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)[reply]

Statement by AlisonW

I acknowledge sight of this filing, which I initially saw referred to in an email to me received at 1am. After reviewing the comments herein I shall present a response. --AlisonW (talk) 10:20, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The events of recent days have proven interesting, and have caused me to reconsider my long relationship with Wikipedia/Media/Foundation and projects, though that will be an essay for elsewhere.

Way back in early 2004 I edited some pages without creating an account. Subsequently in March I made one using a handle I'd used for many years instead of my real name because I'd been subject to repeated and violent Domestic violence and did not want my ex to find me. In the following months I continued editing and was invited to apply for the sysop 'bit'. In the process applicable at that time - WP still being very small and early in its life with limited existing administrators - I was successful in that application, the period of which encompassed the very first wikimeet where I met a number of other editors and Jimmy Wales for the first time off-wiki. On July 1 was 'promoted'. I note this because whilst current practice is to demand a long and perfect track record from editors seeking adminship that just wasn't possible then (fewer than 250,000 articles!) but it didn't make it "easy". Around this time someone, now a member of the WMF management team, created an article about me although even though there are a number of 'first person to...' about me none of those made it there and it was deleted four years later.

I collaborated closely with User:Danny/User:Dannyisme~enwiki in the Foundation office, often being phoned at night for a discussion on policy (especially around WP:OFFICE such as the Newsmax discussion and User_talk:VampWillow&diff=prev&oldid=51034463#NewsMax.com action) and actions to take (pre-OTRS). Sometimes this resulted in actions which appeared to bring me into disrepute with other admins as we sought to confirm reports about others, and so in March 2005 I created a second account - with the full knowledge of others - under my real name (ie this account) so that I could more easily act on behalf of WP/WMF formally. Danny pointed out the necessity of it also being an admin for practical reasons and actioned that. By February 2008 I felt safe enough in closing my original account and so exercised a 'right to vanish' to quietly close that account without linking it elsewhere in the expectation that it would not be broken subsequently. In the early hours of yesterday, June 13th, it was. sfaiaa that ex is now dead so not an issue.

In May 2006 I was added to the Foundation wiki, and over the succeeding few years made appearances to media on behalf of WP/WM, including substituting for Jimmy at an inter-governmental conference in 2006 and major business conference panels and attending internal meetings, eg. in Frankfurt. In late 2006/early 2007 I was asked whether I would take over the operation of running the Foundation. In 2013-14 I managed the Mozilla wiki ("changed group membership for AlisonW from (none) to administrator, bureaucrat and canmove") and cleared out many hundreds of pages of spam. In the following almost-twenty years I not only created lots of articles and worked on others. As regards en.WP I've never been 'away' though I can see how some would see my gnomic activity levels (edits frequently made without signing in, especially after my account was hacked and I didn't always have the 2FA to hand) but as such I've never actually 'stopped' editing (or checking recent changes), I just don't usually spend hours here every day as I once did. I have always sought to put the best interests of the project to create the world's encyclopaedia and of the Foundation which coordinates it first. Although I've been accused of being a deletionist on occasion I tend more to the view that we should aim to include as much verifiable information as possible; unlike a printed reference work we are not limited in size.

Anyway, I don't say all the above as trying to excuse anything (it definitely does not!) but by way of background as it's clear few other admins still know me. Now let me turn to the reason for the referral to ArbCom as I see it and expand on my replies at AN/I.

1. Last Friday afternoon I was using en.WP to check something about a tv programme I'd been watching, as I and thousands of others do often. Because I was at a 'proper' computer (screens, keyboard) - which I'm not usually - I also looked at my Watchlist and contributions pages which led me to look at [1]. In that I saw what appeared to be substantial (3,813 and 1,506 character) deletions, without explanation.

curprev 2023-03-10T13:59:59‎ Veverve talk contribs block‎ 35,956 bytes −1,506‎ →‎Etymology: Unsourced undothank Tag: Visual edit

curprev 2023-01-19T00:56:02‎ Veverve talk contribs block‎ 37,432 bytes −3,813‎ Undid revision 1134502631 by Veverve (talk) What I meant was: WP:TRIVIA undothank Tags: Undo Mobile edit Mobile app edit Android app edit
curprev 2023-01-19T00:55:24‎ Veverve talk contribs block‎ 41,245 bytes +3,813‎ Undid revision 1134502534 by Veverve (talk) . undothank Tags: Undo Reverted Mobile edit Mobile app edit Android app edit
curprev 2023-01-19T00:54:41‎ Veverve talk contribs block‎ 37,432 bytes −3,813‎ →‎In popular culture: (( undothank Tags: Reverted Mobile edit Mobile app edit Android app edit

2. Looking at what was deleted (diff) which included a whole cross-referenced subsection of the article I believed this was blatant vandalism. When the used concerned RVd the restoration they tried to suggest they'd given an explanation:

Undid revision 1159158124 by AlisonW (talk) I have explained each and every removal. Read my edit summaries and do not act as if I did not explain myself undothank Tags: Undo Reverted

to which I again note that there were none.

3. Because of this I then looked at their user and contributions pages to see if there was a record of such behaviour. The former included a hatnote "This user is no longer active on Wikipedia : I think I have done enough to improve Wikipedia, and that I took too much of my time to write or enhance articles that no one outside of a tiny circle cared about; I might still make minimal edits here and there, because if I do not, no one will." which was clearly completely untrue on the evidence of their contributions page. Their own 'pages created' list though showed that they were enormously invested in religious articles and their contributions page showed that they had a very particular viewpoint which presumed if something wasn't online it didn't exist and that their personal belief mattered. Selected examples from yesterday:

(change visibility) 2023-06-13T21:15:55 diff hist −309‎ Seven deadly sins ‎ →‎Confession patterns: unsourced, and as far as I know it is also false thank Tag: Visual edit 
(change visibility) 2023-06-13T21:43:19 diff hist −743‎ Seven deadly sins ‎ →‎Christian seven virtues: this is a huge over-interpretation! thank Tag: Visual edit
(change visibility) 2023-06-13T21:42:50 diff hist −864‎ Seven deadly sins ‎ →‎Christian seven virtues: very old source that cannot speak for how things are now thank Tag: Visual edit 
(change visibility) 2023-06-14T16:23:44 diff hist −653‎ Reformation Day ‎ →‎Centenary: citation never provided thank Tag: Visual edit
(change visibility) 2023-06-14T16:22:22 diff hist −1,128‎ Reformation Day ‎ →‎Lutheran church: pure OR and (POV?) speculations thank Tag: Visual edit 
change visibility) 2023-06-13T17:16:25 diff hist −1,520‎ Écône consecrations ‎ →‎Excommunications: unclear what is quoted and where, the source also cannot be found online to check thank Tag: Visual edit

4. Because of this apparent pattern of deletions I looked at their talk page, and noted previous blocks[2], "Edit warring ON Russian fascism (ideology)", "Edit warring, see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Pisarz12345: violation of WP:BURDEN, says I am "blind", answers the same one-liner", "Edit warring: resumed edit warring immediately after block ended", "Disruptive editing: Harassment- pinging and arguing with other editors while blocked", "Disruptive editing: Harassment- pinging and arguing with other editors while blocked; reinstating TPA, to be used *only* for the purpose of an unblock appeal", "Violation of the three-revert rule at Heresy in the Catholic Church based on a report at WP:AN3". I thus felt justified in blocking them for the same period as their previous block by User:Bbb23, being for one month.

5. Did I rush to judgement in making this block? I don't believe so. I looked carefully at their history and it appeared to me to fit someone deleting to push their POV. However see further comments below.

6. Did I look at the content of the edits I reverted? No. I was treating the whole thing as an administrative action and making no judgement on the quality or content of the articles; this was about mass deletions. I am uninterested in the subject matter concerned here.

7. Did I follow current policy on such matters? No, and for which I deeply apologise. Because it appeared to me to be so blatant I ignored other aspects. I also forgot to put a notification on their talk page, which I've since apologised for.

8. Would I do the same again? Depends on circumstances but almost certainly not in the same way. Vandalism by way of deletion, especially of whole sections, has been common on wikis everywhere by the nature of open editing and doing such a direct revert would not be my choice in the future.

9. Do I consider myself 'involved' in the original article which spiked my interest. Difficult. I had minimal 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.

10. Re Statement by Ad Orientem: I was not "slow to join", I'm just not online 24/7 and most access is via mobile wherein I often don't see everything. It also transpired that the email address recorded for me on the system had become inaccurate (my tld had changed from .com to .uk so mea culpa)

11. Re Statement by Tamzin: "after a business day, AlisonW had not responded" - we clearly do 'business' on different days. This was at a weekend.

12. Re Statement by Veverve: "The admin also violated what the WP:TRIVIA policy says". The one-line comment on my talk page didn't change the fact that the section deleted by them was not, in fact, 'trivia', including not by the definition of that page. It was referenced and well-linked substantial content. Despite the furore over its existence I note it is still extant and continues to be edited by others.

13. Re Statement by Black Kite: Am I too flippant? Yes. My "kicking the hornet's nest" was an attempt to reflect on The_Girl_Who_Kicked_the_Hornets'_Nest and information/mis-information. Clearly it was misplaced, sorry.

14. Re Statement by Trey Maturin it seems I'm damned if I do and damned it I don't. Calling it wikilawyering when someone tries to explain their position seems odd, especially when others are quoting policy too. The ultimate in 'ymmv' though.

15. Re Statement by Kashmiri stating "AlisonW has not done any admin action for, like, 10 years, which clearly means that she has no need for the tools." is incorrect. I use many of the tools regularly, although I accept that more than a few have now been separated out from the single flag that used to be in operation. And yes, my account was one of many WMF-affiliated accounts to get hacked with the result that 2FA became available. Good is that it's now secure, bad that I can't always access the 2FA element so edits get made without logging in. Even then we can't stop [3] impersonation attempts].

16. Re Statement by Ritchie333 I concur with the "coming up against everyone who is sick to the back teeth of 'legacy admins'" but would suggest we are just 'wiki elders'. There's nothing 'legacy' about us except, possibly, that we created this place and will leave a legacy of a massive online encyclopaedia to the world when we die. I acknowledge though that it means our longevity here makes it more likely we will respond to events in the way we learnt to early on and not as current procedures dictate, for which I again apologise. That probably did give some impression of 'digging my heels in', though it wasn't meant to, especially since I no longer wear heels since breaking my ankle.

17. Re Statement by RoySmith yes, indeed, time zones are a nuisance. One reason I got closely involved with the WMF office was the time difference was beneficial to them but at other times, like now, it can lead to misunderstandings. It is never good to rush things. In the case of this page I waited until others had made their statements and the page appeared to settle.

18. Re comment by GeneralNotability "I'm interested to see whether the answer changes given the escalation to ArbCom": that a different level of 'process' is now involved is naturally going to make some difference, however these events appear to me (though obviously not to others) to have been about misunderstandings. In the AN/I discussion the comment "I have no idea whether this was ever actually Wikipedia policy, but it isn't now" is apposite. imho policy shouldn't overrule logic, "Redlinks are NOT a reason for deletion, they are reason to create an article" is still a valid position though I've never said it was a formalised policy. That the opposite now seems to be the case greatly saddens me.

I hope my commentary and replies above clarify the situation as I saw it at that time. 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, 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 involvement with en.WP and the WMF has been long, involved, and expensive in both money and time. I'm glad I've been around and, whilst I am not going to disappear, I might reconsider my level of involvement currently vis-a-vis the amount of time I have available. I thank those who have written to me privately and appreciate their comments. My apologies also to ArbCom for getting drawn into this. --AlisonW (talk) 17:58, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

@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. [4] -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 19:45, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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". [5] 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) [6]) 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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.

Statement by {Non-party}

Other editors are free to make relevant comments on this request as necessary. Comments here should address why or why not the Committee should accept the case request or provide additional information.

AlisonW: Clerk notes

This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).

AlisonW: Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter <0/0/0>

Vote key: (Accept/decline/recuse)

A question for AlisonW: what have you taken away from the AN/I discussion about your block? GeneralNotability (talk) 17:46, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Black Kite, I did see that response (but I do appreciate you flagging it for me). I'm interested to see whether the answer changes given the escalation to ArbCom. GeneralNotability (talk) 20:36, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm concerned by what I'm seeing here, and will be interested to hear AlisonW's point of view. In addition, @Veverve would you mind giving your thoughts on this edit in relation to the Bold, Revert, Discuss cycle and dispute resolution? Worm^TT(talk) 13:49, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Waiting for a fuller response from AlisonW. Meanwhile, I feel that what User:Jc37 and User:Ritchie333 have done - reached out and talked helpfully and respectfully to AlisonW, is a good example of what we should all strive to do. When things are borderline or dubious or might be a mistake, then consider talking rather than blocking or reporting, and have patience - within reason - when waiting for a response. If there is no response, then it is generally better in non-obvious cases to seek other opinions before using admin tools. I tend to think that Bold, Revert, Discuss is somewhat misused, and should be Bold, Discuss, Agree. If we use the words Block, Unblock, Discuss, there is perhaps more clarity that the discuss should come in the middle rather than the end of the cycle: Block, Discuss, Unblock. That kinda makes more sense. If we talked to each other more, and shared more information, we would likely have fewer problems and less stress. SilkTork (talk) 14:09, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 32: / Line 32: @@
 === Statement by AlisonW ===
 I acknowledge sight of this filing, which I initially saw referred to in an email to me received at 1am. After reviewing the comments herein I shall present a response. --[[User:AlisonW|AlisonW]] ([[User talk:AlisonW|talk]]) 10:20, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
+The events of recent days have proven interesting, and have caused me to reconsider my long relationship with Wikipedia/Media/Foundation and projects, though that will be an essay for elsewhere.
+[[File:20040605-jimbo-sermononmount.jpg|thumb|right]]
+Way back in early 2004 I edited some pages without creating an account. Subsequently in March I made one using a handle I'd used for many years instead of my real name because I'd been subject to repeated and violent [[Domestic violence]] and did not want my ex to find me. In the following months I continued editing and was invited to apply for the sysop 'bit'. In the process applicable at that time - WP still being very small and early in its life with limited existing administrators - I was successful in that application, the period of which encompassed the very first [[Wikipedia:Meetup/London 1|wikimeet]] where I met a number of other editors and [[Jimmy Wales]] for the first time off-wiki. On July 1 was 'promoted'. I note this because whilst current practice is to demand a long and perfect track record from editors seeking adminship that just wasn't possible then (fewer than 250,000 articles!) but it didn't make it "easy". Around this time someone, now a member of the WMF management team, created [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Undelete&target=Alison+Wheeler&timestamp=20080118170858 an article] about me although even though there are a number of 'first person to...' about me none of those made it there and it was deleted four years later.
+I collaborated closely with [[User:Danny]]/[[User:Dannyisme~enwiki]] in the Foundation office, often being phoned at night for a discussion on policy (especially around [[WP:OFFICE]] such as the [https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2006-April/020080.html Newsmax] discussion and [[User_talk:VampWillow&diff=prev&oldid=51034463#NewsMax.com action]]) and actions to take (pre-OTRS). Sometimes this resulted in actions which appeared to bring me into disrepute with other admins as we sought to confirm reports about others, and so in March 2005 I created a second account - with the full knowledge of others - under my real name (ie this account) so that I could more easily act on behalf of WP/WMF formally. Danny pointed out the necessity of it also being an admin for practical reasons and actioned that. By February 2008 I felt safe enough in closing my original account and so exercised a '[[Wikipedia:Courtesy vanishing|right to vanish]]' to quietly close that account without linking it elsewhere in the expectation that it would not be broken subsequently. In the early hours of yesterday, June 13th, it was. sfaiaa that ex is now dead so not an issue.
+In May 2006 I was added to the [https://foundation.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Alison_Wheeler Foundation wiki], and over the succeeding few years made appearances to media on behalf of WP/WM, including substituting for Jimmy at [[Belgo-British Conference|an inter-governmental conference]] in 2006 and major business conference panels and attending internal meetings, eg. in Frankfurt. In late 2006/early 2007 I was asked whether I would take over the operation of running the Foundation. In 2013-14 I managed the [https://wiki.mozilla.org Mozilla wiki] (''"changed group membership for AlisonW from (none) to administrator, bureaucrat and canmove"'') and cleared out many hundreds of pages of spam. In the following almost-twenty years I not only created lots of articles and worked on others. As regards en.WP I've never been 'away' though I can see how some would see my gnomic activity levels (edits frequently made without signing in, especially after my account was hacked and I didn't always have the 2FA to hand) but as such I've never actually 'stopped' editing (or checking recent changes), I just don't usually spend hours here every day as I once did. I have always sought to put the best interests of the project to create the world's encyclopaedia and of the Foundation which coordinates it first. Although I've been accused of being a deletionist on occasion I tend more to the view that we should aim to include as much verifiable information as possible; unlike a printed reference work we are not limited in size.
+Anyway, I don't say all the above as trying to excuse anything (it definitely does not!) but by way of background as it's clear few other admins still know me. Now let me turn to the reason for the referral to ArbCom as I see it and expand on my replies at AN/I.
+. Last Friday afternoon I was using en.WP to check something about a tv programme I'd been watching, as I and thousands of others do often. Because I was at a 'proper' computer (screens, keyboard) - which I'm not usually - I also looked at my Watchlist and contributions pages which led me to look at [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Metatron&action=history]. In that I saw what appeared to be substantial (3,813 and 1,506 character) deletions, without explanation.
+ <pre>curprev 2023-03-10T13:59:59‎ Veverve talk contribs block‎ 35,956 bytes −1,506‎ →‎Etymology: Unsourced undothank Tag: Visual edit</pre>
+ <pre>curprev 2023-01-19T00:56:02‎ Veverve talk contribs block‎ 37,432 bytes −3,813‎ Undid revision 1134502631 by Veverve (talk) What I meant was: WP:TRIVIA undothank Tags: Undo Mobile edit Mobile app edit Android app edit
+curprev 2023-01-19T00:55:24‎ Veverve talk contribs block‎ 41,245 bytes +3,813‎ Undid revision 1134502534 by Veverve (talk) . undothank Tags: Undo Reverted Mobile edit Mobile app edit Android app edit
+curprev 2023-01-19T00:54:41‎ Veverve talk contribs block‎ 37,432 bytes −3,813‎ →‎In popular culture: (( undothank Tags: Reverted Mobile edit Mobile app edit Android app edit</pre>
+. Looking at what was deleted ([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Metatron&diff=1134502722&oldid=1134502631 diff]) which included a whole cross-referenced subsection of the article I believed this was blatant vandalism. When the used concerned RVd the restoration they tried to suggest they'd given an explanation:
+ <pre>Undid revision 1159158124 by AlisonW (talk) I have explained each and every removal. Read my edit summaries and do not act as if I did not explain myself undothank Tags: Undo Reverted</pre>
+to which I again note that there were none.
+. Because of this I then looked at their user and contributions pages to see if there was a record of such behaviour. The former included a hatnote ''"This user is no longer active on Wikipedia : I think I have done enough to improve Wikipedia, and that I took too much of my time to write or enhance articles that no one outside of a tiny circle cared about; I might still make minimal edits here and there, because if I do not, no one will."'' which was clearly completely untrue on the evidence of their contributions page. Their own 'pages created' list though showed that they were enormously invested in religious articles and their contributions page showed that they had a very particular viewpoint which presumed if something wasn't online it didn't exist and that their personal belief mattered. Selected examples from yesterday:
+<pre>(change visibility) 2023-06-13T21:15:55 diff hist −309‎ Seven deadly sins ‎ →‎Confession patterns: unsourced, and as far as I know it is also false thank Tag: Visual edit
+(change visibility) 2023-06-13T21:43:19 diff hist −743‎ Seven deadly sins ‎ →‎Christian seven virtues: this is a huge over-interpretation! thank Tag: Visual edit
+(change visibility) 2023-06-13T21:42:50 diff hist −864‎ Seven deadly sins ‎ →‎Christian seven virtues: very old source that cannot speak for how things are now thank Tag: Visual edit
+(change visibility) 2023-06-14T16:23:44 diff hist −653‎ Reformation Day ‎ →‎Centenary: citation never provided thank Tag: Visual edit
+(change visibility) 2023-06-14T16:22:22 diff hist −1,128‎ Reformation Day ‎ →‎Lutheran church: pure OR and (POV?) speculations thank Tag: Visual edit
+change visibility) 2023-06-13T17:16:25 diff hist −1,520‎ Écône consecrations ‎ →‎Excommunications: unclear what is quoted and where, the source also cannot be found online to check thank Tag: Visual edit</pre>
+. Because of this apparent pattern of deletions I looked at their talk page, and noted previous blocks[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log/block&page=User%3AVeverve], "Edit warring ON Russian fascism (ideology)", "Edit warring, see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Pisarz12345: violation of WP:BURDEN, says I am "blind", answers the same one-liner", "Edit warring: resumed edit warring immediately after block ended", "Disruptive editing: Harassment- pinging and arguing with other editors while blocked", "Disruptive editing: Harassment- pinging and arguing with other editors while blocked; reinstating TPA, to be used *only* for the purpose of an unblock appeal", "Violation of the three-revert rule at Heresy in the Catholic Church based on a report at WP:AN3". I thus felt justified in blocking them for the same period as their previous block by [[User:Bbb23]], being for one month.
+. Did I rush to judgement in making this block? I don't believe so. I looked carefully at their history and it appeared to me to fit someone deleting to push their POV. However see further comments below.
+. Did I look at the content of the edits I reverted? No. I was treating the whole thing as an administrative action and making no judgement on the quality or content of the articles; this was about mass deletions. I am uninterested in the subject matter concerned here.
+. Did I follow current policy on such matters? No, and for which I deeply apologise. Because it appeared to me to be so blatant I ignored other aspects. I also forgot to put a notification on their talk page, which I've since apologised for.
+. Would I do the same again? Depends on circumstances but almost certainly not in the same way. Vandalism by way of deletion, especially of whole sections, has been common on wikis everywhere by the nature of open editing and doing such a direct revert would not be my choice in the future.
+. Do I consider myself 'involved' in the original article which spiked my interest. Difficult. I had minimal 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.
+. Re ''Statement by Ad Orientem'': I was not "slow to join", I'm just not online 24/7 and most access is via mobile wherein I often don't see everything. It also transpired that the email address recorded for me on the system had become inaccurate (my tld had changed from .com to .uk so mea culpa)
+. Re ''Statement by Tamzin'': "after a business day, AlisonW had not responded" - we clearly do 'business' on different days. This was at a weekend.
+. Re ''Statement by Veverve'': "The admin also violated what the WP:TRIVIA policy says". The one-line comment on my talk page didn't change the fact that the section deleted by them was not, in fact, 'trivia', including not by the definition of that page. It was referenced and well-linked substantial content. Despite the furore over its existence I note it is still extant and continues to be edited by others.
+. Re ''Statement by Black Kite'': Am I too flippant? Yes. My "kicking the hornet's nest" was an attempt to reflect on [[The_Girl_Who_Kicked_the_Hornets'_Nest]] and information/mis-information. Clearly it was misplaced, sorry.
+. Re ''Statement by Trey Maturin'' it seems I'm damned if I do and damned it I don't. Calling it wikilawyering when someone tries to explain their position seems odd, especially when others are quoting policy too. The ultimate in 'ymmv' though.
+. Re ''Statement by Kashmiri'' stating "AlisonW has not done any admin action for, like, 10 years, which clearly means that she has no need for the tools." is incorrect. I use many of the tools regularly, although I accept that more than a few have now been separated out from the single flag that used to be in operation. And yes, my account was one of many WMF-affiliated accounts to get hacked with the result that 2FA became available. Good is that it's now secure, bad that I can't always access the 2FA element so edits get made without logging in. Even then we can't stop [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AAdministrators%27_noticeboard&diff=1159941284&oldid=1159940679] impersonation attempts].
+. Re ''Statement by Ritchie333'' I concur with the "coming up against everyone who is sick to the back teeth of 'legacy admins'" but would suggest we are just 'wiki elders'. There's nothing 'legacy' about us except, possibly, that we created this place and will leave a legacy of a massive online encyclopaedia to the world when we die. I acknowledge though that it means our longevity here makes it more likely we will respond to events in the way we learnt to early on and not as current procedures dictate, for which I again apologise. That probably did give some impression of 'digging my heels in', though it wasn't meant to, especially since I no longer wear heels since breaking my ankle.
+. Re ''Statement by RoySmith'' yes, indeed, time zones are a nuisance. One reason I got closely involved with the WMF office was the time difference was beneficial to them but at other times, like now, it can lead to misunderstandings. It is never good to rush things. In the case of this page I waited until others had made their statements and the page appeared to settle.
+. Re comment by GeneralNotability "I'm interested to see whether the answer changes given the escalation to ArbCom": that a different level of 'process' is now involved is naturally going to make some difference, however these events appear to me (though obviously not to others) to have been about misunderstandings. In the AN/I discussion the comment "I have no idea whether this was ever actually Wikipedia policy, but it isn't now" is apposite. imho policy shouldn't overrule logic, ''"Redlinks are NOT a reason for deletion, they are reason to create an article"'' is still a valid position though I've never said it was a formalised policy. That the opposite now seems to be the case greatly saddens me.
+I hope my commentary and replies above clarify the situation as I saw it at that time. 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, 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 involvement with en.WP and the WMF has been long, involved, and expensive in both money and time. I'm glad I've been around and, whilst I am not going to disappear, I might reconsider my level of involvement currently vis-a-vis the amount of time I have available. I thank those who have written to me privately and appreciate their comments. My apologies also to ArbCom for getting drawn into this. --[[User:AlisonW|AlisonW]] ([[User talk:AlisonW|talk]]) 17:58, 14 June 2023 (UTC)