Jump to content

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case

Edit links
Page semi-protected
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Arbitration‎ | Requests

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Chess (talk | contribs) at 03:40, 2 July 2024 (→‎Statement by {Non-party}). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

"WP:ARC" redirects here. For a guide on talk page archiving, see H:ARC.

Shortcut

Requests for arbitration

Arbitration Committee proceedings
Request name Motions Initiated Votes
An admin advising another user to deliberately introduce errors   1 July 2024 0/0/0
[edit]
Open cases

Currently, no arbitration cases are open.

[edit]
Recently closed cases (Past cases)
Case name Closed
Venezuelan politics 25 May 2024
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

No arbitrator motions are currently open.

An admin advising another user to deliberately introduce errors

Initiated by Just Step Sideways from this world ..... today at 19:47, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed parties

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request
Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

Statement by Just Step Sideways

Words can barely describe how much I do not want to do this but I'm afraid it seems needed. I am merely bringing this to the committee, I have no actual involvement in it. The intended scope is admin conduct of Schwede66, who openly admits that they deliberately advised Alexeyevitch via email to introduce some small errors to specific pages, as a sort of ham-handed trap to "prove" that Panamitsu was stalking/hounding them.

So, that's like, really dumb and when confronted with it I would expect an admin of Schwede66's tenure and experience to be able to see it, but I'm afraid they've chosen instead to double down. When directly asked if they would do it again the answer was a resounding yes [4]. This, to me, is the "smoking gun" that says this person has lost their way as an admin.

I'm shocked, frankly, I respect Schwede66, they are a real workhorse at WP:PERM and many other places. I don't have a long list of other serious issues to present, but encouraging a user to vandalize article content to create a "gotcha moment" on another user, then failing to comprehend why others object is a dealbreaker for me. I have said, loudly and often, that we all mistakes, it is what we do when they are pointed out that is the true test. Weaponizing actual article content to try and trap another user is so far out of bounds that doing it to begin with is arguably sufficient cause for a desysop, pledging that you would do so again when the tactic is questioned certainly is. Just Step Sideways from this world ..... today 19:47, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I would add that this as this is a single-issue case, unless other serious concerns are brought forward it could probably be resolved by motion. I've already presented all the evidence I think is needed in that one diff. Just Step Sideways from this world ..... today 19:59, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Schwede66

Statement by Alexeyevitch

This has not been an easy decision for me. I was initally skeptical about this because I knew I should not be doing this. I would not like to see this behavior again (from all of us) but it is ultimately Mr. Wilke's decision if he would do the same in the future.

I also think the "gotcha moment" and laying traps for each other is silly. I will not take approaches like this in the future. I primarily edit Christchurch-related articles so naturally I was skeptical seeing these edits.

(IMO) At present time. I don't think this is worth desysoping nor any administrative actions. I don't want this stuff to hapen in the future. Yes, putting little mistakes in about 5-ish articles is wrong (which have all since been reverted). This doesn't change my preference on using U.S English elsewhere. But this behavior cannot continue on those articles.

Mr. Wilke, I don't want to pressurize you but might want to reconsider weaponizing articles in the future. But it is ultimately his decision if he does this or not (in the future). Us three all have wrongdoings and we cannot continue to act like this. Alexeyevitch(talk) 23:14, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My stress has subsided... I hope my message wasn't confronting. That was not my intent. But I do hope we can prevent this stuff from happening in the future and continue working on the project "civilly". Alexeyevitch(talk) 00:40, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Panamitsu

I have encountered Schwede66 throughout the 13 months that I have been 'seriously' editing Wikipedia, and I have always enjoyed working with him (and I hope this continues in future). I have never had, or witnessed, any problems with him in the past which suggests that this was one mistake rather than a longlasting problem. This, and the fact that he reported me to the AN/I rather than immediately 'abusing' administrator privileges suggests to me that this event does not demonstrate a lack of administrating competence. Thus, I do not believe that he should stripped of any administrator rights.

It was ultimately up to Alexeyevitch's discretion to decide whether or not to introduce these errors, not Schwede66's. ―Panamitsu (talk) 01:56, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by DeCausa

Arbcom, really? This seems to be the key point per quote from Schwede66 linked by JSS: Hence, we have two situations: an editor worried that he is being stalked and a way of finding out whether that's true, and a spelling mistake in one article, and an unbalanced bracket in another article, for a rather limited period of time. The former, I would suggest, is a problem. The latter is not. However, some editors above make out that the latter is the real problem. I fail to see that. I really do. If we want to build an encyclopaedia, shouldn't we be more worried about editors getting on with one another, and if they really can't, keep them apart from one another, as opposed to fretting about a couple of minor mistakes being introduced temporarily? What am I not getting? Where is the perspective in all of this?And to answer your question directly, unless I can be persuaded that I've got this completely the wrong way around, I would do the exact same thing the next time a situation like this arose. Trout perhaps. At most. I can see this easily getting out of all proportion though, which is regrettable. This is easily handleable by the community with no need for Arbcom involvement. DeCausa (talk) 21:55, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by RoySmith

Just to make it easier to find, the thread in question is currently at WP:ANI#Wikihounding report but it looks like it's going to roll over into Archive 1159 soon.

As for the matter at hand, yeah this was a stupid suggestion for anybody to give, and even more so for a highly-experienced admin. I've worked with Schwede66 quite a bit at WP:DYK and never had any problems with their work, so unless there's some other pattern of problems that I'm not aware of, I would treat this as a one-off. And assuming they understand why this was stupid and endeavor to do better, I can't see this needing anything more than a trouting. RoySmith (talk) 23:42, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I should add that a similar thing happened a couple of years ago, involving WMF staff inserting material into enwiki pages to use for testing some software. One could start at Wikipedia:Village pump (WMF)/Archive 5#Procedures on test accounts and follow the links from there. The gist is that after a lot of yelling and screaming, the WMF folks understood the problem, came up with a plan to prevent it from happening again, and life went on. Exactly like what should happen here. RoySmith (talk) 00:03, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Newyorkbrad

Deliberately introducing errors into Wikipedia, or encouraging another to do so, is improper; and remains so even where the errors are minor, temporary, and intended to serve a broader purpose. See generally, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/MZMcBride 2 (although that was a more complex set of facts).

The suggestion of making these "test" or "trap" edits was unproductive here in any event, because it seems undisputed that one editor was tracking another's edits, and the relevant question was not whether this was happening but why. See Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Fram#Following another editor's contributions and Wikipedia:Harassment#Hounding.

If, as appears, this is an isolated situation, a general reminder of these principles in the arbitrator comments might suffice to resolve the admin-conduct case request. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:49, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by AP 499D25

Like what I wrote on the AN/I thread, my good faith assumption tells me that the reason why User:Schwede66 was doing what he was doing, was because he was with the belief that User:Panamitsu was following around and 'stalking' User:Alexeyevitch's edits, and so suggested User:Alexeyevitch to do several more of the kind of edits that would get User:Panamitsu's attention. The big thing that stands out to me here, is that there is no actual abuse of admin privileges. Instead of taking this matter into his own hands, Schwede proceeded to an AN/I report to garner second opinions and suggestions from other users / the community, regarding what is actually going on and who is in the wrong here. Which, it did turn out that this issue wasn't a matter of stalking, rather it was User:Panamitsu watching over and correcting a series of guideline violations from another contributor (this is a legitmate reason for reading another user's contribs history as set out at WP:HOUNDING).

I will definitely admit however that Schwede's response to this matter has been less than satisfactory to me. He did not seem to apologise or take full responsibility for his actions, rather, "shoved them under the rug" (ignored them) if that makes sense. He did get that Alexeyevitch was in the wrong though (putting American English in articles with 'Use NZ English' template), going as far as warning them at AN/I. Since there was no abuse of admin privileges and this seems to be more of a simple behavioural communication issue, I would rather see Schwede66 given one formal warning regarding how they handled this matter, rather than a straight-up removal of admin privileges (as they were not misused).

Also, just to be clear, I don't see a reason for any administrative action to be taken against User:Alexeyevitch at this time. They have owned up to their mistake and have stated they will not do it anymore. — AP 499D25 (talk) 23:57, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Johnuniq

There is another reason that advising someone to introduce errors is a bad idea. If editor A thinks editor B needs checking, A is welcome to follow B and fix obvious problems. If B introduces errors and A fixes them, that's bad for B and good for A. It's only stalking/hounding if A is fiddling with B's edits when they do not need A's attention. Johnuniq (talk) 00:18, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by AirshipJungleman29

Pretty silly, so I can see why some think a trout is not sufficient. Thus, my suggested motion: a {{whale}} administered with precision and gusto. Anyone disagree? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 00:47, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Deepfriedokra

Meh. A whale, of course. All the way around. However, I'd like to see the other two parties address what they should'nt've done and what they should've done instead. Best. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 01:28, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Chess

Administrators using their judgement to resolve disputes onwiki is their job, and sometimes they get it wrong. These are three principles ArbCom should consider here.

  1. When an admin is unsure of what action to take, they should err on the side of gathering more information.
  2. If an issue is still unclear, administrators should try to resolve an alleged issue rather than doing nothing.
  3. Unclear definitions of bad behaviour discourage administrators from doing something in unclear situations.

Schwede66's actions attempted to address points 1 and 2 but did not do so in a way the community found acceptable. Rather than giving Schwede66 a trout and a general reminder of principles, it would be helpful if ArbCom identified specifically what Schwede66 did right, what they did wrong, and where they could improve if they encountered a similar situation.

Schwede66 acted properly when they intervened in a dispute between Alexeyevitch and Panamitsu, recommending that they stop following each other's edits. When the dispute continued, and Panamitsu began following Alexeyevitch, Schwede66 tried to gather more information. The way they did so was wrong, because Schwede66 advised Panamitsu to introduce errors into articles to bait Alexeyevitch into interacting with those errors. Later, Schwede66 did the right thing by bringing the issue to WP:ANI and seeking external input on the dispute.

This is an error in a chain of generally constructive behaviour, and the overall series of events shows that Schwede66's goal was to improve the encyclopedia; they haven't "lost their way" as an admin.

For next steps, ArbCom should decide whether or not "baiting" editors to create proof of WikiHounding is acceptable so long as the "bait" does not consist of disruptive edits. ArbCom might also recommend that Schwede66 consult with other administrators at an earlier stage in the process of dispute resolution, since external input may have prevented this mistake. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 03:40, 2 July 2024 (UTC)   [reply]

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.

An admin advising another user to deliberately introduce errors: Clerk notes

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

An admin advising another user to deliberately introduce errors: Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter <0/0/0>

Vote key: (Accept/decline/recuse)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case&oldid=1232133062"