Case clerks: Amortias ( Talk) & Miniapolis ( Talk) Drafting arbitrators: Worm That Turned ( Talk) & DeltaQuad ( Talk)
Wikipedia Arbitration |
---|
|
Track related changes |
Case opened on 19:02, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
Case dismissed on 14:22, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
Once the case is closed, no edits should be made to this page except by clerks or arbitrators.
|
I’d really rather not do this, but I’m afraid I feel it is necessary for the good of the project. Andrevan is an “old school” admin and bureaucrat, having acquired those rights 13 and 10 years ago respectively. As far as I can personally recall, I first encountered them last year, when they modified a block of mine for no good reason, and I had to resort to an ANI thread to get the settings put back where I had them originally. [3] (They have made a number of blocks since then but at the time this was their first use of the block tool in 3 years, and there was a clear consensus against it upon review)
Their attitude, then, now, and seemingly going forward is that they know they are from the “cowboy admin” days and they are fine with retaining an attitude of shooting first and asking questions later. This is not an acceptable quality for a user with this level of advanced permisssions. Just last week they were topic banned via AE and then almost immediately blocked for violating said ban. Afterwards, as seems to also be part of their pattern, they posted an “unpology” on their talk page and apparently will not allow further discussion of the matter there.
I therefore suggest that when taken in total, this is conduct unbecoming and at the very least Andrevan should be removed as a bureaucrat. As can be seen in the above diffs, they were asked twice to do so voluntarily but have refused. The committee may also wish to consider whether they are fit to be an administrator as well.
To be clear, this request is not based on abuse of ‘crat tools, but rather on poor behavior in general, and misuse of admin tools, specifically in the field of blocking and unblocking, further evidence of this will be presented should the case be accepted, but just as a recent example, see [4]. They blocked an IP indefinitely and only changed the settings after it was explained to them (after 13 years as an admin) that we don’t do that except in the very most extreme cases, as opposed to as a response to three run-of-the-mill vandal edits. Beeblebrox ( talk) 23:58, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
@ Worm That Turned: I get what you’re saying, but I’m probably already in danger of going over my word count. It’s been a while since I was on the other side of this coin, but I figured bombing you all with evidence was what the evidence phase was for and at this point what is looked for is just enough to convince that looking further is something the committee should be doing. I presented the recent debacle, another recent error in basic rules of blocking, and a slightly older one, but a search at noticeboards and/or Andrevan’s own talk page easily produces more that may be relevant. I’m busy most of the rest of today but I could possibly whip up a subpage somewhere detailing other instances if that is desired. Beeblebrox ( talk) 23:12, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
Clerk assistance requested: see talk page. Beeblebrox ( talk) 20:18, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
This filing is without merit. I have already been sanctioned. I edited the article I was banned from for a period of a week in my entire editing history, and I have no problem with complying with the topic ban. The topic ban is the remedy, and it has already been applied. Beeblebrox's diffs do not show misuse of admin tools or violation of policy.
Blocking a vandal-only IP address, or changing block settings aggressively on a spam/COI account, are within normal admin discretion, so long as I am willing to discuss. I always am, I always respond promptly. I have sporadic patterns of editing and I don't always log in for minor stuff, but I never leave a response hanging.
My actions as a blocking admin were clearly in good faith and, where there were errors, they were minor errors that were corrected when they were pointed out. One or two occasions that Beeblebrox doesn't agree with, do not constitute conduct unbecoming or a pattern of abuse of power. I always communicated and was open to discussion or correction when necessary. Per Beeblebrox, "I don't agree with it I but I suppose it falls within the realm of admin discretion." Ponyo and Floquenbeam concurred that I did not violate WP:WHEEL because I was simply making the block settings stronger and not reverting. Further, Beeblebrox did not "have to resort to an ANI thread," the entire discussion was that thread, which existed before my action, and I replied to it.
Regarding the topic ban, I regret my original posts which many people pointed out were not appropriate. This topic is clearly an area where I cannot edit unemotionally. This is my first time being blocked or banned in any way. Not that I deserve special treatment because I am a long-time admin, but because Wikipedia justice is intended to be protective and not punitive. I made a wrong comment, I didn't abuse my powers.
I believe that this filing by Beeblebrox lacks in good faith or recognition of my many positive actions and activities here. It is telling that Beeblebrox believes that my bureaucrat permission should be removed, yet he cites no examples of use of bureaucrat tools.
Beeblebrox says this is not about specific incidents, but about everything "taken as a whole." Yet he does not build a case or substantiate his claims that I am a "cowboy admin" or that I have violated norms, consensus, or policy. He asked me to resign, and I said no, so now we are here. That's not what this page is for, or how things work. The whole is the sum of its parts, and insufficient parts have been provided to assemble anything.
Give the topic ban a chance to work, as it has just been applied and I have agreed to abide by it. There is no long term issue to speak of, and diffs have not been provided of such. This case request should be dismissed. Andrevan @ 07:19, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
Regarding actions involving Trumpian users and disputes, OUTING, etc. Clearly I was wrong there and that won't happen again, as I think I've said already, I apologize for those actions as an editor which were policy-violating and inappropriate, but did not involve tool use. The topic ban should hopefully address that, and my emails to the committee about the private evidence are mainly to explain how I got where I got to. Regarding the old unblocks or admin actions, I stand by them. I stand by both my use of reasonable discretion, and defending myself against criticism, while ultimately allowing the community's will to stand, as I should. Nowhere in our policy does it say that admins or bureaucrats should immediately back down from discretionary action without offering a defense of the action. I'm disappointed in the comments of some that have claimed my past actions were "abuse of power," etc., when they are clearly acceptable uses of discretion. I still think Riceissa should be unblocked, but I have agreed to let the community ban stand. I still think promoting Northamerica1000 was the only reasonable action given his RFA, but I agreed to vacate my close and let another bureaucrat close it to avoid appearing INVOLVED. I stand by my recent BN posts which were intended to support consensus by discussion, which is always better than a bureaucratic process. My comments there were intended to illustrate a principle that I believe is very important, namely, doing the right thing with a minimum of fuss, and I stand by them. I'm disappointed to see Worm Turning, as I found his read of the case astute before, and now I am definitely confused about what the point of ArbCom is and how it pertains to me.
Just want to add that when I say I stand by my old actions, I stand by the fact that I did something, I discussed it, and then I did what the community consensus was to do. I believe I have consistently shown that I follow the consensus. That doesn't mean I can't discuss or defend my action. Andrevan @ 20:34, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
Vote key: (Accept/decline/recuse)
All tallies are based the votes at /Proposed decision, where comments and discussion from the voting phase is also available.
Because Andrevan ( talk · contribs) has resigned as an administrator and a bureaucrat, this case is dismissed. Andrevan may not regain either the administrator or bureaucrat permission without passing a new request for adminship and/or bureaucratship.
Any block, restriction, ban, or sanction performed under the authorisation of a remedy for this case must be logged at Wikipedia:Arbitration enforcement log, not here.
Case clerks: Amortias ( Talk) & Miniapolis ( Talk) Drafting arbitrators: Worm That Turned ( Talk) & DeltaQuad ( Talk)
Wikipedia Arbitration |
---|
|
Track related changes |
Case opened on 19:02, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
Case dismissed on 14:22, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
Once the case is closed, no edits should be made to this page except by clerks or arbitrators.
|
I’d really rather not do this, but I’m afraid I feel it is necessary for the good of the project. Andrevan is an “old school” admin and bureaucrat, having acquired those rights 13 and 10 years ago respectively. As far as I can personally recall, I first encountered them last year, when they modified a block of mine for no good reason, and I had to resort to an ANI thread to get the settings put back where I had them originally. [3] (They have made a number of blocks since then but at the time this was their first use of the block tool in 3 years, and there was a clear consensus against it upon review)
Their attitude, then, now, and seemingly going forward is that they know they are from the “cowboy admin” days and they are fine with retaining an attitude of shooting first and asking questions later. This is not an acceptable quality for a user with this level of advanced permisssions. Just last week they were topic banned via AE and then almost immediately blocked for violating said ban. Afterwards, as seems to also be part of their pattern, they posted an “unpology” on their talk page and apparently will not allow further discussion of the matter there.
I therefore suggest that when taken in total, this is conduct unbecoming and at the very least Andrevan should be removed as a bureaucrat. As can be seen in the above diffs, they were asked twice to do so voluntarily but have refused. The committee may also wish to consider whether they are fit to be an administrator as well.
To be clear, this request is not based on abuse of ‘crat tools, but rather on poor behavior in general, and misuse of admin tools, specifically in the field of blocking and unblocking, further evidence of this will be presented should the case be accepted, but just as a recent example, see [4]. They blocked an IP indefinitely and only changed the settings after it was explained to them (after 13 years as an admin) that we don’t do that except in the very most extreme cases, as opposed to as a response to three run-of-the-mill vandal edits. Beeblebrox ( talk) 23:58, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
@ Worm That Turned: I get what you’re saying, but I’m probably already in danger of going over my word count. It’s been a while since I was on the other side of this coin, but I figured bombing you all with evidence was what the evidence phase was for and at this point what is looked for is just enough to convince that looking further is something the committee should be doing. I presented the recent debacle, another recent error in basic rules of blocking, and a slightly older one, but a search at noticeboards and/or Andrevan’s own talk page easily produces more that may be relevant. I’m busy most of the rest of today but I could possibly whip up a subpage somewhere detailing other instances if that is desired. Beeblebrox ( talk) 23:12, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
Clerk assistance requested: see talk page. Beeblebrox ( talk) 20:18, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
This filing is without merit. I have already been sanctioned. I edited the article I was banned from for a period of a week in my entire editing history, and I have no problem with complying with the topic ban. The topic ban is the remedy, and it has already been applied. Beeblebrox's diffs do not show misuse of admin tools or violation of policy.
Blocking a vandal-only IP address, or changing block settings aggressively on a spam/COI account, are within normal admin discretion, so long as I am willing to discuss. I always am, I always respond promptly. I have sporadic patterns of editing and I don't always log in for minor stuff, but I never leave a response hanging.
My actions as a blocking admin were clearly in good faith and, where there were errors, they were minor errors that were corrected when they were pointed out. One or two occasions that Beeblebrox doesn't agree with, do not constitute conduct unbecoming or a pattern of abuse of power. I always communicated and was open to discussion or correction when necessary. Per Beeblebrox, "I don't agree with it I but I suppose it falls within the realm of admin discretion." Ponyo and Floquenbeam concurred that I did not violate WP:WHEEL because I was simply making the block settings stronger and not reverting. Further, Beeblebrox did not "have to resort to an ANI thread," the entire discussion was that thread, which existed before my action, and I replied to it.
Regarding the topic ban, I regret my original posts which many people pointed out were not appropriate. This topic is clearly an area where I cannot edit unemotionally. This is my first time being blocked or banned in any way. Not that I deserve special treatment because I am a long-time admin, but because Wikipedia justice is intended to be protective and not punitive. I made a wrong comment, I didn't abuse my powers.
I believe that this filing by Beeblebrox lacks in good faith or recognition of my many positive actions and activities here. It is telling that Beeblebrox believes that my bureaucrat permission should be removed, yet he cites no examples of use of bureaucrat tools.
Beeblebrox says this is not about specific incidents, but about everything "taken as a whole." Yet he does not build a case or substantiate his claims that I am a "cowboy admin" or that I have violated norms, consensus, or policy. He asked me to resign, and I said no, so now we are here. That's not what this page is for, or how things work. The whole is the sum of its parts, and insufficient parts have been provided to assemble anything.
Give the topic ban a chance to work, as it has just been applied and I have agreed to abide by it. There is no long term issue to speak of, and diffs have not been provided of such. This case request should be dismissed. Andrevan @ 07:19, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
Regarding actions involving Trumpian users and disputes, OUTING, etc. Clearly I was wrong there and that won't happen again, as I think I've said already, I apologize for those actions as an editor which were policy-violating and inappropriate, but did not involve tool use. The topic ban should hopefully address that, and my emails to the committee about the private evidence are mainly to explain how I got where I got to. Regarding the old unblocks or admin actions, I stand by them. I stand by both my use of reasonable discretion, and defending myself against criticism, while ultimately allowing the community's will to stand, as I should. Nowhere in our policy does it say that admins or bureaucrats should immediately back down from discretionary action without offering a defense of the action. I'm disappointed in the comments of some that have claimed my past actions were "abuse of power," etc., when they are clearly acceptable uses of discretion. I still think Riceissa should be unblocked, but I have agreed to let the community ban stand. I still think promoting Northamerica1000 was the only reasonable action given his RFA, but I agreed to vacate my close and let another bureaucrat close it to avoid appearing INVOLVED. I stand by my recent BN posts which were intended to support consensus by discussion, which is always better than a bureaucratic process. My comments there were intended to illustrate a principle that I believe is very important, namely, doing the right thing with a minimum of fuss, and I stand by them. I'm disappointed to see Worm Turning, as I found his read of the case astute before, and now I am definitely confused about what the point of ArbCom is and how it pertains to me.
Just want to add that when I say I stand by my old actions, I stand by the fact that I did something, I discussed it, and then I did what the community consensus was to do. I believe I have consistently shown that I follow the consensus. That doesn't mean I can't discuss or defend my action. Andrevan @ 20:34, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
Vote key: (Accept/decline/recuse)
All tallies are based the votes at /Proposed decision, where comments and discussion from the voting phase is also available.
Because Andrevan ( talk · contribs) has resigned as an administrator and a bureaucrat, this case is dismissed. Andrevan may not regain either the administrator or bureaucrat permission without passing a new request for adminship and/or bureaucratship.
Any block, restriction, ban, or sanction performed under the authorisation of a remedy for this case must be logged at Wikipedia:Arbitration enforcement log, not here.