Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/AlisonW/Preliminary statements

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

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

Statements on this page are copies of the statements submitted in the original request to arbitrate this dispute, and serve as verbatim copies; therefore, they may not be edited or removed.

Preliminary statements

Statement by Ad Orientem

I am going to keep this as short as possible as almost all of the relevant facts are laid out at the AN discussion linked above. On June 9th AlisonW blocked Veverve in an apparent breach of WP:INVOLVED. The block was subsequently lifted by Tamzin who opened the above linked discussion at WP:AN. The discussion resulted in what I believe can be reasonably described as a near unanimous consensus that the block was bad and endorsed Tamzin's decision to unblock. The discussion, which AlisonW was slow to join, has also raised serious doubts regarding AlisonW's understanding of policy and general fitness to hold the tools among multiple experienced editors, myself included. -Ad Orientem (talk) 17:29, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

Since opening this case request I have chosen to remain silent in order to give AlisonW the opportunity to respond. Having now read her response, since deleted due to length, I wish to state that I fully endorse the comments of Dennis Brown and Beyond My Ken, to which I have nothing to add. -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:24, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

Statement by AlisonW

My response being deemed too long (500 words may be sufficient for people not listed as involved parties, but if a full response is to be adequate then it is surely insufficient.)

Last Friday I was checking something up and also looked at my Watchlist and contributions pages which led me [1]. In that I saw what were substantial (3,813 & 1,506) deletions, without explanation(diffs)

The diff included a whole cross-referenced subsection of the article and I believed this was obvious vandalism by deletion. When the used concerned RVd the restoration they tried to suggest they'd given an explanation (User:AlisonW/ArbComDiffs#Group 2) but there were none.

Because of this I looked at their user and contributions pages to see if there was a record of such behaviour. I noted diffs suggesting they were protective of religious articles. Their talk page noted previous blocks for similar activity and felt justified in blocking them for the same period as the block by User:Bbb23.

I looked carefully at their history and it appeared to me to fit someone deleting to push their POV. I did not look at the content of the edits I reverted this was an administrative action about mass deletions.

Did I follow current policy on such matters? No, and for which I deeply apologise. I ignored other possibilities. I also forgot to put a notification on their talk page, which I've since apologised for.

Would I do the same again? Not in the same way. Vandalism by way of deletion has been common on wikis everywhere by the nature of open editing and doing such a direct revert here would not be my choice in the future.

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.

I have made detailed replies to others here

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. Do I apologise to Veverve? That's more difficult, but yes. Their deletions were very major in size and, as I note above, visible edit summaries didn't cover them. But I should have noted that as the articles where this had happened had mostly been edited by others since it would have been more appropriate to put the deleted text on the talk page and ask for wider comment first.

My apologies also to ArbCom for getting drawn into this. --AlisonW (talk) 20:49, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

AlisonW (talk) 12:15, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

Comment moved by clerk –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 06:21, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Original comment was a response to Beeblebrox posted in Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter. Apologies. I wanted to give a fuller background as it is clear longevity of editors is an issue, however now reduced below target. --AlisonW (talk) 20:50, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

Statement by Tamzin

I've said most of what I have to say at Veverve's talkpage and at AN, and others (especially Ad Orientem) have said most of what else I would say, but to condense it into two bullet points:

• I would have unblocked regardless of any INVOLVED violation, because the block had no basis in policy, did not prevent any ongoing disruption (even assuming arguendo that Veverve's edits were disruptive), and, after a business day, AlisonW had not responded to my request to address these two issues. I felt that this satisfied WP:RAAA's standard for an unblock. However, setting aside the INVOLVED question, this would have just been a "regular" bad block, not something requiring AN/ArbCom attention.
• If we AGF (as I do) that AlisonW genuinely believed removals like Veverve's to be patently disruptive, then it's somewhat understandable why she wouldn't see herself as involved. The issue is less with willful violation of INVOLVED and more with being very out-of-touch with community norms. (That said, her subsequent comments show an overly generous understanding of INVOLVED's exceptions as well.)

Broader thoughts now that this is at A/R/C: All subsequent drama could have been avoided quite easily by AlisonW saying, essentially, "I apologize. I see that my understanding of policy was not in line with the community's, and I'll make sure not to make any further blocks without thoroughly familiarizing myself with current norms". This isn't hard to do, and many admins, including myself, have made similar apologies/commitments in similar circumstances. Getting hauled to AN or AN/I is never fun, but it doesn't need to be a one-way trip to ArbCom. But for whatever reason, a number of admins in AlisonW's situation (sysopped long ago, less active these days, maybe subscribing to an older project ethos) have chosen that route; per User:Maxim/ArbCom and desysops, a large percentage of recent desysops are of such admins, for offenses they could have easily talked down to an admonishment or even informal trouting. To AlisonW, I'll just say, there is still time to turn that around. ArbCom has historically had very little appetite to desysop admins who acknowledge their mistake and say they want to do better. Or if you really feel that the project's views on content have drifted so far from your own that you can't in good conscience enforce current policy, then the right thing to do would be to resign. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 18:10, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

@Veverve: I totally see how one would miss this (it took a bit of looking for me to find it in the thread even knowing it had been said), but the lack of notification is actually the one thing AlisonW's apologized for here: Sadly, yes, I failed to make the proper notification on their page, for which I apologise. [2] -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 19:45, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

@AlisonW: Perhaps "business day" is an imprecise term. I waited for one of your normal editing cycles. I was going to make it a round 24 hours, but I noticed you almost never edit past midnight UTC, so I called it around the 21-hour mark. To be clear, I don't fault you for having been AFK for a day. WP:ADMINACCT doesn't require us to be tied to our devices. But for the purposes of WP:RAAA's expectation of where the administrator is presently available, a brief discussion, one normal editing cycle seemed reasonable, especially given that I did already have some follow-up comments to work with, in the form of your response to Pbritti. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 18:17, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I'm very torn on remedy here. I think AlisonW has come very close to the level of understanding where an admonishment, or maybe a(n unusual but not unprecedented) restriction like a ban on blocking or required admin mentorship, could be imposed. But she's still missing that crucial ingredient of saying that what she did violated policy (outright, not in a "reasonable minds can differ" way) and won't happen again. There's also the sleeper issue of the insinuation that Veverve was pushing a religious POV, which is a personal attack and merits an apology. So I don't really know. The ball is thoroughly in AlisonW's court. There's still a way to turn this around, but she has to want that. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 16:27, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

Statement by Veverve

I do not have much to add beyond what I have written at AN.

First, the admin violated multiple times WP:BURDEN by reinstating some of what I had removed. I care a lot about users complying with BURDEN. The admin also violated what the WP:TRIVIA policy says.

Now the INVOLVEment. AlisonW first reverted me once, falsely claiming I had not justified my removal of a TRIVIA section (which I had, I had even reverted my first removal because I had forgotten to add an explanation); thus the admin became INVOLVED in a content disagreement. I reverted AlisonW's revert, with explanations. Then, in a short amount of time, the admin reverted me a second time on this TRIVIA issue, blocked me, and proceeded to blindly revert/rollback me 6 more times on other unrelated WP articles (see my list at AN). The admin did not WP:AGF due to my past blocks and jumped on the gun.

The admin did not admit any fault in their behaviour and violations of policies.

Something that I did not mention at ANI and no one noted, and I am not sure if it matters: the admin did not post a Template:Uw-block at my talk page after blocking me, nor any message telling me I was blocked. This seems to violate the recommendations of Wikipedia:Blocking policy#Notifying the blocked user, and if it does then that is another improper admin behaviour. Veverve (talk) 19:33, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

The admin has apologised at AN for not sending me a notification of my block (thanks to Tamzin for pointing this to me). Veverve (talk) 20:00, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

@Worm That Turned: The new, sourced and trimmed version of the section was still unacceptable to me, so I removed it with explanation. I have been reverted and have given my arguments at talk page. Veverve (talk) 14:04, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

@AlisonW: You state I had a very particular viewpoint which presumed if something wasn't online it didn't exist and that their personal belief mattered: this is a gross misinterpretation.

• The confession part is first and foremost unsourced, and as a bonus I personnaly have never heard of this
• I have removed unsourced parts of articles including some with a template requesting sources since 2021, and I removed what I believed to be pure OR and speculations that was unsourced
• Using the fact an artist painted the Seven virtues on a Lutheran cross to say all Lutherans believe in the Seven virtues, is indeed a huge over-interpretation
• A 19th-century book is not a RS to explain what Protestants believe today (WP:AGEMATTERS)
• The fact I could not find a legal statement by the Holy See, and the incoherent way the quotation marks were used, lead me to believe it was safer to remove the alleged statement (esp. since some of the people concerned are still alive, but I have not marked it in my edit summary)
• And I have also used printed books and e-books unavailable online in my edits

I do not see what you are attempting to do by bringing at this ArbCom what you claim to be [s]elected examples that allegedly prove that I am someone deleting to push their POV.

You claim my edit summaries didn't cover my removals: I always try my best so that my substantial edits are explained in my edit summaries, and all the examples you gave have an explanation.

I cannot accept your apology for my block, for you are unsincere. I do not even know what you are apologising for. You strongly imply my behaviour for which I was blocked was in line with a POV-pushing behaviour; thus, you imply you were right in doing this block and reverting me on 7 occasions, and that the only problem is that you so happened to have been INVOLVED. I can understand AGF is difficult towards someone like me who has received many blocks, but this is a bit too much suspicions; the edits are not problematic (non-compliant with policies), even if you disagree with them. Veverve (talk) 19:01, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

For the records, my answer was to the previous version of AlisonW's statement. Veverve (talk) 21:01, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

Statement by SportingFlyer

I drove by this on AN/I and I really don't think it rises to the level necessary of arbitration. AlisonW has never made any other edits to any of the pages where the reversion took place apart from a single minor edit to one page back in 2009 and has only made two other blocks in their history as an administrator, and appeared to be responding to what appeared to be possible vandalism, or removal of large swathes of material over a number of different pages, by a user with a block history. It doesn't appear to me to be trying to win a content discussion or to be retaliatory. I understand it takes very little to be WP:INVOLVED, but at the same time don't understand why we're at Arbcom for this. SportingFlyer T·C 17:55, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

I'm just going to reply again having read AlisonW's version now stored in history that I respectfully disagree with those asking to remove the mop. I'm again not implying that there wasn't a problem here that needed to be discussed, but this whole thing still seems patently ridiculous to me. SportingFlyer T·C 20:34, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

Statement by AndyTheGrump

It needs to be noted that there were issues beyond the block itself raised during the WP:AN discussion. As per Tamzins initial post there, around the time of the block AlisonW also made a series of reverts of edits made by Veverve, in what gives a strong appearance of being retribution. A cursory examination of the reverts made seems quite sufficient to determine that there was no policy-based justification for this wholesale action, and that her suggestion that she was reverting 'vandalism' was so far from any reasonable understanding of the term as to be untenable. To the contrary, it seems likely that in some cases at least, the material that Ververve had removed was clearly non-policy-compliant, and should not have been restored at all. Of the remainder, nothing justified immediate revert, rather than normal process to resolve a content dispute between experienced contributors. The use of admin tools to settle content disputes is, needless to say, not approved behaviour. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:16, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

I note that even now, after receiving advice from many experienced editors and admins, AlisonW still seems insistent on describing Veverve's edits as "many cases of deletion vandalism". [3] This is so utterly at odds with what has been well-established policy for many years (dating back to before AlisonW became an admin, contrary to her assertion that policy has changed) [4]) that I cannot see any other option than a de-sysop. This isn't a difference of opinion over policy, it is contempt for it. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:34, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

One last comment here, concerning AlisomW's revised statement above, [5] given after even more wise council from other contributors: I Quote "I looked carefully at [Veverve's] history and it appeared to me to fit someone deleting to push their POV. I did not look at the content of the edits I reverted this was an administrative action about mass deletions. I can think of absolutely no circumstances where going through an experienced contributor's edit history looking for deletions, and restoring them without inspection could be described as 'administrative action'. The word that comes to mind instead is 'reckless'. Even if Veverve had been engaging in 'deletion vandalism' (for which the evidence seems sparse, to say the least), to assume that everything deleted was 'vandalism' is absurd. One could, I suppose not take AlisonW's statement literally, and assume instead that what she meant was that she didn't look at the deleted material in any great depth, rather than not looking at it at all, but that would be only marginally less absurd, in my opinion. That would be justifiable only if based on the premise that deleting anything that appears related to an article's topic constitutes vandalism. Possibly, somewhere, there is an online encyclopaedia that works that way, but Wikipedia doesn't. It never has. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:20, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

Statement by Black Kite

It is very clear from the ANI discussion that not only does AlisonW not understand WP:INVOLVED, but she doesn't understand WP:VAND either, and has made a block which violates both of those. Now that's one thing, but in the ANI discussion she has continued to insist that her actions were correct. She appears to believe that anyone removing material from an article is some type of vandal, even if that material is completely unsourced (or, in one case mentioned at the discussion, a BLP violation). She also believes that her reverting that material (even if it is unsuitable) does not make her INVOLVED, even though it clearly does - that's not a difficult concept, which makes me wonder about WP:CIR.

Alison's user page contains the quote ...editing the content in order to increase that record of knowledge is and will always be far more important than getting hung up on 'process' and 'policy'. The only policy that matters is to *add useful stuff*... which is obviously (a) nonsense and (b) proof that she does not understand our notability and sourcing requirements. As I said at the ANI, AlisonW claimed that she blocked the user because it was clear that there are problems with that user imposing their personal beliefs on WP content but appears to be utterly incapable of being able to see that she blocked them for exactly the same reason; because their actions conflicted with her personal beliefs on WP content.

When asked during the ANI "Given the benefit of hindsight, is there anything you would do differently with this situation ... is there anything you might handle differently in the future?", AlisonW responded not kicked the hornet's nest! which is pretty much proof that she doesn't appear to believe she has done anything wrong here ... which is frankly unbelievable. An admin that is so clearly clueless about so many facets of admin behaviour cannot be allowed to remain as an administrator. We have here, yet again, a "legacy admin" (in this case promoted by 25 people in 2004) who thinks they are untouchable because they've been here for nearly 20 years, but hasn't bothered to actually keep up to date with current policy. Her last block, apart from a couple of vandals in 2021, was in 2012 - yes, 11 years ago.

This shouldn't take ArbCom too long; I think this can be dealt with via motion. Black Kite (talk) 18:29, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

• @GeneralNotability and Deepfriedokra: I believe your question has already been asked and answered, and appears in the ANI and in my third paragraph above. Black Kite (talk) 18:57, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
• From Alison's comments - I did not look at the content of the edits I reverted this was an administrative action about mass deletions. You always look at what you are reverting - always. By restoring it you are owning the content and if it is problematic (whether unsourced, copyright violation or BLP issue) then it is your problem. Again, this is a competency issue. Black Kite (talk) 07:29, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

Statement by Trey Maturin

The community – and to some extent ArbCom itself – have decided to judge WP:INVOLVED very broadly. This puts a tripwire in front of our admins, because they may not, in an individual case, judge themselves as involved when the community would do so.

And that's fine: human beings humaning.

In those cases, the community expects another admin to give the admin in question a light tap on the shoulder and tell them that they've tripped over that wire. If that is ignored or doesn't work, that matter goes to one of the two big dramaboards, where admins (mainly) and the rest of the community weight in.

At that point the erring admin can take the community's temperature. Perhaps the hand on the shoulder was wrong, perhaps it was right. Admins are appointed in part because we trust them to be able to judge consensus, and this should be no different (albeit emotionally harder).

The community spoke: this block was wrong.

The admin's only course of action at that point was to apologise and promise to be more careful in future. Drama over. Away everybody goes. If anybody is still unhappy, they're the ones left holding the stick.

The one thing an admin must not do, not ever, not for any reason, is try to get off on a technicality. Providing links to essays, or even selective quotations from them, is something we don't accept from anybody when they're faced with a consensus decision on any matter. We call it wikilawyering and we collectively have a poor tolerance for it.

All admins know this.

AlisonW at first ignored the discussion entirely. Then they belittled it as them having accidentally whacked a hornet's nest. Then they wikilawyered across several posts to finger wag at the community about how various essays and selected sentences of policy mean that consensus does not apply to them.

This will not do. If they sincerely believe that they can get away from community consensus in a collaboratively edited encyclopedia by quoting technicalities, then they should not be administering said project. If they don't believe this, why have they let this matter get this far?

I urge the committee to accept this case, noting that the community is not empowered to desysop someone – that task has been delegated to ArbCom – and there were clear signs, that AlisonW was aware of, that there was a community consensus building for the removal of their tools. — Trey Maturin™ 18:37, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

@Kashmiri: The edit you refer to, from 2016, was one of several by someone who briefly compromised their account (and a number of others at the same time; this was just the biggest fish they netted). As such, I’d hesitate to say it counts here in any way, unless you have evidence that the account is compromised at the moment? — Trey Maturin™ 20:50, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

@AlisonW: The logical final sentence of your now-reverted statement about how much you have done for Wikipedia and how much we should all be grateful to you and how friendly you are with Jimbo and the like was "...and therefore I resign my +sysop rights for the greater good of the project", which would bring this drama to an end and allow you to walk away with dignity without affecting the very important work with the Foundation that you say you do. If that sentence could be factored in to your revised statement, the majority of the people here, I believe, would be grateful and impressed. Thanks. — Trey Maturin™ 20:35, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

Statement by Deepfriedokra

Echoing GN's question below, @AlisonW: knowing what you know now, what would you have done differently if you could do it over? What have you learned? How has your thinking changed? Best -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 18:51, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

@Black Kite: Here's hoping for a happy improvement. We've seen how these things have gone recently. There's a small and shrinking opportunity here. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 19:11, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

Still hoping for a response that shows accountability and a willingness to learn and the ability to not repeat the mistake. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 15:03, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

@AndyTheGrump: Or I was. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 15:05, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

Reply from Secretlondon moved to own section. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 18:23, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

I never judge, I do hope for understanding. My remark was concerned with the lack of understanding pointed out by Andy in Alison's timely response. And, Secretlondon, from what I've seen, your work is always superb. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 08:35, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

I for one appreciate the good things AlisonW has done over the years. However, those good things need not require the three buttons. The three buttons are not a reward, they are a heavy responsibility that requires continual self monitoring in their use. We all make mistakes; we must all take care to deal with our mistakes when we make them. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 08:41, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

What @TheresNoTime and Tamzin: said. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 16:31, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

FWIW, per Primefac's analysis, I think a formal warning will suffice. Including specific expectations for the future. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 13:57, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

Statement by Seraphimblade

The primary issue here is not that AlisonW made a bad block (though she did), or even that she made it while clearly involved (though she was). Everyone makes an error in judgment from time to time, and it is unreasonable to expect otherwise.

What it is reasonable to expect, though, and what did not happen here, is that when that happens, the person who made the error, when faced with a community consensus that they screwed up, will learn from their mistake and try to do better going forward. That's the reason we're here at ArbCom. Had AlisonW just said "Looks like I made a bad call here, I'll do better next time", things would have ended there. Instead, AlisonW made a series of statements with the underlying theme that, in essence, she was right and everyone who has said otherwise is wrong. It was not just making a mistake, it was sticking by that mistake even in the face of a clear consensus that it was the wrong thing to do. And that is why I think she has lost the confidence of the community to continue to serve as an administrator. I know she's lost mine. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 18:54, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

Statement by North8000

A thorough statement would be long and echo what Ad Orientem, Tamzin, Andy TheGrump, Black Kite and Seraphhimblade said, so instead I'll just say "per them" and add to that. The main issue isn't a bad block or wp:involved violation, it's the astounding lack of knowledge of policy, how it applies, and how an admin operates shown in the discussions and lack of discussions. Nothing against them or their intentions, but there's no way that someone in that place should be operating as an admin. IMO a nice friendly handling by motion is all that's needed. North8000 (talk) 19:27, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

I.E. remove the tools by motion and thank her for her service. North8000 (talk) 21:12, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

This would just mean that she would be in the good company of the 99.998% of editors who are not admins. North8000 (talk) 18:57, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

Statement by caeciliusinhorto

Briefly, two points which have not yet been made:

• In the original AN discussion, @Wbm1058: suggests that AlisonW's response that in hindsight she "wouldn't have kicked the hornet's nest" is evidence that in future she wouldn't do this again, and therefore Arb involvement is not necessary. Given that there are still ongoing concerns that she does not actually understand what it is that people think she did wrong, and her understanding of WP:VAND and WP:INVOLVED are fundamentally at odds with the wider community, I am unconvinced that this is sufficient. If AlisonW had given any sort of indication that she understood what she was committing to not doing again in the AN thread, I do not think we would be here already. Even at this late stage she still has the chance to understand what the community is concerned about and convince people that she's not likely to do it again.
• Wbm in the AN thread and @SportingFlyer: in this case request have both suggested that this doesn't rise to the level of needing arbitration. However, in the case of tool misuse there aren't really any other options. Unlike issues with civility or disruptive editing, standard remedies available to the community such as partial blocks, topic bans and interaction bans do not address the problem of misuse of tools. If an administrator refuses to accept that they were in the wrong and the community are not convinced that they will not misuse admin tools again, the only options available to us are to refer the matter to ArbCom or indefinitely block them. Referral to ArbCom for potential desysopping is the less severe measure here, which in accordance with WP:NOTPUNITIVE is appropriate. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 19:12, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
  • I see Primefac has already mentioned it, but I wanted to explicitly say that I am encouraged by AlisonW's reply to me on her talkpage. I still think that ArbCom has to do something here, but I'm glad I'm not the one who has to decide what! I'm not 100% convinced of the necessity or desirability of a full case; given that AlisonW has only a little over 100 edits this year, and her last 500 go back to January 2020 at time of writing, I don't know how useful any past evidence could be in proving or disproving whether this is an isolated mistake or part of a pattern, and I don't think anyone disputes the basic facts of the case as summed up in Tamzin's initial AN post.
    I would like to be able to say that AlisonW has clearly demonstrated that she understands her mistake and won't do it again, and a motion to warn on the TimWi model is clearly sufficient; I am unfortunately not that confident. Nor, however, do I think that she has so totally failed to show any reflection that I can simply call for the Arbs to desysop by motion and be done with it. On the gripping hand, I agree with the three arbs who have voted so far that the compromise of a blocking restriction is a non-starter, and I can't come up with any better compromise to suggest myself. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 15:58, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

Statement by SarekOfVulcan

I am sympathetic to AlisonW's declaration that she wasn't WP:INVOLVED, and was only acting to remove what she perceived as damage to the encyclopedia. However, I agree that some of the later discussion is very concerning, and calls for further review of some kind.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:07, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

Statement by Kashmiri

The case is rather straightforward. AlisonW:

• has misused the tools
• has demonstrated her ignorance of policies
• has refused to get the point

These are not qualities the community seeks in an admin, and I see no defence here. Therefore, I support the ArbCom taking up this case.

Learning from this, we might like to consider automatic desysopping of users who have performed no admin activity for, say, three years. AlisonW has not done any admin action for, like, 10 years, which clearly means that she has no need for the tools.

Besides, I recommend removing advanced user rights from her account to prevent this type of weird stuff. — kashmīrī ^TALK 20:36, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

• Thanks, @Trey Maturin, for explaining this stuff. I'm crossing my last sentence out. — kashmīrī ^TALK 20:55, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

• OK, so now regarding AlisonW's response. AlisonW tries hard to justify her actions, which obviously backfires and is seen as digging in.

My impression is that:

1. AlisonW does not seem to understand what Wikipedia defines as WP:VANDALISM,
2. AlisonW does not seem to understand what Wikipedia defines as WP:INVOLVED,
3. AlisonW does not seem to understand that an account with 50,000+ edits over nearly 5 years is extremely unlikely to be a vandal and, barring exceptional circumstances, should never be blocked without an attempt to engage (e.g., through a series of talk page warnings) – relevant policies are aplenty,
4. AlisonW does not seem to understand that her claim of undoing POV pushing and musings about WP:TRIVIA, directly contradict her other claim – that she did not look at the content,
5. AlisonW does not seem to understand that the only reverts that can arguably be called administrative actions, as opposed to content actions, are WP:BANREVERT,
6. AlisonW does not appear to know that as the blocking admin of a long-standing user she should be more readily available for a discussion on her actions.

Worst of all, all of this has been already said one way or another, yet AlisonW still appears unable to get the point.

To make it clear, relevant policies (including esp. WP:BLOCK) haven't changed substantially in the last 10 years at least, and so her putting a blame on "current policies" sounds weird, because admins are expected to stay abreast of current policies. This was already the case in 2011, in the context of her other equally controversial blocking action.

I now see two questions that need to be answered:

• Is the Wikipedia project benefitting from AlisonW continuing to have administrative rights?
• Can the community trust AlisonW's knowledge and judgment as an admin?

To me, the answer to both is, unfortunately, a resounding No. — kashmīrī ^TALK 08:33, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

Statement by Banedon

We *really* should turn WP:Anchoring into a blue link and apply it to RFARs. Banedon (talk) 00:50, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

Statement by Lourdes

I would suggest/request to the Committee Members to not accept the case before Alison comments here. There is no hurry (of course, reasonable time is not indefinite, but please perhaps wait for a handful of days). I commend Alison for not coming up with a boilerplate apology at ANI and simply walking away with a trout. She came clean about her thoughts -- allowing the community to assess her stand. At the same time, I am confident that she has started coming around to understanding that protecting Wikipedia versus following INVOLVED are not mutually exclusive in the case at hand. Therefore, it would be good to wait for her comment and dismiss this by motion if the Arbcom so deems fit. The Committee has undertaken a similar step many times in the past, when some admins have been involved, but have accepted their violation and apologised. Let's await Alison's comment. Thank you. Lourdes 06:09, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

Given AlisonW's honest statement (she is absolutely honest in revealing, for example, that it's tough for her to apologise to the editor she blocked but she is going ahead to do that... and so on), ArbCom should consider issuing a strong warning by motion and closing the case. She won't do this again. She is significantly positive contributor. Her admin errors of the past are not breaking the internet and are quite in line with errors all admins may make when they spend so much time here. ArbCom should invest time in other important matters where the community would appreciate a clear stand; this one doesn't require too much afterthought. Let her go, and let's get on with doing our stuff on the project. Thanks, Lourdes 07:16, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

Statement by Ritchie333

I've only just noticed this dispute, and I don't think this rises to the level of a case. If AlisonW had dug her heels in and said, "No, the block was absolutely deserved per [reasons]" and stonewalled the rest of the discussion, then arbitration and a potential desysop would be justifiable. As it is, I think Alison is trying to explain their actions and coming up against everyone who is sick to the back teeth of "legacy admins" and how unfair the RfA system is. I'll see if I can have a quiet word myself. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:17, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

Alison has explained herself and given apologies and tried to clarify misunderstandings. That goes far and beyond all the "legacy admin" arb cases I've seen in the past few years. Can we just pause, take a deep breath and double check that a desysop improves the encyclopedia? Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 22:07, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

The parallels with the Timwi case last year are significant. What I said to Timwi then can also apply to AlisonW now. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:29, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

SilkTork "AlisonW was given warnings and advice regarding the block, but sadly did not listen - instead kept attempting to justify the edit warring and the block. As such I have doubts if they would heed this warning." According to the last comment left at AlisonW's talk page, she wrote " I failed to assume [good faith] someone making such major deletions with no explanation in the edit summary might actually be trying to good, and that was wrong of me" which sounds like an expression of remorse and an admission of fault. You could say "too little, too late" but to say Alison has continued to ignore advice doesn't seem entirely fair. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:05, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

Statement by Floq

@SilkTork: Block-Discuss-Unblock is (a) pretty easy to say when you're not the one unfairly blocked, and (b) appears to be what Tamzin tried to do, and AlisonW didn't answer. Veverve was unfairly blocked for a day and a half, had to wait a day to give AlisonW a chance to respond, and you think the solution is being patient and waiting longer? If so, that's crazy. If not, then why bring it up the way you did? Hopefully "just thinking out loud", because if there is one iota of criticism of the unblock in that comment, you're way off base.

While I'm here, I really hate it when an editor (or, worse, an admin) complains people aren't assuming good faith about how they handled an instance of them absolutely not assuming any good faith. (Kind of like when an edit warrior already at 3RR slaps an edit warring template on the talk page of someone who reverted them once. No self-awareness.). Please desysop by motion, AlisonW has demonstrated in her responses so far and unwillingness or inability to listen to feedback, an unwillingness or inability to assume good faith, and no longer has my trust as an admin. There is no longer anything she can say that would restore that faith. --Floquenbeam (talk) 14:53, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

Statement by RoySmith

I'm tempted to suggest arbcom should not accept this because the WP:AN thread fails the last resort, only to be employed when all else has failed criteria. The thread only lasted about a day, with additional issues of it being started at 1AM in Alison's time zone, plus time zone skew between her and most of the other people, plus a technical issue with her email. I suspect that given a bit of time, Alison would have gained clarity. But, human nature being what it is, when faced with an angry mob, it's only natural to be defensive. Sometimes it takes giving the person some breathing room for quiet reflection. They didn't get that at AN, and dragging it here in short order didn't help.

As Ad Orientem said, What's the rush?. There was no ongoing problem which needed to be solved quickly. The block had already been undone. There was no indication that Alison was going to make any additional blocks. I would have much rather seen everybody take a few days to decompress and consider their positions. And maybe a few friendly off-wiki chats with trusted advisors. My guess is if that had happened, this would have been resolved quicker and less acrimoniously.— Preceding unsigned comment added by RoySmith (talk • contribs) 15:12, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

Suspend for a month per TheresNoTime. -- RoySmith (talk) 16:51, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

Statement by Clovermoss

@AlisonW: I was wondering if your definition of vandalism has changed at all? A lot of people mentioned in the AN thread that your interpretations of policy seem to be at odds with the current project and I'm not quite sure you seem to get it based on your initial response. People tend to be a bit touchy about this because admins from way back can sometimes take action(s) that are so at odds with the current project. I was wondering if maybe you could be sympathetic to that position? This includes people who were instrumental to the early days of Wikipedia, even Jimbo isn't excluded from that. That doesn't mean their contributions or any less worthwhile, I think people are generally just concerned about everyone being held to the same standards.

I have been a relatively active editor the past four years or so. Something that immediately came to mind is that if I had misused rollback like you did and continued to define vandalism as good faith content removal after multiple people told me I was making a mistake, I'd likely lose the right. I'm wary that you still don't seem to understand what vandalism is. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 18:51, 14 June 2023 (UTC), edited 01:00, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

@Jc37: In regards to the comparison to rollback, I think you might find Wikipedia:Non-administrator rollback interesting. Before 2008, only administrators could use rollback. Now non-admins (like myself) can do so. Admins can do stuff that non-admins can't do, which is why the trust of the community is so important. Clovermoss🍀 (talk)

Jc37 I was working under the assumption that everyone commenting here knew that non-admins could use rollback but not necessarily that historically it used to be an admin-only userright. Admins tend to be held to higher standards than regular editors, so being an admin is more of a big deal than it used to be since more and more permissions have been unbundled from the toolkit. In this case, I don't see how taking away the technical ability to use rollback or block from an admin would remedy this particular situation since loss of trust/accountability is more of the issue at hand. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 00:31, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

If someone offered admin mentorship to help Alison get up a more current policy understanding, I can see myself being okay with that. People who lose rights like rollback because they misused them can eventually regain them, and in most cases one mistake (even if the initial reaction could've been better) isn't the end of the world, so sure. I think someone mentioned the admin newsletter archives at AN? I think that is a good idea. Other resources likely exist. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 01:02, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

Statement by Dennis Brown

After reading AlisonW's comment (since reverted so she can make it more concise) [6], I think it may be time to simply thank AlisonW for her years of service, but remove the bit. I could opine further, but reading through much of that redacted post is sufficient to demonstrate that we have a sysop that is simply too disconnected from currently expectations. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 19:52, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

Statement by Beyond My Ken

After reading her (now reverted) statement, I concur with Dennis Brown. There's no reason to put this person who has apparently played a significant part in the history of Wikipedia through a full case. Clearly she is no longer conversant with community standards, and therefore shouldn't hold the bit any longer. My preference would be for her to voluntarily give it up, but, failing that, the Committee should desysop by motion, along with the community's thanks for her long service to the project. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:12, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

• @Jc37: I believe that the ability to block is bundled with the admin bit, and unbundling it is beyond the technical capabilities of arbitrators. Further, I think that the unbundling -- which would create a new class of admins -- would first have to be approved by the community and then, if approved, requested of the WMF. I don't think it's within the normal remit of the Arbitration Committee to create this on their own. If I'm wrong about these suppositions, I'd be glad to hear from an Arbitrator or someone more conversant with they technicalities involved. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:32, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
  • @Jc37: Ive been here 18 years, and I don't think I remember ever seeing that admin's name in any context whatsoever, so I wouldn't be overly concerned about the poor manners of an admin desysopped for not doing anything. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:36, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
• FWIW, I urge the Committee to not suspend the case for a month, unless AlisonW is desysopped during that period, as has occured in previous case suspensions. There's really no indication, even at this time, that AlisonW really understands INVOLVED, which could easily lead to further improper actions on her part.
  AlisonW's mention (in her original statement) of her history and relationship with Jimbo in the early days of Wikipedia also reminds me that the Committee just had a case involving him, during which he gave up all his privileges except the (somewhat honorific) "Founder" bit. That decision by Jimbo should be a lesson which AlisonW should take onboard when she considers the number of commenters here who have suggested that she resign the bit voluntarily, thus saving herself and the community a fair amount of angst. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:24, 16 June 2023 (UTC)
• I'm a bit perplexed by the desire of so many arbs to open a full case. This really seems like a very simple matter, with little depth to be explored. If AlisonW's history with the project is as she presents it, it seems to me to be a distinct disservice to her to put her through a month of unnecessary bureaucratic machinations instead of reaching a quick decision. I would urge some of the arbs currently "accepting" a case to review the situation and opt instead for handling the matter by motion. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:46, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

Statement by secretlondon

Comment moved by clerk –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 18:23, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Original comment was a response to Deepfriedokra posted in Statement by Deepfriedokra. Please don't judge me if I ever don't respond within 24 hours. Lots of us have other commitments! Secretlondon (talk) 21:02, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia culture has changed a lot over 20 years. Being an admin used to be "no big deal" and you were just given a mop. Now it is a massive deal, and the early admins are generally resented, or so it seems. I am overly careful as I expect people to jump on me as I became an admin in 2003. I'd like to at least make my 20 year anniversary and I feel the hostility. I am not here every day as I have a full-time job and other commitments. Many of the current admins seem to be here almost full-time. I do also think the community enjoys the pile-on some times, especially when an admin is involved.

I certainly think Alison has mishandled this, however I wouldn't want to be at the end of a mob either. A lot of Wikipedia admin is the SOP, not the written policy. You need to see what the consensus is and how others handle things. You get punishment X for doing crime Y is the SOP, and it's unwritten. You can't just jump in anymore and I'm careful to stick to admin areas I know very well. The community has a problem as it has a shortage of admins but yet it makes it very hard to become one. Perhaps there would be less resentment if being an admin wasn't such a big deal now. Secretlondon (talk) 21:27, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

Statement by jc37

I started to write a statement, but now that I see User:Secretlondon's statement (which I generally agree with), I think I'm going a different route.

We only have the tools for preventative measures that we currently have.

And I think this is one of those cases where having a scalpel instead of an axe might be more beneficial.

I've long been a proponent that there should be a way from Arbcom to be able to remove just the ability to block from admins (instead of having to remove the whole package).

We've long seen that those who are great assessors of content, or who do great gnomish work, may not be as good when assessing behaviour. These are two different talents/abilities that not everyone may possess.

(And noting that, over time, through various discussions, I've also learned that the community feels that block and protect are intertwined together.)

I think that this might well be a situation where Arbcom having the ability to remove block/protect, might well be the solution and not throw the baby out with the bathwater.

From the technology side, this is actually very easy to implement. They just create a separate user group with: block (and blockemail) and protect in it. Only those three user-rights (the developer tools already exist to do this). Then they remove those three tools from the admin/sysop package, and then add the new block/protect package to every admin/sysop.

And if any admin does not want the block/protect tools (through discussion, it was discovered that certain Amish editors, for example, would prefer to not have this ability and may be choosing to not become admins over this), they can request for them to be removed. And also, in situations like this, arbcom can remove the package.

Deletion is nowhere near as controversial. WP:DRV exists, any page can be restored. But blocking happens to a username with a person behind it. I think it's fair to say that the majority of admin-related issues (WP:UNINVOLVED in particular), that hit AN/I, tend to be related to the use of the block tool.

I think that having this option available would make many things much less polarizing for admins and editors.

Do I also think that, instead of torches and pitchforks asking for someone's admin tools to be removed, we'll see those same torches and pitchforks about the block/protect being removed? sure. That side of human nature (unfortunately) is unlikely to change. But maybe, just maybe, it might help reduce things for many other situations.

Anyway, maybe something like this might help admins, like Secretlondon above, to perhaps feel less like the community is just waiting to pounce. No one should be made to feel that way, especially not at a site who wants and needs volunteers for continued growth and sustainability.

And, whether we agree or disagree, this recent statement by someone expressing how they feel, just gives me pause.

We really should find a way to do better, to be better. - jc37 22:19, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

Beyond My Ken - We're here expressing our thoughts and opinions on this situation, and I was expressing mine.

And yes, an RfC would be a way to get consensus for that unbundling (just like other unbundling of tools).

But no, all the current admins would still have the same tools. It would merely be a technical distinction of how the user-rights are grouped is all.

And so no, it's not creating a "new class of admin", at all. This is no different than if we were to remove rollback from the admin tools and every admin received the rollback user-right group. An admin is still an admin with or without a certain tool. - jc37 23:49, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

There are 47,510,054 (45,706,657) users, and 855 (897) admins, on Wikipedia. I'm not surprised that neither you nor I have met them all. (parenthetical number is as of this edit.) - jc37 23:58, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

GeneralNotability - Perhaps, in this case. But I dunno. If AlisonW did not have the ability to block the editor, would we be here? I don't know the answer to that. But I'm thinking that we would not. The nuanced part of WP:UNINVOLVED, that she (presumably) is not seeing (or disagrees with?), seems directly related to blocking after reverting. If this situation was instead an editor using rollback while WP:INVOLVED, we would just talk about removing the user's rollback tool, not any other extra userrights they might have, like template editor or some such. I don't see how this is any different, except that we're all just so used to these tools being grouped together. - jc37 23:49, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

Clovermoss - Thank you very much for your thoughtful note, but I'm very much aware of Rollback being available to non-admins. Hence my comments. - jc37 00:22, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

Clovermoss - I see that you have the following user-rights: rollbacker, extended confirmed user, page mover, new page reviewer, and pending changes reviewer. If, at some point, you were to use rollbacker in a situation where you were involved, we typically would not be having a discussion about whether we trusted you with the other user-rights. The discussion would typically be restricted to just your use of rollbacker while involved. If you were showing to be disruptive in the topic of (picking one out of the air), turnip growing, these days the community or arbcom would consider applying a topic ban, rather than completely banning you from the community.

This is what I meant by using a scalpel and not an axe. We tend to be able to compartmentalize our focus to just merely the actions at hand, and not everything. This is a way that the community seems to be moving. Another example: It is now possible to partially block editors, and not need to fully block them.

What I am talking about would just merely be another example of this.

As I said, I understand that people are so used to the block tool being part of the admin tools package. But that also was the situation with rollbacker. People associated that trust with adminship then too. It took awhile before it was finally split from the admin package. And as I said - whether an admin has rollback or not, they are still an admin. The same goes for block or any other tool. - jc37 01:24, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

Statement by El_C

My read on this incident (and what it further reveals) is that it seems straightforward enough that revoking sysop by Motion is probably the path of least resistance. So I recommend that. The totality of everything that has happened, from the initial my-process-pov-trumps-yours INVOLVED block, to the ignorance and/or contempt for policy in between, and even up to the latest reply.

About that reply: whatever commitment exists to be updated on policy and best practices, when taken in combination with the somewhat muted contrition — it does not fill me with confidence that we won't be back here again in a few years for some other over-combative under-communicative sysop action. I'm sorry if this is harsh, but I think it's best to be blunt and to the point about this.— Preceding unsigned comment added by El C (talk • contribs) 23:51, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

Statement by Cryptic

I get that people want AlisonW to resign "voluntarily", but can y'all stop adding "and later re-RFA after" like there's any possibility she'll pass? That's happened exactly one (1) time, and it took five tries over three and a half years, after a desysopping situation much flimsier than AlisonW's, by an admin much, much more active than her, and in an RFA culture much, much, much more permissive than today's. I get you don't want to put arbcom through the trouble of a case or even a motion, but there's no need to lie to her to make it happen. —Cryptic 01:06, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

...erm, I'm sorry, after checking the data I see it's happened at least two other times. In my defense, both were back in the prehistory of 2006 RFA when we'd promote just about anybody (heck, I'm proof of that), and both those admins were eventually desysopped by arbitration committees again. I'm still relatively sure Everyking 6 is the only successful RFA after an involuntary loss of adminship in remotely modern times. —Cryptic 01:32, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

Statement by A. B.

I believe AlisonW screwed up. At the same time, she's poured heart and soul into the Wikimedia movement for years. She still has a lot to offer, including as a sysop.

I am sensitive to routinely BITE-y admins and normally quicker than most to think they need removal. I don't get that feeling in this case; she doesn't seem temperamentally snappish. I believe she can be rehabilitated.

My sense is that AlisonW's a bit rusty not on the written rules but the often unwritten norms. She must get better at that if she's to remain an admin.

Asking AlisonW to resign and run for RFA in the future is effectively asking her to resign permanently, given the current climate at RfAs.

If ArbCom takes this case, I encourage the members to think creatively about ways to help her rehabilitate her standing and keep all of her tools. This will benefit all of us --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 02:01, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

@TheresNoTime has a great idea - suspend the case for a month. A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 16:38, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

P.S., -- about those "legacy admin" comments. Yes, some admins may be rusty or cranky. Just the same, this language paints a whole cohort of committed volunteers with a subtly pejorative brush. There's value in having people with a long-term perspective on this project. We benefit from a diversity of both old and new blood.

Statement by Pbritti

(edit conflict) As someone who has worked on many articles with Veverve, I noticed the involved nature of this block almost immediately after it occurred and notified AlisonW that the block was likely out of step with policy and norms, after which AlisonW justified the block by claiming significant but good faith content deletion merits a block without appropriate warning. Besides the troubling INVOLVE breach, this thinly veiled swipe–I can see that you have strong views about religion–demonstrate that AlisonW likely does not presently possess the temperament, judgement, or knowledge requisite to be an admin. I would encourage AlisonW to immediately surrender of the admin tools and give a short statement of understanding regarding why the actions were inappropriate. hope that someday soon they might be able to earn !votes from the current Wikipedia community. ~ Pbritti (talk) 02:11, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

Statement by Softlavender

AlisonW's statement here indicates she clearly does not understand WP:VANDALISM. And that she does not understand WP:INVOLVED. Therefore, I believe ArbCom has a duty to investigate her continued suitability for adminship, either via case, motion, or other means. Softlavender (talk) 03:32, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

Addendum: I do not agree on suspending the case for a month. To my knowledge, no such special dispensations have been granted to other ArbCom case reportees, except in the rare case of actual conflicts of time availability. No special dispensations should be given an admin who appears not to understand the fundamentals of adminship and refuses to understand them.

Final note: Desysop is not a lifetime sentence. Any desysopped admin can regain the tools via the standard process of RFA. Softlavender (talk) 03:33, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

Two more observations which I feel are important:

1. AlisonW has continued to falsely maintain that all of Veverve's edits that she reverted (and even edit-warred over) were "deletions, without explanation". The blatant and obvious fact of the matter is that every single edit that Veverve made that Alison reverted had a very clear and explanatory edit summary. Why is no one talking about this -- the fact that an admin is blatantly lying about the facts of the matter?

2. We don't even let editors have or keep Rollback when they don't understand WP:VANDALISM and/or misuse that tool against non-vandalism. By that logic, all the more reason not to let an editor keep the block capability (i.e. the bit) when they do not, and apparently cannot, and apparently refuse to, understand or learn what actually constitutes vandalism -- but instead use their own perceived unilateral definition of vandalism as a rationale to edit-war against and then block a longstanding good-faith non-vandalizing editor.

--Softlavender (talk) 05:26, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

• One minor point: AlisonW, in her statement here and on her talkpage, has used the term "deletion vandalism" (which she also terms "vandalism by deletion") as a rationale for her reverts and edit war. But, to use common parlance, "deletion vandalism" isn't a thing. Good-faith editors make deletions, both large and small, all the time. An edit -- removing, adding, or changing text -- is either WP:VANDALISM or it isn't. And all of Veverve's edits very clearly were not vandalism -- not even close, and they were all explained in edit summaries. Softlavender (talk) 04:44, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

• And with regard to Beyond My Ken's point: While I do think this case is fairly obvious and straightforward and could be handled by motion, at the same time I find that the more I look at the details of it the more egregious the sequence of actions (and also the filee's responses at the AN and this RFAR and her usertalk and Veverve's usertalk) are. It might be worthwhile to have a full log of all those egregious details, for posterity's sake, before taking the step that could more quickly be taken by motion, because persons could say this step should not be taken lightly. After all, in the wake of the FRAMBAN and the T&S diktats, we had a spate of very controversial desysops which sparked protests. Plus, there is apparently more evidence to consider beyond that of the past two weeks. Softlavender (talk) 05:00, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

Statement by TheresNoTime

The last time I posted here at ARC was a low point for me as a Wikipedian (and just generally), so I am minded to extend a significant amount of empathy, perhaps to a fault. I've found, through observation and experience, that an overwhelming number of people saying "you're wrong" often results in one of two outcomes; you agree after some reflection, or you get defensive and double-down immediately.

It takes time to understand what you did wrong when you're sure you are in the right, and calling for immediate reflection in the face of what is probably a confusing situation strikes me now as a little unfair. People react poorly under pressure.

In an ideal world, I'd urge the committee to accept the case as suspended, tell AlisonW to not use the admin tools under any circumstances and reconvene in a month — at which point, AlisonW would have truly had sufficient time to at least begin to understand the situation in which she finds herself. An apology/statement at that point gives everyone the opportunity to approach this in a less pressured manner.

The outcome may still be the same, AlisonW might decide to resign, and the problematic use of admin tools is still "prevented" from reoccurring prior to the case resuming.

Why am I suggesting we extend such a courtesy, when we don't do this for non-admins, or other incidents which find their way to ArbCom? The answer to that is simple; I remember how awful all of this feels, and although entirely deserved in my case, I'm not sure if I can in good conscience not advocate on behalf of allowing room for reflection. — TheresNoTime (talk • they/them) 15:56, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

Statement by Davey2010

Her new statement[7] simply confirms she doesn't appear to understand what VANDALISM or INVOLVED is/are, I was going to comment on how her rollback here was baffling however I'll go step further and say AlisonWs actions (block, rollback, statement deletion) have all been baffling to be honest.

I also find the last parts of her statement troubling;

• "Do I apologise to Veverve? That's more difficult, but yes - There's no difficulty about it - You messed up and inappropriately blocked someone!
• "My apologies also to ArbCom for getting drawn into this - You didn't get drawn in to anything - You got INVOLVED, misunderstood VANDALISIM and blocked someone - Those are your actions so you didn't get drawn into anything.

Anyway this should be accepted and they should be desysopped. –Davey2010^Talk 22:10, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

• I've struck the last comment as per isaacls comment on my talkpage[8] - I think I may of overread that comment so my apologies if I had, Thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 23:51, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

Statement by Thryduulf

Re Cryptic's claims about resysopping, I looked into this a couple of years ago - see User:Thryduulf/What happened after a desysop. In summary, as of February 2021 at least five editors desysopped for cause had successfully regained adminship at RFA most recently MZMcBride in 2009. However between 2015 and February 2021 only three editors desysopped for cause have run at RFA, and none since 2019, so there is insufficient data to say whether someone would or would not be successful if they did stand. Thryduulf (talk) 22:36, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

Statement by Lightburst

I have read about the incidents at AN. I think taking the case here is premature. I share RoySmith's concerns that AN was not allowed to complete and I share Ritchie333s's idea that we should slow down. I would be upset if I was blocked in this manner but I would also not repeatedly delete sections of an article and continue to do so without engaging in dialogue. AlisonW is both administrator and human; and was in a situation where they thought they were protecting content. Anyone who knows my RFA ivotes knows that I think the main duties of an administrator are protecting content and content creators. We do not need to desysop this volunteer who made a mistake. I advocate for admonishing AlisonW and then encouraging them to take a break. I do not think that ArbCom needs to take this case or consider a desysop. Lightburst (talk) 01:11, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

Statement by Robert McClenon (AlisonW)

Sometimes, when a case request has been pending for ArbCom, and the arbitrators or other editors have said that they are waiting or that the arbitrators should wait a while, I have said that it is not necessary for ArbCom to decide the case, only to decide that there may be a case, and that ArbCom should take the case, and accept evidence, and act on the evidence. That is, I have said that ArbCom should make a relatively quick decision to accept the case. With this case request, I will again ask ArbCom to accept the case, but for an almost opposite reason, that they should not act on the case by motion. There is enough evidence to open a case. The case is not so open-and-shut that the ArbCom should take any action by motion except an action to suspend.

There is agreement that AlisonW made a serious mistake, and that she appears to be unfamiliar with numerous concepts that we expect administrators and experienced editors to be familiar with. She has replied, and we should allow her to present her case.

The overly long statement that she made, and that has been deleted and replaced with a shorter statement, should be accepted as part of the record for the case.

There is enough evidence to open a case, but the evidence is not so overwhelming that ArbCom should desysop AlisonW by motion, which would deny her the right to present her case.

Robert McClenon (talk) 07:24, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

Statement by Balph Eubank

I don't see conscious malice in AlisonW's actions, but malice is beside the point. Too often, we are seeing legacy admins make significant errors having lost track of policy and guideline changes over the years (or decades). What matters here is the community has a right to protect the project above the wishes of any one individual, even Jimmy Wales, who I would like to state has willingly given up essentially all of his advanced permissions. I believe that Alison BELIEVES she was doing the right thing here, and what I would really like to see is a similar honorable resignation of the tools. There is nothing stopping her from running a fresh RfA after she has had time to become acquainted with the many updates since she was originally handed the mop. Frankly, I think this would be the best course for her as well, as fighting this and waiting for it to become a full case has a far greater likelihood of drama and hurt feelings. The writing is increasingly on the wall here, especially considering similar recent cases, so why not go on your own terms instead of letting it drag out? - Who is John Galt? ✉ 14:00, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

Statement by Newyorkbrad

I won't opine here on the merits of the case (though my opinion is probably quite predictable to those who know me), but I am uncomfortable that the first vote in favor of the desysopping motion is based on factors including AlisonW's having initially posted a (subsequently shortened) statement on this page that was over the word limit and having posted another comment on this page that was in the wrong place. For those editors who do not frequent the arbitration pages, the special rules for these pages can be unexpected, and I would read absolutely nothing into an editor's being unfamiliar with them. Yes, the rules are recited in the long box of instructions at the top of the page, but that is easy enough to overlook for someone who has not previously participated, much or at all, in the arbitration process—a fact that is probably to her credit. Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:22, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

@AlisonW: Earlier today you added a signature to your section on this page, with no content. Did you mean to post something? If so, it didn't come through, so you should try again. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:19, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

Statement by Paul August

I aggree with NYB's statement above, and would like to underscore just how trivial getting procedural issues wrong on these pages is, and should in no way be a factor in a motion to desysop, or any other sanction which might be considered here. In fact I would agree with AlisonW above that it would seem reasonable to allow the "accussed" considerable leeway as to the length of their response. (Perhaps some sort of specific "rule" change concerning this is called for?) Paul August ☎ 16:26, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

Statement by DanCherek

Just noting that AlisonW has replied on her talk page [9] regarding Newyorkbrad's recent query, saying that she intended to write in the edit summary that she "cannot make further replies [here] because I would immediately exceed my permitted wordcount". DanCherek (talk) 19:50, 19 June 2023 (UTC)