This page is for statements regarding the proposed decision, not discussion. Therefore, with the exception of arbitrators and clerks, all editors must create a section for their statement and comment only in their own section.

This case is now closed and pages relating to it may no longer be watched To request an amendment or clarification of an arbitration decision, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment. To report a violation of an arbitration decision, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement. To request the assistance of an arbitration clerk, see Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Clerks.

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
Audit Talk Statistics Talk Reports (pre-2016)
Track related changes
v t e

Behaviour on this page: Arbitration case pages exist to assist the Arbitration Committee in arriving at a fair, well-informed decision. 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 rude or hostile, 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). Editors who conduct themselves inappropriately during a case may be sanctioned by an arbitrator, clerk, or functionary, without further warning, by being banned from further participation in the case, or being blocked altogether. Personal attacks against other users, including arbitrators or the clerks, will be met with sanctions. Behavior during a case may also be considered by the committee in arriving at a final decision.

It's not my place to decide, although my opinion is obvious: AlisonW is a long time admin, whom we hold respect for simply because she has served for many year with the goal of improving Wikipedia. However, The incident that brought us here might have been excused if AlisonW understood why she is here, and that lack of undestanding is the bigger problem. We can't learn from mistakes if we aren't capable of identifying them. She is not the only admin with this issue. Regardless, I would say "Thank you" to AlisonW for the years of service as an admin, and I hope she sticks around as an editor, if the sysop bit is removed. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 17:01, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Well put. However, I find AlisonW's issue not a continuing issue. She has been a huge net positive. Are we trying to cull out a rogue admin? Obviously not. Alison has recognised the issue and won't repeat it. We can coach her and ask her to sugarcoat her true thoughts but she has not done that -- she is truthful too. We need not use this as an example to take out Alison's admin bits. She has not run away, ignored our case, or refused to respond. She is not a vandal. Not a tendentious editor. Not a disruptive editor. Not a bkf clone. Has made a mistake with an editor who has a background. That's it. An extremely strong admonishment is enough in this and the other open case, imo. Thanks, Lourdes 04:32, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunate to see Alison not actively participating in the case, because of the personal emergency. Active inputs from her would have assisted in swaying the views of the Committee about her understanding of involved. Sadly, with her absence, she will clearly lose her tools.

Primefac, the crux of this case is not just the part about involved, it's also the part about Alison's understanding of policy, to be specific, what is and what is not vandalism. And any editor who fails to understand this -- and rolls back editorially disputed edits titling them as vandalism, should not have rollback enabled. Alison's lack of presence here has exacerbated the situation, and the community unconvinced that she understands the difference between vandalism and disruptive editing. If we are going to remove her admin tools, we should also remove rollback (or any admin will do that, post this case). Thank you, Lourdes 11:58, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I was having some difficulty finding the correct phrasing for my thoughts about that remedy. Regarding your last point: when an admin loses the mop, either by request, inactivity, or from a case, they need to re-apply for any permissions they might need or had before they were granted adminship, even if that granting is usually rubber-stamped barring extraordinary concerns. In other words, she would need to apply for rollback anyway if she is desysopped as a result of this case. That being said, of course, I do suppose when we have desysopped in the past we indicate that the user will need to re-apply at RFA should they choose to do so. Primefac (talk) 12:09, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Question to the Arbs

Veverve is being warned not to edit disruptively. I wanted to enquire on the following points and request Arbcom's response on the same:

1. The case is about AlisonW and not Veverve (even though they are a party to the case). Why are Veverve's past block logs being lined out here with perhaps no relevance?
2. What opportunity has been provided to Veverve to defend themselves? These proposed decisions have been placed without informing Veverve in advance that some proposed decision was against them too.
3. On what fact or evidence is Veverve being warned about disruptive editing? All statements of Arbs on the proposed decision page mention that Veverve was editing under the bounds of editorial discretion. If so, then what grounds are being used to give a sudden proposed decision to warn Veverve?

I will request a clarification on the same. Thank you, Lourdes 12:07, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Dreamy, hope you are well. I wanted to request if there is a guidance on by when will the final decisions be taken and votes by cast by the remaining arbitrators. Thank you, Lourdes 05:02, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm not sure when the remaining votes will be cast by the arbitrators, but in general the case is closed once all the proposals in the implementation notes are either passing or failing by a majority vote. This should mean that once 1a and/or 1b have majority support or oppose, the case should close soon after. Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 09:10, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Thank you Dreamy. Lourdes 09:57, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

 Clerk note: Messages regarding the proposed decision have now been sent. Thanks for raising them not being sent. Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 15:31, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest we suspend this discussion at least for a few days in light of this. I am sure the Committee is allowing a respectful time to pass before deciding how best to proceed. Newyorkbrad (talk) 04:54, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As you can see, we published the PD today. Both drafters agreed when that event occurred that it was reasonably appropriate to complete the case given what was remaining (the PD). Izno (talk) 19:47, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I supported proceeding with the case on the view that waiting for a decision on being sanctioned by ArbCom is going to be stressful, so delaying the decision would be more stressful than getting it over as soon as possible. SilkTork (talk) 14:21, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't there some other word beside "ancient" which could be used? Let's face it, nothing about Wikipedia is "ancient", and the word therefore seems misused. "Very old" or "early"?

Just a nit, please feel free to ignore it, I don't expect any response, or even action. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:43, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"relatively ancient"? I don't know. I didn't necessarily like it. I chose the word because 10+ years is quite outside the scope of most arbitration proceedings (which are usually in the realm of 2 years at most). Izno (talk) 19:45, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I see that "ancient" has been replaced by "old" - that seems fine to me. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:02, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps instead of "ancient", "long ago" could be used. isaacl (talk) 21:29, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Looking over the arbitrator discussion of the blocks in evidence reminded me that WP:RBI had rather widespread acceptance and usage in the past. Nowadays, I think we see somewhat more usage of talk page notifications. I don't know if it's fair to judge past actions by current sensibilities. - jc37 13:47, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Robert McClenon - While I want to agree (some of the various vandalism pages have really old core text with convoluted, disorganized, messy additions and modifications), but the pragmatist in me says: "Good luck getting consensus for updated policy on vandalism". The opposition with be from multiple sides: those for more stringent rules, those for less clear (broader admin powers), those who want more restricted admin discretion, those for greater allowances for vandalism-like activities, those who just oppose policies in general, etc etc etc... Any policy that has any connection to the block tool, by nature just tends to be controversial. - jc37 15:55, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism

I agree with principle 3 and with the comment of User:Beeblebrox that this is a basic policy that everyone is expected to know, and has been for a long time. However, it does not seem to be as well understood as it should be. Too many editors try to "win" a content dispute by yelling "vandalism". ArbCom should restate principle 3 in any case in which it is applicable. Administrators must not treat content disputes as vandalism. On the other hand, administrators should be ready to deal with yelling "vandalism" as a personal attack. Apparently some editors, including some administrators, still don't know what is not vandalism. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:21, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Reading the PD as someone who hasn't been following the details of the case, I find FOF3 rather lacking in context. Specifically there should be either a sentence of prose introduction or a preceding FOF that notes that the initial locus of the dispute was the Metatron article. Without knowing that it's not obvious what Metatron is (article? editor? policy?) and why it is relevant. Thryduulf (talk) 16:24, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No problem for me. Izno (talk) 17:00, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keeping this as brief as possible, I largely concur with the proposed findings and remedies of the committee except as stated below.

• Principles: Rollback I concur with the dissents posted by GeneralNotability and Beeblebrox. The availability of rollback in other tools makes its use, and occasional misuse, extremely common. As an admin I would be most reluctant to sanction anyone for the mistaken use of the tool absent a pattern of behavior that persisted after multiple warnings. This is an area where good faith mistakes are so common that I doubt there are many experienced editors who have not at some point incorrectly rolled back an edit w/o an explanation. Myself included.
• Finding of Facts: Old evidence of similar behavior Sorry, I believe in a statute of limitations. Unless it can be shown as part of a regular and ongoing pattern of behavior, errors in judgement from the land of long ago, should remain there.
• Remedies: AlisonW admonished Oppose per Beeblebrox.
• Remedies: Veverve 1RR restriction Strong Oppose per pretty much all of the comments there.
• Remedies: Veverve warned Strong Oppose as out of scope. Any issues regarding Veverve's editing habits should properly be addressed by the community.

I appreciate the time and attention of the committee in this matter. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:42, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the rollback userright: I agree that the default rollback functionality is nothing extraordinary, but having the userright unlocks several very powerful tools—namely Huggle, AntiVandal, and massRollback.js—that have the potential to cause a great deal of disruption if used incorrectly. For this reason I think likening the rollback userright to Twinkle somewhat misses the point, and I agree with the community's assessment that rollback shouldn't be granted to anyone who requests it without first ascertaining that they understand what is and isn't vandalism. — SamX [talk · contribs] 17:01, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Two thoughts:

1. I don't do much PERM work, but I'd think that basic due diligence there includes checking the user's permission history and, if there's a desysop in there, checking if it was for circumstances relevant to the permission being requested. So I'm not sure an explicit remedy is needed on that front. And, as Beeblebrox notes, if she does get +rb, rollback is much more easily revoked than adminship.
2. None of the findings show Veverve engaging in any edit-warring since his most recent block for it... Or, the reverts at Metatron could maybe be characterized that way, but they were spaced out and accompanied by discussion, not exactly someone screaming past 3RR, and as noted in the FoF Veverve has walked away from that matter. So a warning for a pattern of edit-warring that so far has been adequately addressed by individual admins (not even needing AN(/I) attention) reads to me as autrefois convict double jeopardy. Veverve was already blocked without good cause. ArbCom should not add insult to injury.

Bonus, off-topic third thought:

-- 'zin^{[is short for Tamzin]} (she|they|xe) 17:31, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Noting, without further comment, that ToBeFree has warned Veverve for a new round of edit-warring at Metatron, and has indefinitely blocked the other party in that dispute. The dispute was over separate content from that at issue here. Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring § User:Veverve reported by User:PorkyPowerPeanut (Result: Warned; nominator blocked indefinitely)^permalink. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 20:11, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@SilkTork: Why not ask Alison what she would prefer? Kurtis ^(talk) 06:27, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Likely because of the substance of said edit summary, which implies that she is not going to be available for the near future. Primefac (talk) 08:02, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies for not being active the last two weeks (I was the 24/7 sole carer for my mother so it has been a big upheaval and distraction from other aspects of my life) and thank you to those who contacted me with their condolences, which were appreciated. As to the proposed decision, I read "For failure to meet the conduct standards expected of an administrator, AlisonW is admonished." as being the conclusion of the arbitration panel and hereby accept my admonishment without reservation. Being a long-term editor and user of WP I acknowledge that I have not kept as up to date with process as it is now operated (nor, quite probably, as it was back then either) as I have found myself desiring to take administrative actions only rarely in the last decade. I thank you, however, for not removing those permissions and promise that I shall not use them without first verifying that I am acting fully in accordance with policy in the future. By the way, on the matter of "ancient", in internet years just as with dog years, twenty is certainly described well by that term imho. --AlisonW (talk) 15:31, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The case is not yet complete, with voting still occurring on remedies 1a, 1b, and 5, and with a cloture motion to vote on as well.

When the case completes, the remedies will be published widely, including to your talk page, since you are a party. Izno (talk) 16:28, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@AlisonW: I'm sorry about your loss, and I now understand why you did not take part in the discussion for so long. Sanctions on your account are still being debated. That said, I believe you're misconstruing the issue (again, unfortunately). The problem was not your unfamiliarity with policies. The crux of the problem has been – on top of your continuing inability to distinguish content actions from administrative actions or good-faith edits from vandalism (which are the basics of admin work) – your persistent refusal to accept that you were wrong, even as multiple editors (also admins) tried to explain it to you multiple times, including by starting an ANI thread. You basically showed an inability to get the point.

The worst of all, you still seem not to accept that you were wrong. You did accept admonishment as a more beneficial option to desysopping, but in no place in your comment above did you admit to any wrongdoing apart from "not keeping up to date with process". That's not it! Not being up to date is not why a large part of the community has lost trust in your adminship. It has lost it predominantly because you were deaf and blind to everyone.

I don't know whether you will keep the mop; I don't think you should, since admining on Wikipedia is about both knowledge and trust. However, if you do, I urge you to work on your ability to address the concerns that are being raised whenever it is being done in good faith; irrespective of your pride or content preferences. — kashmīrī ^TALK 12:35, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm baffled by @Wug's outburst, who seemingly confuses ArbCom with a court. The objective of such ArbCom cases is not to mete out "fair punishment", etc. Nope. The purpose is to re-assess whether the subject possesses necessary skills and has sufficient community trust to work in administrative capacity effectively. Once again: as this is not a court case, pleading or admission of guilt should not have a slightest influence. Removal of tools, if it's decided on, is not a punishment, not life imprisonment, but simply a consensus understanding that the project will not currently benefit from that editor's additional capabilities. That's all. — kashmīrī ^TALK 00:10, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have to say I'm disappointed that the committee seems not to have given more consideration to the reverts AlisonW made on articles other than the Metatron one where the dispute originated. Nowhere have I seen here offer any serious justification for this, and it is difficult to see them as motivated by anything other than retribution. The claim that she saw them as 'vandalism' simply doesn't make sense, given their apparently arbitrary selection per own her statement ("I did not look at the content of the edits") and the fact that she made no attempt to follow up on this. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:49, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• I cannot agree with Beeblebrox that AlisonW has shown "arrogance and condescension" - that sounds to me like a personal attack that should be substantiated with a diff, or struck.
• And that several arbs - including the one casting the decisive vote to desysop - believe that an admin in today's climate could be desysopped for cause and ever pass an RfA in the future seems to be to be totally unrealistic and only giving false hope. Pawnkingthree (talk) 11:55, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  A majority of the desysops of recent years have been along lines of "the user can't get along" aka incivility. If we apply the "would they pass at RFA" yardstick, these users often fail by a mile. This kind of behavior tends to hang around into the future and it might be reasonable to criticize a desysop with such comments as made here were that the issue. (Might be - if WP:RFA can't get its act together in the general I rather think that's the fault of RFA, not ArbCom.)

  Other issues, such as inability or non-desire to respond when called to attention, and this case about missing understanding of core policies, where the users are otherwise pleasant people, can be corrected more or less easily simply by putting time into the projects. The former case by showing a willingness to communicate and the latter by making edits that show understanding. That's why I named AlisonW as a case where if she returned to activity and showed understanding of modern day policy and guideline, she would be a plausible RFA candidate. Izno (talk) 16:09, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'd have to agree with Pawnkingthree's above observation that arbs saying she'd have a good chance of passing RFA is giving totally false hope. Not just on the basis of this case, but on the basis of overall activity. The unofficial minimum activity at RFA for years now has been at least 5000 edits (most users would probably like to see at least 10k) and a regular edit history of at least 100 edits a month. She easily fails the 10k hurdle and just about scrapes past the 5k hurdle, though since that's over a 2-decade period, she may as well not.

She fails the 100 a month by a long, long way as you need to go back to 2009 (!) to find the last time she even managed 100 a month. A further negative in the eyes of RFA participants would be the fact that even when she had the tools, she rarely used them. Adminship is not a badge of honour granted for long service, it's given to those who need the tools and will use them correctly. Even if it were a first time RFA, I wouldn't fancy her chances, but add in the significant cloud of a desysopping at ARBCOM aand any 2nd RFA would sink very fast. Forget WP:NOBIGDEAL etc, that's how it is at RFA these days.

Unfortunately, looking over this case, AlisonW made a poor block. When called on it, she got defensive, which is a natural reaction. If she'd subsequently held her hands up and said "ok, on 2nd thoughts, I blundered and I'll be more careful in future" all this drama would have been avoided. Instead she flip flopped between "yes but" non-apologies and doubling down. Sadly, like a lot of users here, while wishing her well and thanking her for past contributions, I wouldn't have confidence in her as an admin. Valenciano (talk) 21:38, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Look, personally I don't think AlisonW should retain the bit, but the Committee is evenly divided between six supporting desysop (Beeblebrox, GeneralNotability, SilkTork, Cabayi, Izno, L235) and six preferring a lesser sanction (Worm That Turned, Guerillero, Primefac, Enterprisey, Moneytrees, Wugapodes). Is it really fair that she's about to be desysopped just because of a quirk in the way Moneytrees and Wugapodes recorded their votes? Again, it's no skin off my nose if 1a) passes, but it doesn't have majority support in any real sense... Extraordinary Writ (talk) 22:09, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Those arbitrators are free to change their votes. As one of the named has voted for cloture, I would suggest they are unlikely to. As for the other, Wugapodes hasn't actually voted on 1a, though he has the opportunity to for another 40 some-odd hours, so his true preference hasn't been stated on that remedy (I know little more than you do on the point). Izno (talk) 22:12, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think this doesn't quite characterize Moneytrees' stance fairly. With a "first choice, second choice" vote it's my view that the arb is expressing both a preference among both but also a support for both. So it's true that a deysop has more support among arbs than probation. Barkeep49 (talk) 23:45, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I would add that I don't think it is a "quirk" in the way the votes were recorded, it has been a fairly standard practice on this committee for quite some time for arbs to rate their preference for different remedies.It's part of what helps us come to clear conclusions in close cases like this one. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:55, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I understand it looks a bit strange, but just to be clear, I'm aware of how the way my vote is set up is working, it's not something I've forgotten. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 03:45, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@MJL: For Special:Diff/1165597064, I don't think you can "incite to noun". You can "incite noun to verb", though. I think it was fine before. Sdrqaz (talk) 08:18, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding Principle 5: Rollback, obviously 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 is a technical truth. And obviously not explaining one's edits can be problematic in some cases. So it logically follows that simply using that feature can be problematic. But WP:Rollback does bless some standard-rollback of edits when the rollbacker explains that action at "the relevant talk page". As footnoted in the guideline, this specific detail was included in an ArbCom finding in the Ryulong case. I don't want to promote use of rollback in any situations that a reasonable observer would think is controversial. Here in the AlisonW case, the stateement is simply it is considered inappropriate to use it in situations where an explanatory edit summary would normally be expected. without further commentary, so it feels like a shift of the prohibition bright-line.

Late to the party, and I don't think this affects the outcome of this ArbCom, but I didn't want this case to become an unintended subtle change of the rollback guideline. DMacks (talk) 14:53, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]