbitrator motion requests Enforcement requests
Active sanctions Contentious topics (Log) General sanctions Editor sanctions
Arbitration Committee Discuss + Contact Members Procedures Elections Talk History Clerks + Talk Clerk procedures Conflict of interest reports
Audit Talk Statistics Talk Reports (pre-2016)
Track related changes
v t e

Arbitration case pages exist to assist the Arbitration Committee in arriving at fair, well-informed decisions. This page is not designed for the submission of general reflections on the arbitration process, Wikipedia in general, or other irrelevant and broad issues; and if you submit such content to this page, please expect it to be ignored or removed. General discussion of the case may be opened on the talk page. You must focus on the issues that are important to the dispute and submit diffs which illustrate the nature of the dispute or will be useful to the committee in its deliberations.

Submitting evidence

• Any editor may add evidence to this page, irrespective of whether they are involved in the dispute.
• You must submit evidence in your own section, using the prescribed format.
• Editors who change other users' evidence may be sanctioned by arbitrators or clerks without warning; if you have a concern with or objection to another user's evidence, contact the arbitration clerks by e-mail or on the talk page.

Word and diff limits

• The standard limits for all evidence submissions are: 1000 words and 100 diffs for users who are parties to this case; or about 500 words and 50 diffs for other users. Detailed but succinct submissions are more useful to the committee.
• If you wish to exceed the prescribed limits on evidence length, you must obtain the written consent of an arbitrator before doing so; you may ask for this on the Evidence talk page.
• Evidence that exceeds the prescribed limits without permission, or that contains inappropriate material or diffs, may be refactored, redacted or removed by a clerk or arbitrator without warning.

Supporting assertions with evidence

• Evidence must include links to the actual page diff in question, or to a short page section; links to the page itself are inadequate. Never link to a page history, an editor's contributions, or a log for all actions of an editor (as those change over time), although a link to a log for a specific article or a specific block log is acceptable.
• Please make sure any page section links are permanent, and read the simple diff and link guide if you are not sure how to create a page diff.

Rebuttals

• The Arbitration Committee expects you to make rebuttals of other evidence submissions in your own section, and for such rebuttals to explain how or why the evidence in question is incorrect; do not engage in tit-for-tat on this page.

Expected standards of behavior

• You are required to act with appropriate decorum during this case. While grievances must often be aired during a case, you are expected to air them without being incivil or engaging in personal attacks, and to respond calmly to allegations against you.
• Accusations of misbehaviour posted in this case must be proven with clear evidence (and otherwise not made at all).

Consequences of inappropriate behavior

• Editors who conduct themselves inappropriately during a case may be sanctioned by an arbitrator or clerk, without warning.
• Sanctions issued by arbitrators or clerks may include being banned from particular case pages or from further participation in the case.
• Editors who ignore sanctions issued by arbitrators or clerks may be blocked from editing.
• Behavior during a case may also be considered by the committee in arriving at a final decision.

 Clerk note: Moved statement from here to Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/AlisonW § With deep regret, it is time to remove the tools as it was deemed not to be evidence. Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 14:05, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Place argument and diffs which support your assertion; for example, your first assertion might be "So-and-so engages in edit warring", which should be the title of this section. Here you would show specific edits to specific articles which show So-and-so engaging in edit warring.

This timeline is copied from the AN thread, with the slight correction in point 6 that it was 4 reverts, not 3:

1. 16:40, 8 June 2023: 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.
2. 05:44, 9 June 2023: 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
3. 05:46, 9 June 2023: Veverve comments on AlisonW's talk that what is WP:TRIVIA is not encyclopedic.
4. 14:31, 9 June 2023: AlisonW reverts with default rollback summary (misusing rollback)
5. 14:33–41, 9 June 2023: 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). She also requests he take down his ((retired)) banner.
6. 14:47–52, 9 June 2023: AlisonW reverts 4 more Veverve edits on other pages.
7. 14:55, 9 June 2023: AlisonW blocks Veverve (without block notice)
8. 14:57–59, 9 June 2023: 2 more reverts, one by rollback

Below I've highlighted a few key details documented in the timeline, plus some related subsequent developments. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe)

Veverve's edits [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] were, at a minimum, within the discretion afforded to editors under WP:BOLD. At the AN thread, the Metatron removals (diff 1) were taken as a correct invocation of WP:TRIVIA; other removals were generally endorsed to the limited extent they were discussed. By AN consensus, all seven removals were later reinstated, without prejudice against restoring the content through the normal editorial process.

See timeline points 5 and 6, cf. Veverve's most recent edit at time of block

See timeline points 1, 4, and 5.

See timeline point 4, cf. WP:ROLLBACKABUSE.

See timeline point 7, cf. WP:EXPLAINBLOCK. In her first response at AN, AlisonW wrote Sadly, yes, I failed to make the proper notification on their page, for which I apologise.

See timeline point 5. AlisonW repeated the accusation of religious POV-pushing in her first A/R/C statement, writing Their own 'pages created' list though showed that they were enormously invested in religious articles and their contributions page showed that they had a very particular viewpoint which presumed if something wasn't online it didn't exist and that their personal belief mattered. Her shortened statement retains the claim I looked carefully at their history and it appeared to me to fit someone deleting to push their POV.

Veverve's userpage indicates a strong interest in Orthodox Christian and Catholic topics, but does not contain any statements showing a partisan POV or even a particular religious afiliation. At no point has AlisonW presented evidence that Veverve has such a POV, nor has she explained what about his edits would qualify as pushing one, other than a perception that the removals at Metatron were because he felt Wikipedia should be like a religious text. Per WP:WIAPA, Using someone's affiliations as an ad hominem means of dismissing or discrediting their views is a personal attack (which I'd say extends to perceived affiliations), as are Accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence.

At least one arbitrator expressed concern about AlisonW's blocks. Going back ten years, aside from Veverve these are:

• 19:23 21 December 2021 blocked Pragal1983 (talk · contribs) for one week "Vandalism-only account". User's contributions were to replace content in the article Pragal with spam. eg: [8]. User was warned first by Materialscientist, then blocked by AlisonW when spamming continued.

The policy page WP:VANDALISM does not directly say that adding spam as content is or isn't vandalism. The nearest appears to be "Adding or continuing to add spam external links is vandalism if the activity continues after a warning." (emphasis mine)

• 19:44 25 March 2021 blocked Sinan eraaa (talk · contribs) for 24 hours "Repeated misuse of WP page". User's sole contributions were at User:Sinan eraaa whose (now deleted) content reads like answers to a quiz or an exam. Page was deleted once per WP:U5 by Oshwah, then deleted twice by AlisonW, also as U5 before blocking. The user was not warned by anyone, and has never had any talk page messages.

Veverve has been blocked several times by other administrators. See block log. Examples:

• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1108#Pisarz12345: violation of WP:BURDEN, says I am "blind", answers the same one-liner, Veverve blocked for a week by DatGuy for edit warring. "The week-long block might seem high for some considering Veverve tried to discuss the issue, or low for others considering Veverve's edit warring block in March and very high number of reversions, but I find it a good middle ground." After the block expired, edit warring continued, re-blocked for two weeks by NinjaRobotPirate.
• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive465#User:Manannan67 reported by User:Veverve (Result: Both blocked), Bbb23 wrote "I've blocked Manannan67 for 72 hours and Veverve, whose block log for edit-warring is extensive and recent, for one month" (emphasis mine)

AlisonW explicitly mentioned she blocked for a month because Bbb23 had already blocked for the same time period. (User:AlisonW/ArbCom)

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.

Thing is I'm now not entirely sure I was wrong; for subsequent to the AN/I discussion - which included comments from Veverve - the following edit occurred of that editor again removing content which others have before and since maintained. (title=Metatron&diff=1160073760&oldid=1159996551):

2023-06-14T08:54:54‎ Amakuru Undid revision 1159996551 by Veverve (talk) - please don't wholesale remove cited info in this fashion ; this has been challenged on the talk page already

Other than drawing attention to that diff I stand by the comments I have previously made. Thank you. --AlisonW (talk) 15:33, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Arbcom clearly needs to take into evidence AlisonW's repeated insistance after the event that she was taking 'administative action' against 'vandalism'. She stated this at AN [9], and in the case request, twice [10][11]. And in her submission above, she still implies that this assessment was correct: "I saw what I believed to be deletion vandalism... Thing is I'm now not entirely sure I was wrong; for subsequent to the AN/I discussion - which included comments from Veverve - the following edit occurred of that editor again removing content which others have before and since maintained". [12] Here, she links a single edit to Metatron.

AlisonW's definition of 'vandalism' is wildly contrary to the community's current interpretation, and indeed with Wikipedia policy when AlisonW became an admin [13]) And how is AlisonW's behaviour compatible with expectations regarding an admin seeing vandalism from a contributor with Veverve's extensive editing record (over 40,000 main-space edits)? If such a contributor really is a vandal, it deserves closer investigation. Checking whether the account was compromised. Asking the broader community to look through Veverve's history for other examples. Instead, AlisonW seems to have arbitrarily picked a few of Veverve's edits to revert ("I did not look at the content of the edits" [14]), implemented the block, and left it at that. Is this remotely sufficient, if actually dealing with "deliberate attempt[s] to compromise the integrity of the encyclopedia", per 2004-era WP:VANDALISM? If AlisonW's assessment was correct, the community would need informing. Her actions would have been incompatible with community expectations of an admin confronted with perceived ongoing disruption from an established editor even if her assessment was correct.

The second issue with AlisonW's response concerns suggestions that her actions have been validated by later events at the Metatron article. As the article and talk page histories now show, it is correct that Veverve's initial removal of the entire 'popular culture' section has not gone uncontested. But neither does the section concerned currently follow the version AlisonW reverted to. Instead, per normal editing process, when issues with article content are noted, WP:BRD has been applied: the article has been edited. Content removed, content added. Talk page discussions have taken place. Opinions on content have been given. Perhaps the issue has been resolved, perhaps it hasn't, whatever. A content dispute arose, and is being handled - without 'administrative action'. Nothing indicating that the initial removal was vandalism. Large-scale deletion of content has always been a part of editing. Sometimes contested, sometimes not. Content evolves over time. Community definitions of appropriate content evolves. If good-faith contributors cannot participate in this process by removing content they see as inappropriate without risking being blocked for imaginary 'vandalism', and having other edits reverted with minimal scrutiny the whole process will be degraded. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:08, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

before using the last evidence template, please make a copy for the next person

Place argument and diffs which support your assertion; for example, your first assertion might be "So-and-so engages in edit warring", which should be the title of this section. Here you would show specific edits to specific articles which show So-and-so engaging in edit warring.

Place argument and diffs which support the second assertion; for example, your second assertion might be "So-and-so makes personal attacks", which should be the title of this section. Here you would show specific edits where So-and-so made personal attacks.