Jump to content

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Stephen/Proposed decision

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Main case page (Talk) — Evidence (Talk) — Proposed decision (Talk)

Case clerk: Dreamy Jazz (Talk) Drafting arbitrators: Primefac (Talk) & Beeblebrox (Talk) & Wugapodes (Talk)

Wikipedia Arbitration
Open proceedings
Active sanctions
Arbitration Committee
Audit
Track related changes

After considering /Evidence, arbitrators may make proposals which are ready for voting. Arbitrators will vote for or against each provision, or they may abstain. Only items which are supported by an absolute majority of the active, non-recused arbitrators will pass into the final decision. Conditional votes and abstentions will be denoted as such by the arbitrator, before or after their time-stamped signature. For example, an arbitrator can state that their support vote for one provision only applies if another provision fails to pass (these are denoted as "first" and "second choice" votes). Only arbitrators and clerks may edit this page, but non-arbitrators may comment on the talk page.

For this case there are 14 active arbitrators. 8 support or oppose votes are a majority.

Majority reference
Abstentions Support votes needed for majority
0 8
1–2 7
3–4 6

If observing editors notice any discrepancies between the arbitrators' tallies and the final decision or the #Implementation notes, you should post to the clerk talk page. Similarly, arbitrators may request clerk assistance via the same method, or via the clerks' mailing list.

Proposed final decision

[edit]

Proposed principles

[edit]

Administrators

[edit]

1) Administrators are trusted members of the community. They are expected to lead by example and follow Wikipedia policies to the best of their abilities. Occasional mistakes are entirely compatible with adminship; administrators are not expected to be perfect. However, sustained poor judgment or multiple violations of policy (in the use of administrator tools, or otherwise) may result in the removal of administrator status.

Support:
  1. Primefac (talk) 20:42, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  2. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 21:08, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  3. BDD (talk) 21:26, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:16, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Maxim(talk) 00:37, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  6. WormTT(talk) 21:13, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Cabayi (talk) 09:18, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Donald Albury 14:03, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  9. KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 01:28, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Enterprisey (talk!) 05:55, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  11. — Wug·a·po·des​ 06:09, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
Comments:
Not (yet) convinced this is necessary for where I am based on the private evidence. I think with the private evidence we have, principle 3 might be sufficient. Izno (talk) 20:46, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Leading by example

[edit]

2) Administrators are expected to lead by example and to behave in a respectful, civil manner in their interactions with others. While such an ideal applies to interactions with all editors, it is particularly relevant to interactions with newer and inexperienced users, as in those cases, administrators provide a public face to both the broader administrative corps and to Wikipedia as a whole.

Support:
  1. Primefac (talk) 20:42, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  2. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 21:08, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  3. BDD (talk) 21:26, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:16, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Maxim(talk) 00:37, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  6. WormTT(talk) 21:13, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Cabayi (talk) 09:18, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Donald Albury 14:03, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  9. KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 01:28, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Enterprisey (talk!) 05:55, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  11. — Wug·a·po·des​ 06:09, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
Comments:
Not (yet) convinced this is necessary for where I am based on the private evidence. Izno (talk) 20:46, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Decorum

[edit]

3) Wikipedia users are expected to behave reasonably, calmly, and courteously in their interactions with other users. Unseemly conduct, such as personal attacks, incivility, assumptions of bad faith, harassment, disruptive point-making, and gaming the system, is prohibited.

Support:
  1. Primefac (talk) 20:42, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Izno (talk) 20:44, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  3. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 21:08, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Barkeep49 (talk) 21:13, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  5. BDD (talk) 21:26, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:16, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Maxim(talk) 00:37, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  8. WormTT(talk) 21:13, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Cabayi (talk) 09:18, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Donald Albury 14:03, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  11. KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 01:28, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Enterprisey (talk!) 05:55, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  13. — Wug·a·po·des​ 06:09, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
Comments:

Limitations of CheckUser

[edit]

4) CheckUser is a technical tool that displays details about the edits or other logged actions made recently by an account, IP address, or IP address range. Although the tool can reveal information about the accounts and computers a person is using to edit, it is beyond the capability of CheckUser to determine with certainty what person is operating an account.

Support:
  1. Primefac (talk) 20:42, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Izno (talk) 20:44, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  3. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 21:08, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Barkeep49 (talk) 21:13, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  5. BDD (talk) 21:26, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  6. This is really the core of this case,and what makes it so difficult. There is no disagreement on the basic facts as established by CU. It is how to interpret those facts that is the issue. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:16, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Maxim(talk) 00:37, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  8. WormTT(talk) 21:13, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Cabayi (talk) 09:18, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Donald Albury 14:03, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  11. KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 01:28, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Enterprisey (talk!) 05:55, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  13. — Wug·a·po·des​ 06:09, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
Comments:

Private evidence

[edit]

5) The Arbitration Committee is sensitive to the serious concerns created when private matters are brought to its attention. Such concerns exist for ethical and privacy reasons, and also for practical ones, such as how to ensure that an alleged communication is authentic, complete, and presented in its full context. The arbitration policy allows people to submit evidence privately in an arbitration case when there are compelling reasons for it not to be submitted publicly.

Support:
  1. Primefac (talk) 20:42, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Izno (talk) 20:44, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  3. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 21:08, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Barkeep49 (talk) 21:13, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  5. BDD (talk) 21:26, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Some of the evidence is clearly in the "open secret" category, in that many if not most users foillowing this case can and have put some of it together themselves without the use of the checkuser tool, but because we came by it that way, the global and local CU policies which we have all agreed to adhere to apply. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:16, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Maxim(talk) 00:37, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  8. WormTT(talk) 21:13, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Cabayi (talk) 09:18, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Donald Albury 14:03, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  11. KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 01:28, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Enterprisey (talk!) 05:55, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  13. — Wug·a·po·des​ 06:09, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
Comments:

Editors and the Arbitration Committee

[edit]

6) Editors are expected to be truthful and accurate in statements and evidence presented to the Arbitration Committee.

Support:
  1. Primefac (talk) 20:42, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Izno (talk) 20:44, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  3. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 21:08, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Barkeep49 (talk) 21:13, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  5. BDD (talk) 21:26, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:16, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Maxim(talk) 00:37, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  8. WormTT(talk) 21:13, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Cabayi (talk) 09:18, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Donald Albury 14:03, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  11. KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 01:28, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Enterprisey (talk!) 05:55, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  13. — Wug·a·po·des​ 06:09, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
Comments:

Proposed findings of fact

[edit]

CU discovers unregistered editing

[edit]

1) During the investigation of an unregistered user harassing another user, a CheckUser determined that the IP address associated with the harassment had previously been used by Stephen (talk · contribs), an administrator. Stephen had been in disputes with the harassed editor in the past, and was the only registered account using that IP. According to CheckUser data, the harassing edits were made using a device that Stephen had not previously used. The Arbitration Committee reviewed these findings and determined that they were well founded.

Support:
  1. Izno (talk) 20:50, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  2. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 21:15, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Barkeep49 (talk) 21:18, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  4. BDD (talk) 21:27, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:18, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Maxim(talk) 00:42, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Primefac (talk) 18:12, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  8. WormTT(talk) 21:13, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Cabayi (talk) 09:22, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Donald Albury 14:03, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  11. KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 01:28, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Enterprisey (talk!) 22:18, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  13. — Wug·a·po·des​ 08:01, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
Comments:

Initial contact with Stephen and desysop

[edit]

2) Stephen was asked to contact the Arbitration Committee about a concern of logged out editing. Stephen denied editing while logged out and denied that he had been in any recent disputes with other editors. The Arbitration Committee concluded that Stephen's response to its inquiry was insufficient to explain or offer an alternative reason for the IP edits, and removed his administrative privileges under the Level II removal procedures.

Support:
  1. Izno (talk) 20:50, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  2. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 21:15, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Barkeep49 (talk) 21:18, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  4. BDD (talk) 21:27, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  5. The part where he denied having been in any recent conflicts and basically said he had no idea what we were inquiring about is one of my primary concerns in trying to come to the correct conclusion here, as that was clearly false. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:20, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Maxim(talk) 00:42, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Primefac (talk) 18:12, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  8. WormTT(talk) 21:13, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Cabayi (talk) 09:22, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Donald Albury 14:03, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  11. KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 01:28, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Enterprisey (talk!) 22:18, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  13. — Wug·a·po·des​ 08:01, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
Comments:

Post-desysop response

[edit]

3) Upon receiving notification of the Level II desysop, Stephen responded to the Arbitration Committee with an explanation for the unregistered editing. Under the Level II procedures he asked for a private case to be opened regarding the inciting incidents. During the Evidence phase of this case, Stephen was asked questions to further explain and clarify some of his initial statements, which he later answered.

Support:
  1. Izno (talk) 20:50, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  2. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 21:15, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Barkeep49 (talk) 21:18, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  4. BDD (talk) 21:27, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:21, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Maxim(talk) 00:42, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Primefac (talk) 18:12, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  8. WormTT(talk) 21:13, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Cabayi (talk) 09:22, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Donald Albury 14:03, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  11. KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 01:28, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Enterprisey (talk!) 22:18, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  13. — Wug·a·po·des​ 08:01, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
Comments:

Stephen's explanations sufficient

[edit]

4a) The explanations provided by Stephen are sufficient to indicate that it was not him performing the unregistered editing and harassment.

Support:
  1. Based on the private discussion we had with Stephen, I land here. Izno (talk) 21:07, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Maxim(talk) 00:42, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Yes, ultimately I accept the explanation, and don't believe Stephen is directly at fault. But—without going into the particulars of the private evidence—if this happened again, I would expect a desysop that sticks, if not other remedies. --BDD (talk) 18:10, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  4. I am giving Stephen the benefit of the doubt here. I am not highly confident that Stephen is actually innocent; more info on arbwiki. (Arbs: See arbwiki notes.) Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 19:57, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  5. I think Maxim (publicly) and Kevin (privately) have given rationales that align with my thinking. See my comments below as well. — Wug·a·po·des​ 07:52, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Cabayi (talk) 13:17, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. Stephen asks us to believe the highly improbable. Well, I don't believe him. Stephen claimed publicly that someone very close to me did the edits. I just don't believe that someone very close to him happens to harass a user he would have reason to harass. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 01:19, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Stephen's explanation is plausible and reasonable. I could certainly believe it, and have spent a long time trying to decide where I come down on this vote. Factors I have taken into account: The fact that the vast majority of community members who know Stephen find the idea that he would do this implausible, the fact that the majority of Checkusers find the idea that it was someone close to Stephen unlikely based on the Checkuser data. When it came down to it, I explained to the Arbitrators on list how I saw the plausibility of the scenario - which would have meant that Stephen would have needed to admit to a few negative home truths about his behaviour (nothing against policy, but hard to admit). Instead, his early responses were short and therefore obstructive, and his later did not accept sufficient responsibility for what happened. This leaves me as insufficiently convinced of Stephen's explanation WormTT(talk) 21:13, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  3. WTT has stated it well, and I do not have much to add to it. Primefac (talk) 08:15, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:39, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:
  1. For reasons I explain in my remedy vote, I'm not actually sure whether or not this is true and I've decided I don't actually need to make a decision to make a vote on the remedies I feel good about. Barkeep49 (talk) 18:05, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  2. I also have not been able to fully accept Stephen's explanation, but do not see strong reason to reject it. Donald Albury 14:03, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  3. What Donald said. Enterprisey (talk!) 22:18, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comments:
As one arb put it, this case hinges on these two FOFs. Izno (talk) 20:50, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed. I am currently inclined to support this FoF but want to hear from more arbs (which I expect to mostly be privately where we can discuss all the facts of the case) before casting my vote. Barkeep49 (talk) 21:18, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
+1 --BDD (talk) 21:28, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I have to say I hate this sort of case. As a long-term Wikipedian and administrator, it is of course my inclination, indeed my preference, to assume good faith and believe Stephen. However, worse things than this, much worse, have been perpetrated by equally experienced and respected members of the community. Ultimately, assuming Stephen sticks with the explanation already provided to the committee, we will likely never know the real truth of the matter. Each of us must examine the evidence and the explanations provided regarding it, and decide which explanation is more likely, the bad, or the ...I won't call it good, but less bad explanation. There is no policy that can help us in that endeavor. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:30, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I want to say, given Worm's note about the feelings of the checkuser team, that I have seen no evidence by the checkuser team that is incompatible with the explanation Stephen gave us. Now a summary of that explanation was shared with the CU team and on the whole that team didn't buy it but how much was because of the incompleteness of the summary and how much was the true feelings of that time is hard for me to say. But they didn't point to technical reasons for that disbelief they used their judgement to arrive at that conclusion. I'm glad we had that input but ultimately I found it only slightly more helpful than the input given by community members which tended to be far more sympathetic to Stephen. Barkeep49 (talk) 22:22, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I found (with a dose of AGF) Stephen's account plausible. I don't see how someone very close to me picked up on Stephen's interactions with a specific user and decided to escalate over a prolonged period unless Stephen, wittingly or unwittingly, provided the prompt. I don't see how this translates to a prevention of ongoing harassment by someone very close to me. At this point I pause to think some more. Cabayi (talk) 09:56, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm traveling at the moment, so will be brief until I get to my computer and reliable wifi again. I'm inclined to support this FoF. I think Stephen needs to prove his case surpasses a preponderance of evidence standard. Weighing the evidence that he did what is claimed versus the evidence that he did not, I'm satisfied that his explanation is more likely than not. I'll provide a more detailed explanation with my vote in the coming days. — Wug·a·po·des​ 23:41, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
To expand on the above: I want to point out some issues in the pattern of evidence we have so far. Checkuser evidence is limited in what it can tell us (P4), and we often need to consider behavioral evidence as a supplement to the technical evidence provided by the checkuser tool. The technical evidence which supported our Level 2 desysop had two main findings (1) Stephen's account was the only one in the last 90 days to have edited from the IP which harassed another editor and (2) the device used when making the harassing edits was not used by Stephen in the last 90 days (FoF 1). There may be other accounts Stephen doesn't control on that IP, but if they haven't been active in the last 90 days we wouldn't know. Given Stephen's level of activity, it is strange that the device used to make the harassing edits hadn't been recently used by Stephen.
Now, if we want to believe Stephen is behind the harassing edits, then we can imagine schemes for how one might leave this trail of evidence, but I want to give some examples from my own life to demonstrate why these limitations are important to keep in mind when weighing the evidence. In the last 90 days, I'm likely the only account who would show up as having edited from my IP address; I am not the only person who lives in my home nor am I the only person in my household who has an account. This may even be true of my workplace---there are not that many active, registered editors in my workplace but I know many of my colleagues have Wikipedia accounts because I ran edit-a-thons where I registered them and got them to edit. So while an IP may only have had one registered account active on in the last 90 days, that is far from a guarantee that no other accounts or editors might have access to that IP. That's why the device information is worth considering. I have maybe 3 devices in my home from which I edit Wikipedia (desktop, laptop, phone), but those are not the only devices in my home. My partner also has a desktop, a laptop, and a phone. MY coworkers have desktops, laptops, phones, tablets, and probably other things I don't know about. If none of those people edited for over 90 days, and then one of them edited without logging in from one of their devices, we would see precisely this pattern of evidence: an IP with which only my account associated made an edit from a device I have never used before. Such a situation is plausible, perhaps even common, and if we want to reject the idea that something similar happened here, we would need to assume a technically advanced, bad faith scheme and pattern manipulation was suddenly devised and implemented by a 15-year administrator who to this point has not been a significant source of issues. That's not impossible, but given the two explanations, the more benign explanation seems far more likely.
Now, there's an important bit of behavioral evidence to consider here which distinguishes this case from my prior example: the editor harassed had been in a dispute with Stephen recently. I don't take that lightly. If the harassment came from someone other than Stephen, they would need to be relatively knowledgeable about Stephen's on-wiki activities to the point that they could identify and target someone Stephen had been interacting with. That's non-trivial, but also not particularly extraordinary. To use my life as an example, I frequently talk to my partner and friends about my Wikipedia activities both as a point of pride and as a way of receiving emotional support when my volunteer work is stressful. From my meatspace interactions with other Wikipedians, I don't think I am unique in talking about my on-wiki activities with others in my life. I'm also not universally beloved, and I have people in my life and network who do not always wish the best for me; conversely, I have people in my life who may wish to defend me without understanding how their actions might inadvertently cause me harm. One of those actors learning about a recent dispute and editing from a network (but not device) Stephen frequently uses is possible though obviously unlikely. It would at least fit the pattern of technical evidence, and this general story is compatible with the more detailed story Stephen gave us privately. Of course we have the essay WP:BROTHER which we all discussed early on in the Level 2 process, but there's two important points to consider (1) Stephen privately gave us a far more detailed explanation which to me goes beyond the kind of excuse WP:BROTHER writes against and (2) that essay is about how you are responsible for all edits from your own account and is of limited applicability when we're talking about why someone on your IP (but not your account) might be responsible. So while a general suspicion of this "it wasn't me" defense is reasonable, I don't think this situation can be resolved simply by reducing Stephen's account to a straw man.
To wrap up, I think the original emergency desysop was correct, but with more time to go through the timeline and evidence, the facts don't convince me that Stephen's explanation is improbable or that his continued access to the sysop bit is a danger to the project. I don't completely buy his explanation, it too leaves me with questions, but it's sufficient to the extent that it fits the pattern of evidence and gives a more-likely-than-not explanation for why our technical evidence may have given an incorrect or incomplete perception of what happened. — Wug·a·po·des​ 07:52, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm aware that I haven't justified my votes in public, largely because (1) my original justification relies on non-public information, and (2) I was struggling to make a version that didn't rely on non-public information. Like Wugapodes, I am relying on a balance of probabilities standard—in other words, which version is likelier. I don't think there are many plausible explanations possible in such a situation, but Stephen's is reasonably plausible. Is Stephen's version much likelier than the alternative? Not particularly. But, is the alternative likelier than Stephen's version? It could be equally likely, but given the totality of the circumstances, I don't think that it is more likely. PS: for what it's worth, I could probably live with a FoF that both explanations are equally likely but that wouldn't change my remedy vote. Maxim(talk) 16:28, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Stephen's explanations insufficient

[edit]

4b) The explanations provided by Stephen are insufficient to indicate that it was not him performing the unregistered editing and harassment.

Support:
  1. Stephen asks us to believe the highly improbable. Well, I don't believe him. Stephen claimed publicly that someone very close to me did the edits. I just don't believe that someone very close to him happens to harass a user he would have reason to harass. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 01:18, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  2. I have mulled this over at length, and I also simply cannot bring myself to believe the explanation presented to us. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:51, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Per my comments on 4a WormTT(talk) 21:13, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Per 4a. Primefac (talk) 08:15, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. Izno (talk) 21:08, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Maxim(talk) 00:42, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  3. BDD (talk) 18:10, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  4. I am giving Stephen the benefit of the doubt here. I am not highly confident that Stephen is actually innocent; more info on arbwiki. (Arbs: See arbwiki notes.) Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 19:57, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Per my comments in 4a — Wug·a·po·des​ 07:53, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Cabayi (talk) 13:18, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:
  1. For reasons I explain in my remedy vote, I'm not actually sure whether or not this is true and I've decided I don't actually need to make a decision to make a vote on the remedies I feel good about. Barkeep49 (talk) 18:05, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Without sufficient grounds to judge Stephen's explanation, I cannot in good conscience accept or reject said explanation. Donald Albury 14:03, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Again, per Donald. Enterprisey (talk!) 22:18, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comments:

Proposed remedies

[edit]

Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.

Restoration of administrative permissions

[edit]

1) The administrative permissions of Stephen are restored.

Support:
  1. Per FOF 4a. Izno (talk) 21:09, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Maxim(talk) 00:42, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  3. I remain pretty torn on whether or not to believe the explanation. It's certainly plausible but also we're taking a bit of a leap of faith because we can't actually verify and a guilty person could just as easily use the explanation. Ultimately Maxim said something which convinced me. The potential harm of getting this wrong by restoring adminship seems less than the harm of not restoring adminship. Barkeep49 (talk) 18:02, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    To echo and expand on this comment of BDD's, there's a lot of uncertainty over whether he or not he made the comments. If he didn't that would suggest we should restore. If he did I think he's unlikely to do it again. But if we were to somehow gain definitive proof he did make the comments or he were to make new comments like this in the future my thinking would be very different and would reflect why I initiated the Level 2 desysop in the first place. Barkeep49 (talk) 18:17, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  4. BDD (talk) 18:10, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Per the reasoning cited above by Barkeep, the potentional harm of leaving Stephen desysopped outweighs the potentional harm of restoring his admin status. Whatever my uncertainty about the evidence, the goal of these proceedings is prevention, not punishment. I do not see a strong case that we would be preventing future harm to the project by withholding Stephen's admin bit, and we should not punish him by withholding the bit, especially when it is not clear what he may have done wrong. - Donald Albury 14:14, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Per my FoF votes. I am giving Stephen the benefit of the doubt here. I am not highly confident that Stephen is actually innocent; more info on arbwiki. (Arbs: See arbwiki notes.) Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 19:58, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Per Maxim's comment on 16:40, 5 December 2022 UTC. Enterprisey (talk!) 22:18, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Per Maxim's comment and my rationale in FoF 4a. — Wug·a·po·des​ 07:54, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Whether Stephen has admin rights or not will not affect the harassment by his "someone very close to me". Cabayi (talk) 13:24, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. Logged out harassment of users is unacceptable behavior for any editor, let alone an administrator. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 01:22, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:53, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  3. I remain unconvinced that Stephen did not do this, or could not have prevented it. WormTT(talk) 21:13, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  4. I have deliberated much about this matter (with a more expanded version of this on ArbWiki), and while I have been trying to justify and rationalise the responses we received from Stephen about this series of events there are too many inconsistencies for me to be able to swing to the other side of the fence. Primefac (talk) 08:15, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:
Comments:
Currently inclined to support. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 04:27, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Barkeep mentioned something I had written off-wiki on the issue. Similarly as with my comments on the associated FoF, I'm going to attempt a summary of my thoughts without publishing a non-public aspect of the case. Without going into statistical jargon, we can say there's four possible conclusions to this case. Two are "correct": Stephen is responsible for the edits and we desysop, or Stephen is not responsible for the edits, and we do not desysop. Two are "incorrect": Stephen is responsible for the edits and we do not desysop, or Stephen is not responsible for the edits and we desysop. I would rather take the no-desysop "incorrect" conclusion over the desysop "incorrect" conclusion, because desysoping an innocent party is more harmful than not desysoping even if there is cause. In this case, if Stephen actually is responsible for the edits, but we find he is not, and do not desysop, then the net result is probably that the offending edits do not repeat. If Stephen is indeed not responsible for the edits, and we do desysop, then the net result is broadly similar in that the offending edits probably won't repeat, but we would have lost a long-time administrator. I don't think I'm nearly as confident as some of my colleagues regarding the key facts of the case, so I'm approaching the remedies from the "I will probably make a wrong decision" side, and picking what I feel is the less bad outcome. Maxim(talk) 16:40, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Level II reaffirmed

[edit]

2) The Arbitration Committee affirms the removal of Stephen's administrative privileges under its Level II removal procedures. Stephen may regain the privileges through a successful request for adminship.

Support:
  1. Per my vote at the FOF. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 01:20, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:52, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Per my vote above WormTT(talk) 21:13, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  4. This was a serious - but I believe isolated - incident, and thus I think Stephen will have little to no issue passing another RFA should he choose to do so. Primefac (talk) 08:15, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. Per FOF 4a. Izno (talk) 21:10, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Maxim(talk) 00:42, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Per vote above. Barkeep49 (talk) 18:02, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  4. BDD (talk) 18:11, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  5. As I said above, whatever my uncertainty about the evidence, the goal of these proceedings is prevention, not punishment. I do not see a strong case that we would be preventing future harm to the project by withholding Stephen's admin bit, and we should not punish him by withholding the bit, especially when it is not clear what he may have done wrong. - Donald Albury 14:16, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Per my FoF votes. I am giving Stephen the benefit of the doubt here. I am not highly confident that Stephen is actually innocent; more info on arbwiki. (Arbs: See arbwiki notes.) Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 19:58, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Enterprisey (talk!) 22:18, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  8. The Level 2 was correct at the time, but this doesn't seem to be asserting that. — Wug·a·po·des​ 07:58, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Per Wugs, Cabayi (talk) 13:25, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:
Comments:

Stephen banned

[edit]

3) For harassment of another editor while logged out, Stephen is banned for 1 month.

Support:
Oppose:
  1. Per FOF 4a. Izno (talk) 21:10, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  2. The committee has been on a rather long trend of moving away from any sort of timed sanction that automatically expires (as opposed to sanctions that cannot be appealed until a certain amount of time has passed) and I think we should stick to that path. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:23, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Maxim(talk) 00:42, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  4. I think these short blocks are not a generally helpful tool in the Committee's toolbox. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 01:08, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Per the others, and the comments below; even if we reaffirm the desysop, a one-month ban would be punitive and not preventative, and this is not a situation that would merit an indefinite ban. Primefac (talk) 08:53, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Per vote above and others here. Barkeep49 (talk) 18:02, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  7. As much as I remain unconvinced, I am not sufficiently convinced to increase this to a block. WormTT(talk) 21:15, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Cabayi (talk) 09:32, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Donald Albury 14:03, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  10. BDD (talk) 18:11, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  11. KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 01:28, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Enterprisey (talk!) 22:18, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Even if I believed Stephen was culpable, a block/ban (especially of such a short duration) would serve no preventative purpose. — Wug·a·po·des​ 07:59, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:
Comments:
Some background on this before we get asked since time limited ArbCom actions are rather unusual these days. During the initial discussion with the checkusers one checkuser who was in favor of blocking Stephen said that they would have done a 1 month block in this circumstance. I believe there was also at least 1 CU who felt an indefinite block would be more appropriate, but this is where the 1 month timeframe came from. Barkeep49 (talk) 21:21, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
For myself I would add that if this had not become a matter for the committee I would have no problem with any such block as it would be inside the reasonable discretion afforded to advanced permission holders to issue such a block. To do a one-month ban now seems punitive on top of the concern I mentioned in my vote. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:59, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed enforcement

[edit]

Enforcement of restrictions

0) Should any user subject to a restriction in this case violate that restriction, that user may be blocked, initially for up to one month, and then with blocks increasing in duration to a maximum of one year.

In accordance with the procedure for the standard enforcement provision adopted 3 May 2014, this provision did not require a vote.

Appeals and modifications

0) Appeals and modifications

This procedure applies to appeals related to, and modifications of, actions taken by administrators to enforce the Committee's remedies. It does not apply to appeals related to the remedies directly enacted by the Committee.

Appeals by sanctioned editors

Appeals may be made only by the editor under sanction and only for a currently active sanction. Requests for modification of page restrictions may be made by any editor. The process has three possible stages (see "Important notes" below). The editor may:

  1. ask the enforcing administrator to reconsider their original decision;
  2. request review at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard ("AE") or at the administrators’ noticeboard ("AN"); and
  3. submit a request for amendment at "ARCA". If the editor is blocked, the appeal may be made by email through Special:EmailUser/Arbitration Committee (or, if email access is revoked, to arbcom-en@wikimedia.org).
Modifications by administrators

No administrator may modify or remove a sanction placed by another administrator without:

  1. the explicit prior affirmative consent of the enforcing administrator; or
  2. prior affirmative agreement for the modification at (a) AE or (b) AN or (c) ARCA (see "Important notes" below).

Administrators modifying sanctions out of process may at the discretion of the committee be desysopped.

Nothing in this section prevents an administrator from replacing an existing sanction issued by another administrator with a new sanction if fresh misconduct has taken place after the existing sanction was applied.

Administrators are free to modify sanctions placed by former administrators – that is, editors who do not have the administrator permission enabled (due to a temporary or permanent relinquishment or desysop) – without regard to the requirements of this section. If an administrator modifies a sanction placed by a former administrator, the administrator who made the modification becomes the "enforcing administrator". If a former administrator regains the tools, the provisions of this section again apply to their unmodified enforcement actions.

Important notes:

  1. For a request to succeed, either
(i) the clear and substantial consensus of (a) uninvolved administrators at AE or (b) uninvolved editors at AN or
(ii) a passing motion of arbitrators at ARCA
is required. If consensus at AE or AN is unclear, the status quo prevails.
  2. While asking the enforcing administrator and seeking reviews at AN or AE are not mandatory prior to seeking a decision from the committee, once the committee has reviewed a request, further substantive review at any forum is barred. The sole exception is editors under an active sanction who may still request an easing or removal of the sanction on the grounds that said sanction is no longer needed, but such requests may only be made once every six months, or whatever longer period the committee may specify.
  3. These provisions apply only to contentious topics placed by administrators and to blocks placed by administrators to enforce arbitration case decisions. They do not apply to sanctions directly authorised by the committee, and enacted either by arbitrators or by arbitration clerks, or to special functionary blocks of whatever nature.
  4. All actions designated as arbitration enforcement actions, including those alleged to be out of process or against existing policy, must first be appealed following arbitration enforcement procedures to establish if such enforcement is inappropriate before the action may be reversed or formally discussed at another venue.
In accordance with the procedure for the standard appeals and modifications provision adopted 3 May 2014, this provision did not require a vote.
Comments:

Discussion by Arbitrators

[edit]

Allgemein

[edit]

Motion to close

[edit]

Implementation notes

[edit]

Clerks and Arbitrators should use this section to clarify their understanding of the final decision—at a minimum, a list of items that have passed. Additionally, a list of which remedies are conditional on others (for instance a ban that should only be implemented if a mentorship should fail), and so on. Arbitrators should not pass the motion to close the case until they are satisfied with the implementation notes.

These notes were last updated by Dreamy Jazz talk to me | my contributions 22:53, 7 December 2022 (UTC); the last edit to this page was on 22:53, 7 December 2022 (UTC) by Dreamy Jazz.[reply]

Proposed Principles
Number Proposal Name Support Oppose Abstain Status Support needed Notes
1 Administrators 11 0 0 PASSING ·
2 Leading by example 11 0 0 PASSING ·
3 Decorum 13 0 0 PASSING ·
4 Limitations of CheckUser 13 0 0 PASSING ·
5 Private evidence 13 0 0 PASSING ·
6 Editors and the Arbitration Committee 13 0 0 PASSING ·
Proposed Findings of Fact
Number Proposal Name Support Oppose Abstain Status Support needed Notes
1 CU discovers unregistered editing 13 0 0 PASSING ·
2 Initial contact with Stephen and desysop 13 0 0 PASSING ·
3 Post-desysop response 13 0 0 PASSING ·
4a Stephen's explanations sufficient 6 4 3 PASSING ·
4b Stephen's explanations insufficient 4 6 3 NOT PASSING Cannot pass
Proposed Remedies
Number Proposal Name Support Oppose Abstain Status Support needed Notes
1 Restoration of administrative permissions 9 4 0 PASSING ·
2 Level II reaffirmed 4 9 0 NOT PASSING Cannot pass
3 Stephen banned 0 13 0 NOT PASSING Cannot pass
Proposed Enforcement
Number Proposal Name Support Oppose Abstain Status Support needed Notes
0 Enforcement of restrictions 0 0 0 PASSING · Passes by default
0 Appeals and modifications 0 0 0 PASSING · Passes by default
Notes


Vote

[edit]

Important: Please ask the case clerk to author the implementation notes before initiating a motion to close, so that the final decision is clear.

Four net "support" votes (each "oppose" vote subtracts a "support") or an absolute majority are needed to close the case. The arbitration clerks will close the case 24 hours after the fourth net support vote has been cast, or faster if an absolute majority of arbitrators vote to fast-track the close.

Support
  1. Primefac (talk) 13:23, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Cabayi (talk) 13:26, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Maxim(talk) 15:21, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Barkeep49 (talk) 16:51, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  5. I don't think it is the correct result, but clearly we do have one. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:27, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  6. KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 19:43, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  7. BDD (talk) 20:49, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Izno (talk) 21:24, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  9. — Wug·a·po·des​ 23:12, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
Kommentare
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Stephen/Proposed_decision&oldid=1126170702"