Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case

Requests for arbitration

Arbitration Committee proceedings

• recent changes
• purge this page
• view or discuss this template

Case requests

Request name	Motions	Initiated	Votes
MediaViewer RfC		11 July 2014	{{{votes}}}
[[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#User:Technical 13 and User:Redrose64|User:Technical 13 and User:Redrose64]]		10 July 2014	{{{votes}}}

[edit]

Open cases

Currently, no arbitration cases are open.

[edit]

Recently closed cases (Past cases)

Case name	Closed
Venezuelan politics	25 May 2024

Clarification and Amendment requests

Request name	Motions	Case	Posted
Amendment request: World War II and the history of Jews in Poland	Motion	(orig. case)	21 June 2024
Amendment request: Suspension of Beeblebrox	Motion	none	10 July 2024
Clarification request: Desysoppings	none	none	12 July 2024

Arbitrator motions

No arbitrator motions are currently open.

MediaViewer RfC

Initiated by 28bytes (talk) at 14:38, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Involved parties

• 28bytes (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), filing party
• Armbrust (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Fabrice Florin (WMF) (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Peteforsyth (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
• Eloquence (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

• [1]
• [2]
• [3]
• [4]

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

• the MediaViewer RfC, as closed by Armbrust
• response to the results of the RfC by Fabrice Florin
• discussion of how to implement the results of the RfC
• AN discussion

Statement by 28bytes

Last month, User:Pine started an RfC over whether the new MediaViewer feature should be enabled or disabled by default on Wikipedia. Yesterday, it was closed by User:Armbrust, with the result that the feature would be disabled by default for both logged-in and not-logged-in users.

Following the closure, User:Fabrice Florin (WMF) commented on the talk page of the RfC with a "recommendation" that the MediaViewer continue to be enabled, despite the results of the RfC. Later in the thread, users discussed how to implement the results of the RfC, and administrator User:Peteforsyth made a change to MediaWiki:Common.js that disabled the feature.

Administrator and staff member User:Eloquence reverted the change, and threatened to temporarily desysop Peteforsyth or any other admin who reinstated the change. Eloquence characterized the revert and the threat of desysop as a "WMF action", but it is unclear to me by what authority WMF staffers can overrule the legitimate consensus of a local community, outside of WP:Office actions, which clearly do not apply in this case:

Office actions are official changes made on behalf of the Wikimedia Foundation, by members of its office. These are removals of questionable or illegal Wikimedia content following complaints. Office actions are performed so that the end result is a legally compliant article on the subject.

Now, the WMF does, of course, have "the keys to the server", which means that they have the power to do whatever they like, including desysoping and/or banning anyone for any reason, good or bad; we essentially have no recourse, other than, as is sometimes said, our "right to fork" and our "right to leave."

So my questions for the committee do not include "do they have the power to do this" (yes, they do), but rather:

1. Are WMF staffers, who are also Wikipedia editors and/or admins, violating our policies and community norms if they do this?
2. If I or another administrator implements the result of a validly conducted and closed RfC over the objections (or "recommendations") of the WMF, are we following policy and community norms, or violating them?
3. Was the MediaViewer RfC, and its closure, a valid exercise of the Wikipedia's consensus-forming process?
4. If, after further discussion, an administrator re-implements the result of this RfC (either by restoring Peteforsyth's change, or via another method), will the committee support that administrator for following the expressed community consensus, or sanction them for wheel-warring?

This is the second time in recent memory that a WMF staffer has threatened to desysop (temporarily or otherwise) a Wikipedia administrator for implementing community consensus against WMF wishes, but in that case, WP:Office was relevant. As the WMF rolls out more and more features (many of which are great, but some of which the community may decide they don't want) this is likely to continue to be an issue. Administrators need to know where we stand when community consensus conflicts with WMF preferences outside of the bright line of "office actions". 28bytes (talk) 14:38, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Statement by Alanscottwalker

Please note WP:CONEXCEPT, which is part of WP:CONSENSUS, which policy also calls for taking multiple views into account in formation. Moreover, we are in community with the WP:WMF. Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:52, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Statement by Kww (uninvolved)

This is the second case this year I'm aware of this year where WMF staff members have used their powers in ways that violate the relationship between WMF and the community. The Javascript supporting English Wikipedia is under our control, and we are free to modify it based on community consensus. The Visual Editor fiasco set a fairly strong precedent in that regard, and Erik knows better. I would recommend reinstating the Javascript change and removing Erik's sysop status. Certainly the latter is solely a symbolic gesture, but sometimes symbols are all we have.—Kww(talk) 15:04, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Statement by Dennis Brown

My concern is that an admin would threaten to unilaterally desysop someone using Foundation level tools for a singular edit that was clearly based on the request of the community as a whole. For me, it isn't about the act of reverting as much as the behavior when doing so. The threat was an amazingly brazen overreaction and unnecessarily inflammatory, particularly since he has the biggest hammer in the room. At a minimum, it is behavior that is unbecoming of an admin and serves to only drive a wedge deeper between the Foundation and the Community. Do we exclude Foundation members from the normal behavioral expectations and accountability of other admin? Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 15:16, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Statement by Begoon

Basically I agree witn Dennis. He's probably used to people agreeing with him, as he's an agreeable chap. Seriously.

Seriously though - this is crap. If the ultimate intention is to alienate established users and/or the people who've given most to this community, and have them piss off somewhere else, then this will work fine - the old guard will indeed piss off somewhere else, and WMF can create their brave new world. If that's not the intention, I'd recommend liberal apologies and a change of approach. Can I say "seriously" again? Begoon ^talk 16:00, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Statement by Risker

There are a whole pile of issues going on here, almost none of which have anything to do with the initial proposal. My recommendation to the Committee is to reject the case as framed.

• The assessment of consensus on the RFC is obviously not correct. The RFC discussed whether or not MediaViewer should be the default, and there was no proposal to disable it entirely. The editor who closed the RFC (not an administrator, it should be noted) seems to have misunderstood the RFC to the point that his closing statement is "There is a clear consensus that the Media Viewer should be disabled for both logged-in and logged-out users", an outcome that was in no way considered by the participants in the RFC. Essentially, Armbrust has incorrectly declared a consensus for complete disabling by reviewing discussions about disabling default.
• The code inserted by Pete Forsyth disabled MediaViewer entirely for all users on English Wikipedia. This is a breaking change, does not reflect the outcome of the RFC (regardless of the interpretation by Armbrust - Pete as a long-time administrator should be able to recognize the error in the close), prevents users from opting in to the extension, and is presumptively contrary to the wishes of the users who had voluntarily opted in to MV prior to it becoming default.
• Some statistical information:
  • Prior to MediaViewer being activated as the default media viewer, 14,681 English Wikipedia editors had voluntarily opted in for it to be their default viewer.
  • As of around 0600 UTC today, 1652 English Wikipedia editors had actively disabled MediaViewer, either through their preferences or by clicking the "disable" button when looking at an image with MediaViewer (which alters their preferences).
  • There were only 111 editors who participated in any way in the RFC. Of those:
    • 64 supported disabling MediaViewer as default for logged-in users
    • 43 supported disabling MediaViewer as default for logged-out users

Should you accept this case, you need to start with the "root cause", which is the non-standard activation of the RFC, the inadequate advertisement and participation in the RFC, and the inaccurate assessment of consensus that was made to close the RFC. The rest of it is just handwaving and stamping of feet because people didn't get their way. Risker (talk) 16:31, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Clerk notes

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

MediaViewer RfC: Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter <0/0/1/2>

Vote key: (Accept/decline/recuse/other)

• Recuse. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 15:38, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
• This is a complicated issue that I'll mull over for a couple of days, and in the short term, I'd really, really suggest no one attempt to re-implement the fix. Among other things - and correct me if I'm wrong - it appears to prevent anyone from even opting-in, so I'm not sure it did what was intended. But mostly because it would be pouring gasoline on a fire. I really don't know yet what I will suggest in the longer term.

  Realpolitik-wise, I suppose we have to recognize that (a) this is not a symmetrical relationship, since WMF owns the servers, but (b) en.wiki volunteers can vote with their feet if they are continually treated with what they consider disrespect. It's kind of like mutually assured destruction, which is kind of stupid since we're theoretically on the same side. One goal I have is to try to convince each side not to push their button. I would have thought that it would be in WMF's best interests to avoid throwing their weight around unnecessarily (i.e. in cases like this where WP:OFFICE doesn't apply), and I was under the impression they were making an attempt to not do that as much recently... --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:53, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

• As a person with a legal background, I find this case rather interesting, because it demonstrates the difference between power and authority. In this case, the Foundation do have the power to override the community, but not the authority to do so, unless WP:OFFICE applies or a decision has been made by the Board. And neither one of those conditions is met.

  On the matter of desysopping, as I affirmed earlier this year, during another case involving a WMF employee, [...] it's always a good idea to restate that, barring cases of emergency, the power to restrict and sanction administrators rests squarely with the Arbitration Committee, even in the event of a WP:OFFICE violation. To understand why that's a good idea, one just has to take a look at [the employee in question]'s impulsive and precipitate reaction (for which, it's true, he has duly apologised).

  That said, even assuming we accepted this case, I don't know what our powers would be, considering, that the Foundation do indeed have the de facto power to do as they please (Wikipedia is run on their servers, after all). So, in short, I'm still on the fence and will welcome all input to help me make up my mind. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 16:10, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

User:Technical 13 and User:Redrose64

Initiated by — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(e • t • c)} at 00:01, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Involved parties

• Technical 13 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), filing party
• Redrose64 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

• notification

Statement by Technical 13

Due to the harassing and threatening nature of this administrator towards me, I do not feel safe using other methods of DR. User talk:Technical 13#Unwarranted damage to unrelated thread came on the heals of this threat despite the administrator already being fully aware per previous discussions including this initial one where it was explained to them and a developer that what they wanted was technically impossible which was clarified more by Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)/Archive 126#Is MediaWiki broken?

• I had thought I was limited in what I could say, so I tried to keep it as short as possible. There has been a long history of other harassment from Redrose64 as well, including her repeatedly violating TPO by altering the indentation of my comments on my talk page despite being repeatedly asked not to do that since it makes the page more difficult for me to read. — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(e • t • c)} 13:02, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
• I'm sorry, real life has happened and my 2+1⁄2 yr. old daughter needs me. I don't have much extra time or the need to deal with the anxiety of threatening and harassment from administrators so I'll be taking on no new projects and only tying up existing loose ends sporadically. Decline this or close it however you like, it just disturbing to me to know that there are editors that are suppose to be the creme de le creme of model editors that act in this way and they are allowed to run rampant. All I was coming here to ask was that there was something on record telling Red that coming to my talk page to threaten me and forcing an opinion about how they think talk pages should be formatted despite having it explained by me multiple times in the past that it is more difficult for me to find individual posts on my talk page when they are not marked with bullets and despite an explicit request that such behavior stop.
  • Final word on this matter to Red. I've also been a computer programmer since `84 (programming in BASIC on a TANDY1000), and coming to me, as an end-user, to complain that the software doesn't work is rather pointless. I'm fully aware there is an issue, but since it is a MediaWiki/Parsiod issue, and I don't see them telling people that they can't use VE which has the exact same problem, then there is little I, as an end-user, can do about it. Coming to my talk page a matter of minutes to complain that you had to fix a problem that was caused by the software that runs VisualEditor while I was already in the process of fixing the issue can be construed no other way than harassment. Changing the indentation style that I prefer on my talk page (of which you've been aware of for months if not a year), is a long continuous pattern of harassment. Please stop doing those things. You want me to fix errors introduced by the VisualEditor/Parsoid software, give me a few minutes to get that done, my page loading times are extremely slow (as can be seen in this edit, it can sometimes take over 15 minutes for pages to load). I hope that when I am able to return to regular editing, that we will be able to patch things up and be able to continue to collaboratively edit together. I appreciate your clear criticism when I do something dumb instead of beating around the bush like other editors, but when you do that, please try and keep it to just that and stop refactoring my comments. Thank you all for your time. — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(e • t • c)} 22:35, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Statement by Redrose64

Well, I've never been Arbcommed before, but here goes.

Amongst my watched pages are User:AnomieBOT/PERTable and User:AnomieBOT/TPERTable, so I'm aware of most WP:PER requests that are raised. Where I have responded to a PER myself, I often leave the page watched for some time afterward, in case there is any feedback. Some pages attract more PERs than others, and so I can become aware that a PER has been raised before it's been recorded in the PERTable. I'm not the only person who handles these, so it often happens that I see the PER responses made by others. These responses take various forms, but commonly found are a change of the |answered= parameter in the {{edit protected}} template, and the addition of an (expanded) {{subst:EP}} template. But since a PER is normally confined to one section, all changes to the page text should normally be confined to that section; so if I see that something further up the page has changed at the same time, I wonder why this should be. After a number of these happened earlier this year, I noticed that they all seemed to come from the same person, who I notified (it's here). It was not until after Technical 13 told me about the script used for those edits that I noticed that they all had the same edit summary: "Responded to edit request (EPH)".

I'm not harassing Technical 13. It's just that the majority of bad edits that are connected with the EPH script were made by Technical 13. If I see similar problems in edits made by other users, I would also inform them; but so far, I have only come across one other such edit. If I were harassing Technical 13, I'd be going through all of their contribs, not just the ones that show up on my watchlist.

I'm a computer programmer: I am fully aware that no software is 100% perfect. But I also know that if I am made aware that some software that I have used is causing problems for others, I should stop using it until it is fixed or replaced. Users of WP:AWB are advised that "edits made using this software are the responsibility of the editor using it". Whilst the problematic edits by Technical 13 were not made with AWB, I believe that "the responsibility of the editor using it" applies to all script-assisted edits, not just those involving AWB. Thus, I believe that each individual editor is responsible for all edits that are recorded in that particular person's contributions. What irks me is when people persist in using a demonstrably problematic tool without cleaning up afterwards. --Redrose64 (talk) 12:12, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Technical 13 is correct that I do sometimes alter their talk page posts (most recent instance), but this is concerned with indentation practice. Technical 13 insists that using asterisks (which display as bullets) for indenting replies on talk pages is acceptable, despite being directed to WP:THREAD and WP:TPG#Layout ("normally colons are used, not bullet points (although the latter are commonly used at AfD, CfD, etc.)"). On one occasion they countered by directing me to Wikipedia:Tutorial/Talk pages#Bullet points; not long after, an attempt by PartTimeGnome to bring that tutorial in line with WP:TPG was reverted by Technical 13 within the hour. A discussion about that seems to have gone stale. To me, tutorials should not lead policies and guidelines, but follow them - where there is a discrepancy, the tutorial is wrong.

When I encounter such asterisks in threads that I am contributing to, I usually (not always) change them to colons. When challenged, I point out that my edits are in line with WP:TPO#fixformat ("removing bullets from discussions that are not consensus polls or requests for comment (RfC), fixing list markup"), after which Technical 13 may try to twist this around or claim an exception. See for example User talk:Technical 13/2014/1#VPT as well as User talk:Technical 13/2014/2#Responding to protected edit requests mentioned elsewhere on this page. --Redrose64 (talk) 20:01, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Comment by Guerillero

While I agree with Floquenbeam that looking at T13's conduct wouldn't be a bad idea, I think that there is still patience in the community left to deal with this issue. At the same time, I have a strong suspicion that version of this issue will be taken up by either this arbcom or the next...

Comment by Dennis Brown

Without comment on the merits, I would simply say that the community is currently capable of handling the problems stated in and/or caused by this report.

Comment by John Cline

Dennis Brown's astute comment is entirely correct. This case should be declined without delay, in my opinion. Also; to soften the vilification I see trending towards T13: I certainly believe an Arbcom case, purposed to scrutinize T13's conduct, affronts propriety when an RfC/U is so well suited for that purpose, yet uninitiated.—John Cline (talk) 20:41, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Comment by Hasteur

I would like to draw the committee's attention to the 2 recent AN threads revolving around Technical 13 (Template Editor User:Technical 13 and Template Editor Jackmcbarn) in addition to the multiple cases on Technical 13's own talk page and archives where requests that Technical 13 does not like get dismissed without constructive response (sometimes with attacks on the editor raising the request). I do fully admit that I am not in pristine white robes both with respect to Technical 13 and with respect to ArbCom. I offer the unsolicited advice that the committee should open a case of limited scope to review the behavior and judgement of Technical 13. I make this suggestion as I feel that there is a Betacommand style case/dispute (Editor with technical proficency but has offended enough of the wrong people to cause their actions to be a source of dispute) that needs to be sorted out sooner rather than later. Based on my own experience (especially with discussions such as this) there is clear and convincing evidence that the community has already had their opportunity at attempting to correct the user's behavior and protect the encyclopedia as a whole from a rogue-editor with advanced permissions. Hasteur (talk) 12:32, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

• Some of this was a private message to the committee asking them to reconsider previously. The committee declined to consider the private advice and suggested that it be posted publicly.Hasteur (talk) 12:32, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Comment by Snowolf

No threats took place, no harassment took place. This is part of the reaction we've seen on various boards here and elsewhere to T13 loosing his template editor bit for wheelwarring with multiple admins. In the short time since he's lost it, we've seen a couple of threads requesting it back, a request on meta for global interface editor status (since withdrawn), a thread to attempt the removal of template editor bits from another user who T13 was/is in a dispute with and now this arbitration case. To this date I have not seen (tho I might have missed it) any admission from T13 that he has done anything wrong. Regardless, the community has done a good job of managing the fallout so far and there is no need for the arbitration committee to get involved. I suggest that the committee advise T13 to behave more maturely and attempt to avoid personalizing disputes and decline to consider this request. Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 15:39, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Clerk notes

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

• I've shortened (and made more neutral) the name of this case request from Threatening and harassment of User:Technical_13 by User:Redrose64 to User:Technical 13 and User:Redrose64. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 06:05, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

User:Technical 13 and User:Redrose64: Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter <0/4/0/2>

Vote key: (Accept/decline/recuse/other)

• I don't grasp the rather technical language being used in the linked conversation, but it looks to me like what is going on here is that Technical13 is making some edits with some sort of automated tool, and those edits are breaking things? And Redrose is telling them to stop, or at least fix things when they break them? Is that about right? I'd also like some clarification on why Technical13 feels it would be "unsafe" to try any lesser form of DR first. If there is a legitimate reason for fear, it isn't apparent from the diffs provided. Beeblebrox (talk) 06:39, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

If this was ANI, I would tell Technical13 tha they are responsible for the effects of their edits no matter what tools they are using, and I would tell Redrose that making a big deal about whether someone uses colons or bullets to indent their comments is petty and needlessly inflammatory. However, this isn't ANI, this is arbcom and I don't see a case here. Decline. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:55, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

• Indeed - the best place for this discussion is at a community venue. Everyone agrees that there is a bug in Parsoid - this has been reported on bugzilla, the question is what to do in the mean time. Personally, I'd say stop using Parsoid, but that's got to be a community decision, rather than a committee one. I don't believe Redrose64 point out that they will take the case to ANI is a threat by any means - it's a statement that a discussion would be opened. Perhaps ANI isn't the best place, but that's not the point here. I'll wait for Redrose64 to comment before making a decision, but I am leaning towards declining this request. Worm^TT(talk) 07:51, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
• As far as I can tell, the relevant facts are:

• Technical 13 makes edits using User:Jackmcbarn/editProtectedHelper.js,
• ...which in turn uses Parsoid, a MediaWiki extension that also powers the VisualEditor,
• ...which in turn has some bugs that can break other parts of the page edited,
• ...which breakages, sometimes left uncorrected for hours, were caught by Redrose64, who has had a couple somewhat heated conversations with Technical 13 regarding them,
• ...which made Technical 13 feel (arguably justifiably) aggravated, as the bugs were located in a MediaWiki component that is out of their or the script developer's control.

Regardless of the technical cause of the error, it's still the responsibility of the editor making the script-assisted edit to ensure that any errors introduced by the edit are immediately corrected. Technical 13 should carefully review the diffs made using the script immediately afterwards to fix any errors caused by this or other Parsoid bugs. I don't see any need for an arbitration case out of this. Decline, unless there's more to this than the three talk page conversations linked in the request. T. Canens (talk) 08:05, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

• I'm also leaning towards a decline. I don't see any inappropriate or harassing administrative conduct in the linked conversations, and indeed see the same concerns Redrose brought up being echoed by several other editors. I would encourage Technical 13 to carefully consider those concerns. If there is no other evidence available, I do not see a need for a case. Per T. Canens, the author of an edit is responsible for that edit, and the author of an edit made using an unreliable or beta tool is responsible to check for and correct any issues. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 09:43, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Decline. I see nothing here that community processes can't handle, nor anything so extraordinary it justifies an immediate leap to arbitration. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 20:42, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
• I'm tempted to accept this case, in order to review the behavior of Technical 13. But I don't think the community has had an adequate chance to do so yet. And accepting this particular case would involve Redrose64 unnecessarily, when the problem is rather one-sided. So decline. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:48, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
• There has been a long history of other harassment from Redrose64 as well, that's a very serious allegation. Please, provide evidence or retract it. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 17:33, 10 July 2014 (UTC)