Marine 69-71 has: (1). ignored consensus by recreating deleted content: [1] after it was deleted in this deletion discussion closed on 7 October 2023: Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Marine 69-71/sandbox, he then recreated it in his Talk Page on 7 October 2023: [2] and then agreed to delete it following discussion on 24 October 2023: User talk:Marine 69-71/Archive 52#Speedy deletion nomination of User talk:Marine 69-71/Archive 49, note that the content is potentially WP:COPYVIO; (2) misused Admin tools for his own convenience: [3], [4] and [5]; (3) generally ignored basic WP rules: [6], [7], [8]; and (4) ignored the policy of WP:NOTWEBHOST by maintaining pages such as User:Marine 69-71/Autographs and User:Marine_69-71/Workshop#The Marine and the Girl Next Door. Given this behaviour Marine 69-71 is unfit to be an Admin.

Response to statement by Ritchie333

Not sure why you felt the need to throw that in, so I will respond. In each case I was trying to follow BRD and was then "both-sidesed" by the admin. Mztourist (talk) 11:14, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User:Ritchie333 if you have comments to make about this arbitration you should make them here, not on my Talk Page: [9] Mztourist (talk) 17:33, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Response to #Statement by Hammersoft

I became aware of Marine 69-71 several years ago. Many of the pages I saw that he had created were poorly referenced and some failed WP:N, other users clearly agree with my assessment as he has a 5.5% deletion rate. The example you gave was a clear case of canvassing and you have not shown that it was a wrongful accusation. Mztourist (talk) 07:09, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Hammersoft he left messages on the pages of two of his friends/supporters clearly referring to the AfD notice and they promptly (8 minutes and 4 hrs later) turned up at the AFD to support him, clear case of surreptitious canvassing. Mztourist (talk) 03:23, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Response to statement by Marine 69-71

Marine 69-71's statement "I created my workshops which are not open to the public, with the intention of writing and working on my articles. I have also written personal things which are not open to the public, but that serve me as an inspiration and motivation to write." demonstrates a lack of understanding of WP:UP. If he truly wants things to be "not open to the public" he should keep them on his own computer and not his userpage and subpages. Mztourist (talk) 17:49, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Marine 69-71

Hello everyone. I am proud and honored to be part of this project. I have been here for many years and have written over 800 articles and have donated hundreds photos. Thanks to Wikipedia my work here has been honored by the government and I have been featured in a PBS Documentary.

I created my workshops which are not open to the public, with the intention of writing and working on my articles. I have also written personal things which are not open to the public, but that serve me as an inspiration and motivation to write.

I truly believe that I am not bothering anyone nor that have I broken any rules since these items have been there for many years. Thank you all for permitting me to express myself. Tony the Marine (talk) 01:56, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by TarnishedPath (Marine 69-71)

I find this rather concerning given the reason given for blocking the editor "This user has been interfering in an article which I am working on". TarnishedPath^talk 07:47, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Richie333, I wasn't speaking to any issue to do with the current MFD. What struck me immediately was that in the case of the block that Marine 69-71 was involved. Should they have not been requesting another administrator to look at the behaviour of the IP? TarnishedPath^talk 10:31, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Ritchie333

@TarnishedPath: The page that Marine69-71 blocked the IP for a week from in June 2023 was User:Marine 69-71/sandbox (now deleted). In that context, "an article which I am working on" doesn't really imply ownership, and we generally allow editors more latitude for what they can do in their own user space. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 10:25, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Dennis Brown - this looks like a storm in a teacup. If people can bring forward actual evidence of Marine actively preventing people improving Wikipedia, we can look at that and take action appropriately. And if he's repeatedly restoring something against consensus, he needs to be told, in no uncertain terms, to stop it.

I can also see that Mztourist has a problem with admins. For full disclosure, I blocked them for edit warring in 2021. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 10:55, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@CaptainEek: If you have an off-wiki conversation with the editor referenced in those diffs, and they confide they felt uncomfortable, desysop Tony and block them for harassment. I'm in one real life group that says if you do anything like this, going beyond the norms of workplace interaction, you'll be booted out. However, I do know some women (particularly older women) who would take this as a complement and not have an issue with it. Really depends on following this up. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 14:53, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I missed the follow up from Mason, which confirms this is an open and shut desysop and block for harassment case. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 12:53, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Dennis Brown

CaptainEek: Jumping to the conclusion that this automatically means desysopping seems presumptuous. If it is part of a pattern of abuse, then I get it, but if it is a one off problem, bit stripping seems excessive. Maybe there is more to the case, I don't know, but if this is the only issue, and there is no singular victim (no one was blocked out of process, etc) then I would think this is the kind of thing that draws a strong admonishment, assuming Marine 69-71 is cooperative and has enough clue to see the problem. What he did was stupid, and he needs to understand and acknowledge that, this is true. The way you are presenting it, however, bit stripping has already been decided regardless of what evidence is presented. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 10:49, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Marine 69-71, I don't think your above statement is sufficient as it doesn't address the issue at hand. I sincerely hope you read through the comments here, and take the time to grasp what the actual problem is, then address that in a clear fashion. What you did is an abuse of the tools. Although there is arguably no singular "victim", it was still going outside of process to solely benefit yourself, which (if nothing else) reflects negatively on your status as admin. It makes it look like you think you are above others, which you are not. Short version: using the tools to unilaterally undelete something for your own use that the community has decided should be deleted is not allowed, and shows disrespect to the community as a whole.

I think Risker outlined the issue most clearly below, although others have said similar. I wasn't aware that the Recall procedure had just passed (I'm not as involved in meta issues right now, by choice), but that seems to be the next logical step. I don't know what the outcome should be, but this is the type of situation that the new Recall procedure seems to be designed for. Because of that, Arbcom should not accept the case as the community has options that have not been explored yet. Even if there isn't enough support to force them back to RFA, the process itself should be sufficient to air grievances and determine if Tony has enough clue to maintain the trust of the community. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 08:13, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cryptic perhaps I should have said "used the tools to bypass community consensus" so the mechanics are slightly different, but the outcome is the same. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 10:10, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Alalch E.

I have become aware of Marine 69-71's lack of familiarity with practices and principles relevant to being an administrator after reading this 2022 talk page conversation between him and Fram, which includes the statement The article "List of abandoned properties in Hayden, Arizona" should not be in "Speedy Deletion" because the content in the Hayden, Arizona article was originally written by me. (For context, see: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of abandoned properties in Hayden, Arizona.) Since then, from time to time, I would look at what Marine 69-71 has been up to admin-wise and I have never seen any reason for him to remain an administrator. Combined with the latest misuse of tools, I think the ideal thing to do would be to desysop Marine 69-71, and it shouldn't be seen as a big deal.—15:49, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

@Isaacl: Wikipedia:Administrator recall is a process in which the community decides whether an admin should keep the bit. If there's no admin conduct dispute, that generally means that the admin has resigned. If the admin is not resigning, and some editors want them to, a dispute along some axis within the community exists. Through admin recall, editors attempt to resolve it, coming to a decision. Editors could not do this before (not counting WP:BANDESYSOP), but with the new policy, they can. The decision can be to recall or to keep the status quo. If the outcome is the status quo, and the same dispute is still active (as is to be expected, but recall advocates might've lost steam and have given up), it will be the case that the community has been unable to resolve the admin conduct dispute. ArbCom can then act as a final binding decision-maker. So I believe that admin recall is a required step now before a case can be opened. It is only at that final step that opening a case to review evidence in a structured manner and then determining what remedies might be imposed etc.—the ArbCom way of doing things—is the right thing to happen, because such an approach, i.e., "breaking the back" of the dispute by overriding the community's customary way of decision-making, has justification only then. So I tend toward believing that it is one of the steps that has to be taken before a case can be opened.—22:12, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

Statement by Swatjester

Based on the ANI thread as well as evidence raised here, it sounds like there are:

some legitimate concerns about WP:ADMINACCT and familiarity with WP:PAGs, both of which it is unclear (to me) whether these are a trend or a slipup;
some concerns about usage of userspace on which reasonable people can (and do) disagree on the impact;
allegations that all of this could have been resolved by putting down the stick;
or perhaps worded another way, that this is only a problem because people looked for it to be a problem. Again, reasonable people can (and do) disagree here.

I think the committee is taking the right tack by waiting for Tony's response; I think if that's not forthcoming this could be resolved on the first of these bullet points only. I do not believe the other bullet points rise to the level of meriting the committee's attention, let alone an actual case. ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 17:14, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Just Step Sideways

I saw this at AN yesterday and dug into the subject's admin logs. What I found there was .... not great. It appears they stopped doing real admin work quite some time ago and now only use the tools for their own convenience, violating WP:INVOLVED once or twice along the way. And their personal memories not related to Wikipedia clearly seem like something that should be on social media or a personal website, it is pretty clearly a case of WP:NOTWEBHOST. That being said I'm not at all sure this amounts to the sort of ongoing intractible issue with an admin that would merit a full case. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 17:44, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It is a bit of an odd coincidence that this came up at the exact same moment that the recall procedure was finally adopted. ~~This may be the a suitable test case for that.~~struck due to the absolute shit show going on there. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 21:10, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It is mildly alarming for an experinced admin to apparentrly believe they are able to create pages on this project which are not open to the public. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 18:29, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And also is posting notices like this in their collection of personal user pages that have no relation to this project:

Warning!

You Better Not Mess With My Workshop!

This isn't a case of someone losing touch with current norms, as I don't believe there was ever a time when this sort of thing was normal. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 18:35, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think, given what is going on over there, arbs should look at this as a regular request on its own merits and not consider admin recall a properly functioning process at this time. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 19:15, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have gone on record many times as being in favor of desysop by motion when the conduct of a single admin would be the scope of a case, so I appluad Eek for going ahead and getting that ball rolling, and I can say with total confidence that were I on the committee, I would vote for desysop. Part of the committee's job is to do things nobody else really wants to do but that nonetheless need doing. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 23:47, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Deepfriedokra

I think it would be best to try to get by with just a warning if @Marine 69-71: shows an understanding of what he did wrong and makes a credible commitment to not create further problems in the future. The dearth of constructive use of the tools is not in and of itself a reason to desysop, though I would encourage him to increase his activity constructively, especially in admin related areas. A lack of recent experience can be overcome through cautious watching and learning and participation with an openness to constructive criticism. ---- Deepfriedokra (talk) 19:07, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I tried to invite him to take part in this case request, but I did not see an e-mail link. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 19:20, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Either here or at a recall petition, a response is required. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 20:48, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Whilst Black Kite's link to the past is interesting, we need more recent and more continuous indications of unsuitability to remove the tools. I look forward to Marine's response. I still have hope that an admonishment and a promise to do better would suffice. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 21:00, 26 October 2024 (UTC) [reply]

I recommend declining. I don't see evidence of tool misuse that would require action by arbcom. The new recall petition process (Wikipedia:Administrator recall) looks like the way to go, if any going is required. At the same time, I urge @Marine 69-71: to slowly and carefully increase his admin activity. Thanks. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 03:59, 27 October 2024 (UTC) [reply]

He needs to increase his tool use in a manner beneficial to Wikipedia. He needs to heed the advice I gave on his talk. He needs to meaningfully address the concerns of the community. Here or at admin recall. I cannot oppose ArbCom taking this without meaningful responses. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 20:29, 27 October 2024 (UTC) [reply]

~~Aoidh sums up quite nicely the reason for my regretful striking of my recommendation to decline the case. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 07:52, 28 October 2024 (UTC)~~ [reply]

~~It is my hope that the Committee can see it's way to a motion to warn about past concerns and to encourage user to mend his ways. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 14:37, 29 October 2024 (UTC)~~ [reply]

~~I do not believe desysop is warranted. And the idea of going from here to recall petition, giving filer a second bite at the apple, vexes me. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 04:12, 31 October 2024 (UTC)~~ [reply]

I am also a Baby boomer, and that remark is not acceptable. Regardless of a user's age, they need to leave their libido at home. There's no room for it on Wikipedia. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 01:07, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Obama apologized. Marine 69-71 has not meaningfully addressed our concerns. If the sexist thing we're an isolated event, it would not warrant desysop. Taken all together, with the lack of a meaningful response, it would be reasonable for arbcom to save us all some trouble by acting now. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 14:08, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It is good that the committee has taken into account the well poisoning aspect, and is acting more deliberatively and more slowly than it might have otherwise. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 18:05, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Noting that he has been offline since 2024-10-31T21:17:47 -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 17:50, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Primefac: RE:"participation cannot do more damage than doing nothing, so why not engage?" I don't think this could have been said more clearly. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 12:00, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Extraordinary Writ

I think this is here less because of the specific policy violations (which are real but maybe not desysoppable, at least if Marine 69-71 responds) and more because of a generalized loss of confidence in his ability to use the tools effectively. Historically ArbCom has had to deal with those cases because no one else can, but Wikipedia:Administrator recall is as of a few hours ago policy (see this closure), and that's a process perfectly suited for testing whether an admin has "lost the trust or confidence of the community". Food for thought. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 19:20, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Marine 69-71's response doesn't address the concerns raised here, which involve much more than webhosting. Arbs, if you think recall is a bloodbath, then you should really just desysop by motion. Anything less than that will lead to a petition, and I'm not sure that's in anyone's best interest right now. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 02:38, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

To be clear, CaptainEek, the main reason I think you should desysop is that it's the right thing to do: there are bad blocks, bad protections (this; restoring the "correct version" and then fully protecting; numerous other INVOLVED and/or just wrong protections), ANI threads old and new, and plenty more. The pragmatic benefits are just a bonus. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 04:03, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Black Kite

Marine69-71 has not done anything useful with the toolset for many years; it appears they only use it when it is useful to their own editing, and the recent shenangians are not the first time they have abused the tools. I was astonished they didn't lose them after this nonsense. Given that, a simple desysop by motion would be the simplest path forward here. This doesn't need a full case. Black Kite (talk) 19:29, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Hammersoft

Given the now policy Wikipedia:Administrator recall, this should be handled there rather than here at ArbCom, who have a history of rashly desysopping. It's obvious there's already intent here to desysop. Further, given that Mztourist's prior interactions with Marine 69-71, including submitting 11 of their articles for deletion, voting delete on almost everything else, wrongfully accusing them of canvassing [10], and here complaining about a vandal in their own userspace being blocked, the upgrading of this to ArbCom seems problematic at best. A boomerang might be in order. Black Kite, bringing up something from more than 13 years ago is hardly helpful except to highlight that if a case is opened it will be a no holds barred, wide open scope free for all against Marine 69-71. There's no hope for Marine 69-71 here; it will be impossible for him to defend himself. --Hammersoft (talk) 20:07, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Mztourist: Your "evidence" that Marine 69-71 canvassed was neutrally asking two people to come to his talk page [11][12]. He wasn't asking people to participate in an AfD and vote a particular way, or any other consensus building mechanism. He was asking for people to come to his talk page. If you believe they were hand picked as a surreptitious way (never mind WP:AGF) to get them to vote at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jorge Otero Barreto, it's still not canvassing. Again, he neutrally asked them to join the conversation on his talk page, and even if asked them to join the conversation on the AfD, he neutrally asked them to. This simply isn't canvassing. --Hammersoft (talk) 22:59, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Zero, I've seen enough of these cases to know that no action would ever come from what Marine 69-71 did. Further, if Marine 69-71 thought it was canvassing, he's far intelligent enough and experienced enough to know that trying to get two people involved this way would have been a bad idea. He could have contacted at least one of them via email. A little AGF here. --Hammersoft (talk) 12:10, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So now we have two motions attempting to solve this case. We have a motion to admonish and one to desysop. It's effectively "do nothing" or "destroy him". So you're going to desysop someone who's been an admin for 19 years and part of the project for over 20 years and not even give him a chance to defend himself in a case? (not that I think he should; it's pointless) Wow, just wow. And yet again ArbCom shows why it needs to be dissolved. --Hammersoft (talk) 12:20, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Primefac: Thank you for accusing me of having false rage. I'm so glad we have policies against this sort of thing. It is patently obvious that I can encourage Marine 69-71 to not participate and still call out ArbCom for acting in the manner they have. ArbCom's actions further prove the wisdom in my encouragement. ArbCom can still accept a case even knowing that Marine 69-71 would not be interested in participating. That ArbCom would choose to act by motion to desysop someone who has contributed such an enormous body of work to the project is deeply insensitive and in my opinion outright abusive. Should Marine 69-71 retain their advanced permissions? Maybe not, but we'll never know because this is summary judgement. There is a human being on the end of their derision. ArbCom is choosing to act in this way not under an emergency condition. There is no invocation of WP:LEVEL1 or WP:LEVEL2 here. ArbCom is taking the easy way out rather than handle it with respect. It is to say the least insulting. It continues a pattern of abuse by ArbCom. I've said before; if ArbCom were an editor on the project they would have been banned from it for routinely violating policy and abuse of the project. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:54, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Zero0000

To editor Hammersoft: I haven't looked at the specifics of this example and have no opinion on Marine 69-71's actions. I just want to express my surprise at your misunderstanding of what canvassing is. You don't have to ask someone to support you in order for it to be canvassing. It is also canvassing if your choice of who to notify is made on the basis of whether you think they will support you. WP:CANVASS is clear on this point. Zero^talk 03:17, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by RoySmith

I think this should be declined. The general rule has always been that ArbCom is the court of last resort on matters the community is unable to deal with. That has always been effectively, "All matters dealing with admins because the community does not have the power to sanction admins". But that's not true any more. It ceased to be true last year when WP:CBAN was changed to include removal of the sysop bit, and it became drastically less true earier today with the enacting of WP:RECALL, as several people have mentioned above. There's still a place for ArbCom to be involved in desysoppings. There could be situations which can't be handled in public due to off-wiki evidence. There could be situations where emergency action is necessary, such as an admin going rogue or a compromised account. None of those seem to apply here. RoySmith (talk) 20:28, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Since we're talking about this in public now, I guess I should post the gist of what I emailed privately to Eek: the comment is ... creepy and inappropriate. I'll add here that it's beyond the pale. We're here in a scholarly mission to write an encyclopedia. Somebody's physical appearance has no bearing on that and comments (positive or negative) on that topic have no place here. RoySmith (talk) 00:33, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by isaacl

A general comment regarding the administrator recall process: it was enacted as another process for removing administrative privileges. As currently formulated, it's not a substitute for the arbitration committee opening a case to review evidence in a structured manner and then determining the best course of action, including what remedies might be imposed on any editors (including admins) involved. (During the discussions this year, there has been no discussion of the recall process replacing the arbitration procedures for removal of [advanced] permissions.) Therefore I disagree with considering it to be one of the steps that has to be taken before a case can be opened. Other remedies than removing administrative privileges may be appropriate, and they should be considered without requiring that the community has gone through the recall process.

Regarding this specific case: it may be a situation where the primary consideration is determining the community's level of trust in the admin, and the recall process would allow for greater community input. I'm a bit wary of having the arbitration committee essentially start a recall petition, but I imagine in future, as the recall process becomes more widely known, the community will readily initiate them on their own. isaacl (talk) 21:06, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Tamzin

My impression from User talk:Marine 69-71/Archive 52 § Template:Puerto Rican Nationalist Party, which actually concerned two templates ({{First Corsican families in Puerto Rico}} was deleted while the discussion was ongoing) was that Tony's a longtime contributor whose heart is in the right place, but who is not up to speed on current best practices in administration, and hasn't shown much interest in catching up. I don't really have a strong opinion on whether he should currently be an admin, but I would encourage him to think about whether he wants to be an admin. Having handed in my tools myself, I can say that it's kind of a relief that now, if I make a mistake, it's just a regular mistake, not a WP:ADMINACCT/WP:ADMINCOND issue that can be brought to AN/ANI/ArbCom. I don't have to carefully word every statement to avoid some pearl-clutching astonishment that an admin would be so dismissive or rude or whatever. And people seem to listen to me more in content disputes. Tony seems to enjoy being a content editor. He may find that it is in fact easier to be one while not being an admin. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe) 23:18, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Vanamonde (Marine 69-71)

I'm not terribly concerned by WEBHOST issues in and of themselves, and I'm not thrilled at the amount of community time spent on this. I'm more concerned by these edits, which, taken with the userspace edits, suggests that Marine 69-71 may not be entirely up to speed on our norms around self-promotion and COI editing. That said, this is an editor of 20 years tenure, who has contributed a considerable volume of content to Wikipedia: they're also not terribly active, and events here may have moved a lot faster than they expect. I think they ought to be respectfully given the opportunity to course correct before sanctions are put on the table. Vanamonde93 (talk) 23:36, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm genuinely surprised people see a handing out a first admonishment as equivalent to doing nothing. Vanamonde93 (talk) 14:49, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Risker (Marine 69-71)

In response to Vanamonde93's statement above, I will point out that any potential conflict of interest between Marine 69-71 and the Tony Santiago article is disclosed on the talk page of the article - in a big box at the top of the page that doesn't get archived. I reviewed all of the edits; the vast majority of them are routine article maintenance (adding categories reflected in the text, fixing external links in references, correcting a content error that does not in any way reflect on the article subject), and a couple of minor content additions. One addition was challenged for COI on the date it was added and was not reinstated, the other was removed as "irrelevant".

And in response to CaptainEek below, the administrator recall policy is pretty much intended to replace Level II desysops, and put them in the hands of the community. Arbcom is justifiably known for desysopping all but a very few cases specific to admin conduct that it accepts. Arbcom is perfectly free now to refer any Level II desysop matters directly to the community process, and not waste its time handling these cases. If the community doesn't take that opportunity, or decides not to remove someone's toolkit after following the admin recall process, that's on the community. Arbcom is still needed for Level I desysops, obviously.

What I'm seeing here is mostly a "maybe this admin is out of touch with process" request here. It is an ideal case to refer back to the community. Arbcom should do so.

Statement by JPxG (Marine 69-71)

I said at the AN/I thread, and will say here also:

I think that recreating and fully protecting the page is clearly unwarranted, and a straightforward misuse of the tools; I don't know what specific response is warranted in this case, but it is not good to have done that.

If this is an isolated hiccup, I would prefer that he put forth some effort to keep up with modern norms. If this is part of a recurring pattern and not a weird isolated hiccup, I would recommend he resign the bit, or prepare for the next one (or perhaps this one) to go to arbitration and end with a desysop.

When people linked to previous instances of Tony taking administrative actions that were not in line with modern norms, in each instance thwt I saw, what happened was that he was quite decent and polite when someone brought it up, and encouraged them to reverse it if they thought it was a bad move. It did not really seem like the kind of rogue legacy admin situation that required a desysop. The stuff he did was not high-impact, or egregiously poor judgment, and it doesn't seem to me like anything bad happened as a result of it.

Someone said the filer has been following Tony around to give him a hard time [clerk's note: referring to Statement by Hammersoft; discussion moved to the talk page] -- not in a position to aggressively fact-check this at the moment -- but very lame if true. jp×g 🗯️ 02:31, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Bishonen

[Replies to JPxG moved to the talk page.]

@CaptainEek: Well, now you've seen how admin recall works, so you can decide whether to defer to it in this case, right? Note that the trainwreck that is the recall of Graham87 must apparently run for 30 days (making the 7 days of RFA that there have been so many complaints about seem relatively humane), since attempts to close it have so far been reverted. Bishonen | tålk 18:22, 29 October 2024 (UTC).[reply]

Statement by Cryptic

A quibble with Dennis Brown's greenly-emphasized statement: Marine 69-71 hasn't - to my knowledge - technically undeleted anything. He created the copy at User talk:Marine 69-71/archive 52 sial about half a day after Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Marine 69-71/sandbox began (actioning the G4 tag placed on it afterwards was how I first became involved), added it onto the already-existing User talk:Marine 69-71/Archive 49 about 2 hours after the mfd concluded, and then recreated it in part at User:Marine 69-71/Workshop3 about a year later (~2 weeks ago). Maybe he used viewdeleted, maybe he pasted in an offline copy, there's no way to know; but for someone with viewdeleted who reposts deleted content, the only reasonable way to deal with it is to assume he used that tool to do so. —Cryptic 09:51, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not to detract from the new diff, which really does make the outcome absolutely, crystal clear - but I'm astonished that it wasn't clear before that. Use of the tools as a result of community consensus is one of the primary functions of an administrator. When you're editing directly against a formal consensus like that MFD - particularly if he used the viewdeleted tool to do it (though it can't be proven either way, and wouldn't have been necessary), particularly when you're deliberately gaming the title to make it harder to find like a 12-edit spammer - that's not just grounds for desysopping, that's something we regularly block for. Crossing the bright line of involved tool use should've been enough, even if the recreations weren't. —Cryptic 08:29, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Viriditas: There's no need to guess at his age. As pointed out by Vanamonde93 and Risker, he has a mainspace article. —Cryptic 08:44, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by QEDK (Marine 69-71)

Limited level of erroneousness that doesn't rise to the level of a desysop, largely in agreement with what Cabayi has said below. --qedk (t 愛 c) 10:30, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Alanscottwalker

Whatever the Webhost issue is, I am of the opinion that the community is either more forgiving, or not in actual consensus on editor's own 'biographical' material (except in what the community considers very offensive, or very disruptive, which must be deleted). Witness, among other things, the extensive use of userboxes. Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:33, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The way this is developing, it looks like the committee is saying 'his remark is nothing, as long as he is not an admin'. That's the wrong message to send. His remark is not acceptable, regardless of whether he is an admin. You should tell him and everyone else that, so as not to be enabling bystanders. Alanscottwalker (talk) 10:06, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by DeCausa

This seems to be a case of systematically ignoring WP:INVOLVED. TarnishedPath has already highlighted that his one block since 2010 was involved. If you look at his protections, other than those of his sandbox/"workshops", they're almost all of articles and templates he's created (and mainly authored) with a couple of exceptions (in last 10 years I only found Joachim Phoenix and 65th Infantry Regiment (United States) he's protected but didn't create. But he's a frequent editor of both and top editor of the latter.) Almost every time he's protecting something he's written. In 2023, Tamzin queried with him (and mentioned involved) the excessive admin-only edit protection in response to a single IP edit to a template he created and authored (Template:Puerto Rican Nationalist Party).[13] Sometimes it's more blatant than just general WP:OWN. The source he referred to in this 2017 protection summary he had added earlier that day[14] after another user had identified the original source Marine 69-71 had added failed verification. He doesn't protect (or block) often so the instances are few and far between. But if it's problematic every time he does do it why leave the tools with him?

@Deepfriedokra: in this amendment to your above comment you strike the suggestion that this should be declined but retain the advice that he should slowly and carefully increase his admin activity. But, as I said above, as far as I can see, all his admin activity, when excluding minor actions for "his own convenience", has systematically contravened WP:INVOLVED - happy to be corrected if I've got that wrong. But if I haven't, why would we want him to increase his admin activity? Have I got it wrong? DeCausa (talk) 20:04, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Valereee

I'd hate to see a desysop, but Marine 69-71, you have misused tools, and that does need to stop. It might be easier to just voluntarily set down the mop you aren't really using and accept the project's thanks for your service.

Statement by Fram

They don't use their tools for the benefit of enwiki, but only for their own benefit. They use their admin status as a tool as well, see Talk:List of abandoned properties in Hayden, Arizona. Oh, and perhaps clerks can remind Ritchie333 that a comment like "I can also see that Mztourist has a problem with admins. " as an attack on the case requester is inacceptable on its own, and even more so when it is linked to this nothingburger. Whether this case request is acceptable or not has nothing at all to do with a comment Mztourist made to BBB23 in July, which doesn't even indicate what Ritchie would like us to believe. Fram (talk) 12:38, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Jehochman

Dear Marine 69-71, if you don't intend to use the tools a bunch, you will be much happier if you just resign. I found myself in that situation and am quite happy to have become an non-admin editor again. If you need anything done there are a bunch of admins here on this page who respect you and would step up and help with anything you need. You won't miss it. Jehochman ^Talk 01:56, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Obama once got himself in trouble by saying that Kamala was the best looking attorney general. He apologized. [15] People shouldn’t be judged only by their worst moment. I am sure we could find an intemperate or stupid remark made by each and every one of the participants in this discussion. Before condemning Tony please give him a chance to react. Long terms volunteers should not be subject to quick cancellation. Let’s be thoughtful. Jehochman ^Talk 12:53, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Absent a response by Marine 69-71, the only reasonable outcome is a desysop by motion. If Marine 69-71 wants to defend their use of admin access, or apologize and say how they hope to improve, that might warrant a longer discussion about what to do next. As for the sexist comment, the reasonable outcome is to say, "This was wrong, don't do it again." I don't see how a stronger sanction is justified given the passage of time and the absence of an established pattern. An isolated error, even a serious one, merits a warning in the context of a user with a long history of positive contributions. Good work doesn't excuse errors, but it provides hope that the error might not be repeated. Jehochman ^Talk 14:33, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

S Marshall

The committee should decline this. The community has a recall process now; so we haven't exhausted community options. Therefore it doesn't reach the threshold for arbcom involvement.—S Marshall T/C 14:45, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Narky Blert

(non-admin non-involved comment) Use of tools in anything resembling a content dispute? No. Just, no.

Special:Diff/1227466398, found by CaptainEek? Yuck. Just, yuck.

From what I've seen of WP:RECALL, I'd hesitate to designate it as favourably as a shitshow. Narky Blert (talk) 21:00, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Sir Kenneth Kho

@CaptainEek I want to provide a brief comment on Marine's six words "I saw your picture on google," he likely saw that on the google scholar linked on the first paragraph of her user page, I am unfamiliar with anything else on this matter. Sir Kenneth Kho (talk) 22:43, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@CaptainEek I agree it still that the comment on appearance remains terrible, and his admin role made her tread carefully in response, but I no longer think it is the proverbial straw that broke the proverbial camel's back, unless more such instances can be found.

As I read more about the case, it seems there is no real case here, and as you've said ArbCom does not do mercy killings. If anything, it is Mztourist who made a poor exercise of judgment filing a case here instead of making a recall petition, not to mention the personal attacks [16] still not struck after warned by four editors. Sir Kenneth Kho (talk) 07:46, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Viriditas Let's avoid ageism here, Obama did the same thing on Kamala in 2013 (Jehochman's evidence), it would not be sensible to call him a misogynist and blame his childhood. Sir Kenneth Kho (talk) 13:47, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think this case in part stems from frustration about editors who became admins in the early days of the project. But this frustration is misplaced on Tony, he created the fourth best article on Wikipedia in 2016, if he had never been an admin and someone nominated him in early 2024, he would pass RfA with flying colors. I also worry about the lack of AGF on the harassment issue, remember he has a main space article so this could also be a BLP issue and impact him in real life. Sir Kenneth Kho (talk) 18:58, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ADMINCOND states "Occasional mistakes are entirely compatible with the admin toolset; administrators are not expected to be perfect. However, consistent or egregious poor judgment may result in the removal of administrator tools." The criteria here is consistent or egregious poor judgment, not fitness as an admin as in RfA.

If we find that this was both a UCoC violation and PAG violation, this is still in Dronebogus's words "a single vaguely inappropriate comment that landed poorly" and in CaptainEek's words "for this relatively minor instance". I quote Deepfriedokra's "If the sexist thing we're an isolated event, it would not warrant desysop" and I quote Jehochman's "People shouldn’t be judged only by their worst moment."

However, although the edits in this case do not warrant desyssoping, in case of absence of response by @Marine 69-71 in the next 4 days and 12 hours, we invoke WP:ADMINACCT and find that he has forfeited his adminship and close the 14-day case, even if the non-response comes from a place of good faith, it cannot stall a case forever. Sir Kenneth Kho (talk) 19:28, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with @Primefac, admins are not even required to defend an ArbCom case, but they are required to explain the actions taken, this is the absolute minimum. Sir Kenneth Kho (talk) 14:27, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Smasongarrison

Although @CaptainEek has done an excellent job keeping the conversation focused on the admin's behavior, I'd like to confirm that CaptainEek assessment is spot on. It was not a welcomed comment. My google scholar profile links to my academic work, but it is not an invitation for commenting on my appearance. I get more than enough of that in my course evals as a young female college professor. It took me 9 minutes to decide on that response. Most of that time was spent going thru Marine 69-71's edit history to evaluate whether I needed to be concerned/proactive. I decided that he was likely harmless, but I was definitely more diplomatic about my response because they had admin tools. For the record, Marine 69-71, if your intent was to thank me, you really should have just stuck to thanking me. Because commenting on my appearance made that a net-negative comment.^SMason_Garrison 23:53, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Chaotic Enby

As the person who brought forward the relevant diff to the Arbitration Committee by email, I opted not to bring it up on-wiki at first out of respect for the privacy of @Smasongarrison. I didn't know if she was comfortable with this incident being brought up in public (and, of course, if they did in fact feel creeped out, or to what extent).

However, now that the proverbial cat is out of the proverbial bag, I believe it is best for me to come forward for the sake of transparency. @CaptainEek's analysis matches what I had in mind when alerting ArbCom of the situation, although they worded it much more eloquently than I could have. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 00:18, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Since RoySmith posted the gist of their email, I figure I should do the same: this comment that I believe to be wholly inappropriate, especially from someone in a position of power. I still stand by this, especially by the fact that the position of power which Marine 69-71 held as an administrator makes the situation even more concerning. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 00:46, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Floq

There is no way on God's green earth that Tony the Marine would survive an admin recall, and I am confident a recall petition will immediately follow closing this RFAR if he's still an admin. That system is working out poorly and cruelly so far, and a desysopping by motion would likely be a kindness. I was on the fence before I saw the diff CaptainEek mentions, now I am absolutely confident he would be desysopped in an admin recall. He has lost my trust. I'm quite sure he has lost most people's trust. --Floquenbeam (talk) 00:19, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Viriditas

Given Tony’s user name and the average age of a Vietnam soldier (Paul Hardcastle), it is self-evident that Tony is in his 70s. I bring this up only to note that his generation (in North America) was the last one to live through a time when women weren’t given the status of human beings on par with men, and were often treated as objects tied to their marriage status and looks. Before the 1970s in the US, women couldn’t have credit cards or property in their name, attend military academies, be astronauts, serve on juries in all states, receive paid maternity leave, serve as a CEO, adopt a child as a single mother, or have the freedom to wear pants (dresses were required in many places). I bring this up because this is the world Tony grew up in, and we should take comfort that, at least in the US, we aren’t going back to that old world. I think it would be helpful to hear what Tony has to say about this, not in the sense of political rehabilitation, as distasteful as that is, but rather to hear him say that he understands what he wrote is dehumanizing to women because it treats them as objects whose sole purpose is to be attractive to men. I think if Tony can acknowledge that things have changed since 1969, and that he realizes what he said was hurtful, it could promote a general sense of healing and understanding. Viriditas (talk) 00:53, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Dronebogus

Marine should be desysopped. I’m a completely uninvolved party but I have never seen this user among the very small number of active admins and the cases brought up are pretty damning examples of abusing status earned a long time ago for trivial personal gain. I agree that they’re basically harmless and feel bad for picking on a 70-something veteran editing in good faith but they simply are not a competent or helpful admin. Dronebogus (talk) 10:33, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As for the “harassment” issue, I don’t see how the remark in question is serious enough to warrant any kind of action in its own right. A single vaguely inappropriate comment that landed poorly is not “harassment”. I don’t endorse it, but it’s not harassment. Dronebogus (talk) 15:24, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(Off-topic comment removed by clerk. House Blaster (talk • he/they) 18:36, 5 November 2024 (UTC))[reply]

Further explanation: I called it “vaguely inappropriate” because saying “you’re very pretty” would be a complement in many contexts and I don’t think Marine (an old, probably somewhat behind-the-times man) meant any harm by it. In this context however it’s extremely weird, unprofessional, cringeworthy and rather creepy. But it’s not at the level of banning based solely on that. It’s not lewd, perverted or even implicitly sexual in nature. That would deserve a desysop and a turbo-ban into space. Dronebogus (talk) 03:44, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by PamD

@Ritchie333: Re your suggestion that Tony's comment on another editor's appearance should only be taken seriously if the recipient says that they "felt uncomfortable": No. Whether Tony's comment was wrong or not does not depend on the psychological robustness of its recipient at the time it was received, but on whether it was likely to upset an editor, any editor, who may or may not be feeling vulnerable at the time. I believe many editors would find that comment upsetting, especially as coming from a person with power to make their on-wiki life difficult if they chose to reply by objecting to it. Speaking as an "older woman" myself, just a couple of years younger than Tony, I would not take that remark as a compliment but as an unwelcome intrusion (the sort which comes with a Facebook Friend Request from an unknown person: "creepy"). No-one who thinks it appropriate to make such a remark on-wiki should have admin powers. PamD 23:30, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Folly Mox (re: Marine 69–71)

As usual, I'm in agreement with Floquenbeam here: a desysop by motion is both correct and the quickest and kindest course of action. Chances of successful RRFA are 0%, to within rounding error. Near certain is a month+ of drama, upset people, and a conclusion so foregone it may affect the future shape of the process (perhaps beneficially i guess). I don't believe community admin recall supplants or ever was intended to supplant Arbcom's desysop process, only to complement it.

Sexual harrassment of women in academia is a topic I take extremely seriously and which I find deeply upsetting on a very personal level. That said, a harassment block (per Ritchie333) for a single comment in June, based information obtained via on a single click from a Wikipedia userpage, feels like it would be more punitive than preventative, unless further diffs are provided demonstrating similar behaviour, indicating an ongoing problem. With commas, Folly Mox (talk) 13:34, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Barkeep49

@Cabayi: speaking only for myself and not for any other member of the U4C (nor have I consulted them): it is a UCoC violation but it is also a violation of enwiki policies and guidelines and so in keeping with a past principle I think ArbCom can just say that. Barkeep49 (talk) 15:42, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Serial

I wasn't going to post in case I got bollocked. But two points must be made:

(Removed by clerk. House Blaster (talk • he/they) 18:36, 5 November 2024 (UTC))[reply]
User:Ritchie333 asserts with one diff that User:Mztourist "has a problem with admins". Firstly, one diff does not indicate a "problem"; Ritchie333 knows that. Secondly, Richie333 is also not Bbb23's greatest fan; he tried to put the boot in when Bbb23 had just lost their CU access (a post that was actually hatted); he was banned from Bbb23's talk; and he accused Bbb23 of harassment. But Mztourist has a problem with admins? Also, "older women sometimes like being googles and oggled over" is totally fucking tone deaf, and actually not that far from M69–71's own comment.

Cheers, SerialNumber54129 19:17, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@ArbCom Clerks: Removed by clerk. House Blaster (talk • he/they) 18:36, 5 November 2024 (UTC) SerialNumber54129 15:18, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@ArbCom Clerks: May I suggest that BusterD provides relevant diffs for the assertion (made here) that Mztourist's actions bringing us all here deserve to be under some scrutiny as well... Their actions have been disruptive in this case and (made elsewhere) the filing party in this case has also misbehaved. As the committee has effectively previously stated: "diffs, or it didn't happen". SerialNumber54129 16:07, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by BusterD

The committee seems to be moving in the direction of acting by motion in this case. This certainly seems to be the most expedient way to deal with disruption, especially when it's imminent and reoccurring. But that's not the situation here. We have a mostly retired wikipedian, satisfied with his accomplishments here and in life, and rightly so. He's made a statement here, and that was sufficient for me to write him a howdy. He's within our guidelines for current activity and his last few admin actions were improper. Why the amazing and undue escalation? The originator of the case, Mztourist, has involved themselves here, and their actions bringing us all here deserve to be under some scrutiny as well. They ARE a current editor. Their actions have been disruptive in this case, IMHO. ArbCom has the opportunity to calm/slow the community down from acting on impulse. Take the full case. BusterD (talk) 16:07, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've struck the redundant wording about Mztourist. As the case originator, I'm sure Mztourist understood that the range of their actions would normally be scrutinized in any accepted full case. BusterD (talk) 16:15, 5 November 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.

Marine 69-71: Clerk notes

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

~~We are troubleshooting the table below. Please bear with us :) House Blaster (talk • he/they) 18:27, 2 November 2024 (UTC)~~[reply]
Thank you, Cryptic! House Blaster (talk • he/they) 18:58, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have removed some unhelpful remarks from Serial Number 54129, and a response from Dronebogus. Please remember to keep your comments focused on whether or not the Committee should accept or decline the case; comments about non-parties are rarely helpful. Thank you BusterD for striking part of your comment. House Blaster (talk • he/they) 18:36, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Marine 69-71: Implementation notes

Clerks and Arbitrators should use this section to clarify their understanding of which motions are passing. These notes were last updated by an automatic check at 18:14, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

Motion name	Support	Oppose	Abstain	Passing	Support needed	Notes
Motion 1: Marine 69-71 admonished	5	1	0		1	One second choice vote
Motion 2: Marine 69-71 desysopped	8	0	0		·

Notes

Marine 69-71: Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter <0/0/0>

Vote key: (Accept/decline/recuse)

I have no desire to wade into the WEBHOST issues; the ANI revealed that reasonable minds may differ on whether the pages were policy compliant, or whether anyone should care. But the apparent misuse of the tools to protect said content is a clear cut ArbCom issue. I want to give Marine 69-71 a chance to explain himself. I also want to make it clear to him that we might resolve this by motion or WP:LEVELII procedures, so we might not open a full case unless requested by Marine 69-71. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 07:43, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Dennis Brown Sorry, should've been more clear. When I meant motion, I meant that we could just vote on our sanction sans case, which might result in no action, admonishment, or desysopping (or even some other outcome). I don't think that desysopping is a foregone conclusion, but I wanted to make it clear to Marine that it could be on the table, so as to provide adequate notice. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 17:20, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The passing of the admin recall process is long awaited, but not a substitute for ArbCom. I analogize it to the process of many American states, which have both a popular recall mechanism (which we have just passed) and an impeachment process (ArbCom) for elected officials. Both mechanisms have their place.
If anything, the passage of the recall process raises my bar for taking action. I think the history of "rash desysoppings" stemmed from the fact that ArbCom was really the only way to deal with problem admins, and we had limited remedies. Given that there is now an alternative, I think I will lean towards letting marginal cases go to admin recall. But I also want to see how admin recall works before I defer to it. It will be interesting to see what sorts of admin behavior triggers recall petitions. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 22:26, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well so far I'm unimpressed by the admin recall process. What a bloodbath. With that in mind, I think the right path out here is an admonishment/warning for Marine 69-71, that we can just pass by motion. I need to mull the wording over first. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 18:28, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(The prior comment is in regards to @Bishonen's comment above, whom I alas did not ping, so thanks to her for the prod) CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 19:20, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Extraordinary Writ I understand your suggestion that we desysop, lest RECALL get a chance to sink its teeth into Marine 69-71. I think that's a pragmatic solution. But I don't love that solution either. If we desysop because we think that RECALL will succeed, then we're still just playing the guessing game that we've played for years around admins (do they still have the community's trust?), but now with an added layer. I always disliked that mind games element of desysopping, and I can imagine us twisting ourselves into knots trying to guess what RECALL might do. I also refuse to be RECALL's hitman/fall guy. Why should we take the blame? If RECALL is going to desysop, I am not going to vote for a mercy killing. For one, we can't guess with certainty what will happen at recall/reconfirmation. For two, I think ArbCom needs to keep its independence; we shouldn't be an extension of recall's sword. If we're going to desysop, I want it to be on our own terms. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 03:35, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like to hear from Marine 69-71. There is some misconduct here but it's fairly low impact. Sometimes that's indicative of a bigger problem but sometimes all it takes is to back down and recognise that you're not going to win this fight. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 11:47, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I will wait to hear from Marine 69-71 before making any substantive comments. Primefac (talk) 14:37, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Marine 69-71, genuinely out of curiosity, do you feel like the administrative tools are still useful to you? Primefac (talk) 16:59, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Hammersoft:, your false outrage (re: So you're going to desysop someone ... and not even give him a chance to defend himself in a case) is ridiculous given that you have been actively encouraging him to not participate in the process you are railing against. You cannot light a match and then call for disbanding the fire department because the building burns down. Primefac (talk) 15:28, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with HJ. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 15:20, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate 71's response here, although I feel like it leaves more to be desired, along the lines of what Cabayi has said. I was leaning more towards an admonishment than a desysop, but the comment towards Smasongarrison is putting me more in the "revoke the tools" camp. That said, I am interested to see if @Marine 69-71 you have any comment on that manner, as Eek and Primefac have indicated below. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 02:04, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Marine 69-71 for responding and taking the possibility of desysopping for unresponseness off the table.
Before your use of the admin tools to protect your own page in June 2023 your last use of the admin tools (that I see at a quick search) was 6 years ago in Sept 2018 on an article in which you were WP:INVOLVED as its author. Do you still need the tools other than for your own convenience?
I'm not seeing sufficient reason for ArbCom to take the tools from you. On the other hand I don't see sufficient need for you to retain them.
If you choose to continue with the tools and to use them for the good of the community, I'd advise reading TonyBallioni's essay WP:/64, also to remember that there are, in general, no pages "which are not open to the public". Cabayi (talk) 09:08, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A motion might be better than a full case, but their response does not address the valid issues raised. One of the diffs in Mztourist's initial comment is the WP:INVOLVED full protection of Template:Puerto Rican Nationalist Party, another is for blocking an IP editor with no warning or discussion for making three consecutive and innocuous edits to Marine_69-71's sandbox. Their response does not address any of this, but is instead focused on their sandboxes and how harmless they consider them, concerning. I truly believe that I am not bothering anyone nor that have I broken any rules since these items have been there for many years. This isn't an issue of an administrator having a few sandboxes that aren't relevant to Wikipedia. I'm not as concerned about content in a sandbox, but when an administrator uses their tools to their own benefit, that's an issue. While the page protection and block are from last year, they are also the most recent usage of a block or page protection from User:Marine_69-71. - Aoidh (talk) 03:15, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Marine 69-71: Arbitrator motions

I previously suggested that this case might be resolved by motion. I have started us with two options. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 03:46, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Motion 1: Marine 69-71 admonished

Marine 69-71 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) is admonished for using the admin toolset in situations in which he is WP:INVOLVED, including to protect pages he created and to block editors. He is further admonished not to invoke his position as an administrator to win content disputes, and that he must timely and completely explain any admin actions in accordance with WP:ADMINACCT.

Not enacted (superseded by motion 2) - SilverLocust 💬 18:13, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

For this motion there are 10 active arbitrators. With 0 arbitrators abstaining, 6 support or oppose votes are a majority.

Support

A set of criteria so obvious that it shouldn't need to be said to any admin. But sadly, it apparently does. Cabayi (talk) 09:37, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Per my comment above. - Aoidh (talk) 13:43, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
At a minimum. Primefac (talk) 15:32, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
~ ToBeFree (talk) 22:10, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As things stand, this is my second choice. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:57, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

Insufficient --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 06:31, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain

Arbitrator discussion

Motion 2: Marine 69-71 desysopped

Marine 69-71 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)'s administrative privileges are revoked. He may apply to have them reinstated at any time via a new request for adminship.

Enacted - SilverLocust 💬 18:13, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

For this motion there are 10 active arbitrators. With 0 arbitrators abstaining, 6 support or oppose votes are a majority.

Support

Their WP:INVOLVED administrative actions alone may or may not warrant this type of response, but their response above does not indicate an understanding of the issues or that those issues will not continue, which puts it solidly into "action is needed" territory. An administrator's tools should play no part in that administrator's content disputes or be used for their own personal benefit when editing, yet here that very low bar is not being met and there is no indication that anything will change. I would much rather an administrator's infrequent and problematic tool usage be addressed via desysop than risk having editors driven away from the project because we let that tool misuse continue. - Aoidh (talk) 13:43, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I was not going to land here—until I saw Special:Diff/1227466398, which is beyond all bounds of decency. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 17:39, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(as discussed) Cabayi (talk) 08:13, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
~ ToBeFree (talk) 22:10, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would have been happy with the admonishment. In the scheme of things, the issues were relatively minor and a slap on the wrist and a "don't do it again" would have been proportionate but would have put something on paper that could be referred back to in the event that there are future issues. But the comment Eek highlights really needs to be addressed. That's not appropriate in general but coming from someone with the social capital of an admin has a potential chilling effect and, when put together with all the other issues, pushes me towards a desysop. It's not too late for Tony to change my mind with an appropriate level of self-reflection and a promise to do better and use the admin tools for the benefit of Wikipedia but this is where I land for now. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:57, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Only choice --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 06:30, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
First choice. KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 02:45, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I do not want to be casting this vote, but I have no choice; Marine has not responded to any requests for comment or clarification on the original or more recent concerns about their editing, and that is one of our primary expectations of an admin, especially when named in a case request. I also want to put on the record that being named in a case request is not a self-fulfilling prophecy for admins unless they choose not to engage; participation cannot do more damage than doing nothing, so why not engage? Primefac (talk) 11:32, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

Abstain

Arbitrator discussion

@Marine 69-71: While I have admittedly already voted on Special:Diff/1227466398, you should be able to respond to this late breaking diff, so I wanted to ping you to make sure you were aware that I found it extremely troubling. I will also note Special:Diff/1227467181, the follow-up edit. For full transparency, both diffs came via email by editors who didn't want to post them on-wiki. I would usually force folks to post on-wiki evidence on-wiki, but given the context I was willing to cut through the redtape for once. I turn to an analysis of the diffs now. Marine 69-71 thanks an editor, and then includes a rather creepy comment that he googled said user, and found them attractive. The editor in question (who I have emailed so they are aware of this, but I'd rather not make the focus about them) replies with a thanks for the thanks. I view that response as a pointed silence about the second, creepier, aspect. Maybe I got it wrong and the user wasn't creeped out. But even if the comment landed well, Wikipedia is not tinder. There was every chance the comment wouldn't land well. We often remark how we have problems attracting and keeping female editors. This is part of the problem! Given all the other issues here, this is the diff that broke the camel's back. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 18:25, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Sir Kenneth Kho That is a plausible explanation for how he saw the image. Still, he crossed the line when he then decided to comment on it in such a manner. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 23:17, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am concerned about well-poisoning with regard to the lack of participation by Marine 69-71, but they are also not the most active of editors so I will probably wait another few days before making a decision on the desysop question. Primefac (talk) 15:32, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I share CaptainEek's distaste for Marine 69-71's comment which was way more 1974 than 2024. It seems more a matter for WP:ADMINRECALL than for ArbCom action. I'd vote for a recall but I remain to be persuaded that the question is within ArbCom's scope. Cabayi (talk) 09:51, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
On further reflection this could be seen as a breach of UCoC's Harassment clause, "Sexual attention or advances of any kind towards others where the person knows or reasonably should know that the attention is unwelcome". Anybody care to chime in with their 2¢ on this point? Cabayi (talk) 15:38, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
One could reasonably make that argument, especially if we get no followup from Marine about the situation. Primefac (talk) 17:04, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I tend to take Barkeeps tack here, that if conduct violates local policy, to defer to local policy first. The only place we should be considering the UCOC is places where local policy doesn't cover it. But here, this is obviously violative of local policy against harassment. Would I block for this relatively minor instance? No. Should he be an admin though? Definitely no. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 17:50, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Local policy on harassment is largely focussed on doxxing and wikihounding. The UCoC has the advantage of being explicit on sexual harassment. Still, harassment is harassment, and harassment by an admin is in our ballpark. Cabayi (talk) 08:13, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am largely inclined to support, absent further participation by Marine 69-71. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 18:00, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Covert canvassing and proxying in the Israel-Arab conflict topic area

Initiated by BilledMammal (talk) at 04:03, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed parties

BilledMammal (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), filing party
Ïvana (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Salmoonlight (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Huldra (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Brusquedandelion (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
CarmenEsparzaAmoux (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

Statement by BilledMammal

There is ongoing coordination of off-wiki editors for the purpose of promoting a pro-Palestinian POV, utilizing a discord group, as well as an EEML-style mailing list (Private Evidence A).

A significant participant in the discord group, as well as the founder of the mailing list (Private Evidence B), is a community banned editor (Private Evidence C), who since being banned has engaged in the harassment and outing of Wikipedia editors (Private Evidence D). This individual has substantial reach (Private Evidence E), and their list appears to have been joined by a substantial number of editors, although I am only confident of the identify of three.

The Discord group was previously public, but has now transitioned to a private form in order to better hide their activities (Private Evidence F). It is not compliant with policy, being used to organize non-ECP editors to make edits within the topic area, some of whom have now become extended-confirmed through these violations. In addition, it is used by the community-banned editor to make edit requests, edit requests that are acted upon (Private Evidence G).

Ïvana

Recruited editors to an EEML-style covert canvassing list, and possibly initiated the creation of it (Private Evidence H)
Proxied for a community-banned editor (Private Evidence I)
- Edited Sexual violence
- Edited Anat Schwartz
- Edited Sexual and gender-based violence against Palestinians during the Israel–Hamas war
Organized and supported non-ECP editors editing within ARBPIA (Private Evidence J)
Including heavily assisting non-ECP editors Ahm93 and WamelSlice to create Parting Ways: Jewishness and the Critique of Zionism

See also tfp Wikipedia collaboration
Since this started receiving significant attention, they have made efforts to cover their tracks. In addition to the Discord group going private, they have deleted their Telegram messages (Private Evidence K)

Salmoonlight

Joined an EEML-style covert canvassing list (Private Evidence L) Given Salmoonlight's comment, provided additional evidence connecting the Telegram personality to them (Private Evidence P) 05:32, 6 November 2024 (UTC)
- Currently topic-banned, so has not made any edits

Huldra

Proxied for a community-banned editor (Private Evidence M)
- Created Chen Kugel. Sources used include those that the banned editor requested they use as a "weapon" against Kugel.

Brusquedandelion

Joined an EEML-style covert canvassing list (Private Evidence N)
Proxied for a community-banned editor (Private Evidence N)
- Edited Sexual and gender-based violence in the 7 October Hamas-led attack on Israel

CarmenEsparzaAmoux

Proxied for a community-banned editor (Private Evidence O)
- Edited Screams Without Words
- Edited Alexei Navalny. In the edit request, the editor disclosed they were banned.
- Edited Sexual and gender-based violence against Palestinians during the Israel–Hamas war. In the edit request, the editor outed and harassed a Wikipedia editor.

Additional comments

@CaptainEek: Already done. BilledMammal (talk) 05:22, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@CaptainEek: I sent arbcom-en an email about an hour ago. BilledMammal (talk) 05:40, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@CarmenEsparzaAmoux: I wasn’t aware of that discussion at the Navalny talk page, but it doesn’t change the overall concerns, except to add canvassing. That discussion was the first and last time you ever edited that page - and I find it interesting that Brusquedandelion also joined that discussion. BilledMammal (talk) 21:49, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Ïvana

Statement by Salmoonlight

I don't interact with other Wikipedia editors and I have never heard of this canvassing list. I act alone. I also only talk regularly in one public Discord server. Salmoonlight (talk) 05:06, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And why am I still getting pulled into this even when I am topic-banned? Salmoonlight (talk) 05:32, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"Provided additional evidence" ??? Salmoonlight (talk) 05:39, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Huldra2

I have never been on Discord (didn't even know what it was, before it popped up here), and I have been editing wp since 2005, before Discord even existed(? I think) Also, I have created nearly 300 articles, for various reasons;

Sometime because I saw a village that didn't have an article on en.wp, but did have an article in other wikipedias.
sometimes because I saw something reported in the news, or on social media ( like blogs[17]: Turki al-Hamad), which didn't have an article,
sometimes because I have used them as a source (Wolf-Dieter Hütteroth),
and once I even started an article about someone, because I had visited a museum for her (Emily Ruete..nice little museum for her in Zanzibar)
As for the Chen Kugel-article, best as I recall, I looked at which other places on en.wp he was mentioned, and used those sources. I have no idea as to which " banned editor" is referred to, Huldra (talk) 22:02, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

PS: I have never been part of a "EEML-style mailing list". I have, however, communicated via email, with wp editors (both pro-Israeli and pro-Palestinian); mostly getting/exchanging RS sources. I have also communicated with others about death threats and rape threats and "outing attempts" (when I felt totally let down by the WMF T&S), Huldra (talk) 22:10, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Is there any chance I could see the "(Private Evidence M)" against me? Huldra (talk) 22:24, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am still wondering what "community-banned editor" I "proxied for"....? Could someone please tell me, as I am in the dark? Huldra (talk) 22:44, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Brusquedandelion

Statement by CarmenEsparzaAmoux

I do not have a Discord. I do not communicate with editors off-Wiki—let alone edit for others—community banned or otherwise. My edit on Navalny's page was following his death, part of a long-running talk page discussion about the inclusion of his comments comparing Caucasus Muslim immigrants to cockroaches. These other two edits... I added info from widely publicized New York Times articles? CarmenEsparzaAmoux (talk) 21:38, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@BilledMammal Navalny had just died. I don't edit in articles related to Russia at all, but even I read his article when he died. The day I made that edit, his article had more than 300,000 views and his talk alone had more than 600. [18] CarmenEsparzaAmoux (talk) 21:59, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Chess

Per what I said at WP:ARCA, there is strong circumstantial evidence of User:CoolAndUniqueUsername's involvement. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 04:08, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Going with what has publicly been revealed:

Ivana has admitted to linking AN threads on Discord for others to comment on.
Ivana was publicly asked to be the head of a "blitz team" to coordinate the editing of articles.

Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 04:36, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reminder that if the accused wants the evidence to be public, they can make it so. WP:OUTING applies here to the extent Ivana et al haven't revealed their identities in the Telegram chat. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 17:41, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Zero0000: Revealed their identities in the Telegram chat on wiki. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 15:17, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Dan Murphy

Yoinks! A private-evidence extravaganza of a star chamber. Sounds like a GREAT idea! And from such a clean set of hands.Dan Murphy (talk) 04:23, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Liz

The claims of that article on coordinated editing along with this case request are pretty accusatory, I just hope that the private evidence sent to the committee warrants an investigation. Not being privy to this information, it will be difficult for us regular editors to make arguments on whether or not this request should be accepted. I hope this request doesn't devolve into statements based on suspicions without evidence. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:10, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by David A

I apologise if I am disturbing, misunderstanding what is allowed, or getting too paranoid here, but how did BilledMammal, as a supposedly regular editor, get ahold of such extremely specific and private information, if it is even reliable? This seems suspicious given that:

BilledMammal has participated in several attempts to delegitimise and thereby remove all references from Al Jazeera from Wikipedia, which is the main news organisation that reports war crimes by the Israeli government. [19] [20] [21]
I read a comment by another Wikipedia editor regarding that a recent news article that attacked Wikipedia used information organised by BilledMammal in one of their userspaces. [22] [23]

David A (talk) 09:56, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There may also be two other potential concerns here. One is that it is likely quite easy to doctor evidence in the form of screencapture images from chat rooms with modern technology, and another is that it is also easy for people to claim to be/impersonate others online. Just because somebody in a chat room claims to be a specific Wikipedia editor, this does not automatically make it a fact. David A (talk) 16:01, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Zero0000

To editor BilledMammal: Did you obtain this evidence personally, or are you passing on what you received from someone else? Zero^talk 12:36, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

To editor Chess: You wrote "WP:OUTING applies here to the extent Ivana et al haven't revealed their identities in the Telegram chat." Maybe I misunderstand you, but to be clear it is not allowed to copy personal identifying information to here from an external site even if that information was voluntarily revealed on the external site. That is made clear by the very first sentence of OUTING: "Posting another editor's personal information is harassment, unless that person has voluntarily posted their own information, or links to such information, on Wikipedia. (bold in original). Also see this RfC. Zero^talk 12:49, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Simonm223

I'm a bit aghast that this arbitration case exists and I sincerely hope that it is rejected by the arbitration committee. Targeting specific editors for this based on supposed private evidence is borderline McCarthyism especially as the motivation is a blog of a right-wing agitator with an axe to grind against the supposed progressivism of Wikipedia. Please, let's not do this. Simonm223 (talk) 13:37, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I certainly share @Super Goku V's concern. Simonm223 (talk) 12:46, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Super Goku V

@BilledMammal: You might want to request an extension on this. That aside, I have concerns that some of the evidence is tied to Pirate Wires. I voiced my concerns about them in a related situation just over a week ago and I don't think I am alone based on some of the comments at the PirateWires Wikipedia Investigation discussion linked to. --Super Goku V (talk) 08:06, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Parabolist

So instead of just sending all of this incredible evidence to the arbs, we get this grandstanding case request, where BilledMammal gets to accuse a host of editors of a litany of crimes without actually needing to post proof. The entire point of arbs receiving private evidence by email is so that this doesn't happen. And considering how weak some of the claims are (One editor's crime is simply being in a Telegram group? BM doesn't even think they edited?) it looks like a great deal of wall-bound spaghetti. (Private Evidence Z-3) Parabolist (talk) 09:15, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Nableezy

If the only evidence for a claim is private material then the accusation should be made in private as well. Iff the committee feels that the evidence has merit then yes some public statement or motion is in order. But right now an editor is making very public accusations against editors and then saying they cannot share any evidence. As the filer here previously said I am concerned that this is quickly turning into a witch-hunt, with editors tossing out accusations with little to no evidence, accusations that in a different forum would result in a boomerang as often as not. I think it would be beneficial for the committee to instruct editors to avoid issuing accusations unless they have some form of evidence for them, and to remind editors that posting unsupported accusations - casting aspersions - can result in sanctions. Obviously I don’t know what evidence exists here, but having the accusations made publicly and the evidence provided privately strikes me as a convenient way of smearing the names of editors to the wider community. If y’all are on board with that ok I guess, but if this is entirely reliant on private evidence then a. There isn’t anything any body else can offer here making the preliminary statements utterly pointless, and b. I hope if the evidence is not convincing that there is just as public an apology to the users who were accused. nableezy - 13:57, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Ca

I joined the Discord server after concerns were raised at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Israel § Canvassing. According to official announcement, they set to private their Wikipedia editing channel due to doxing concerns. I inquired on the status of their Wikipedia editing activities, and one user said they were suspended for the same reason. and one The organizers seemed largely clueless in the workings of Wikipedia; one appeared to be using ChatGPT in an attempt to code a bot to canvass participating editors into discussions. Ca ^{talk to me!} 14:06, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Girth Summit

I've just now become aware of this arbitration request. I know nothing about the dispute this case centres around, but I came here to note that a few minutes ago, following my investigation at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Jpesch95, I blocked one of the parties, CarmenEsparzaAmoux, as a suspected sock. This was based on behaviour, rather than CU data, but I have not gone into the specifics of my findings per WP:BEANS. I'd be happy to explain further if anyone from the committee wants to reach out by email. Girth Summit _(blether) 17:00, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Jéské Couriano

@KevinL: This is not the first time ArbCom has had to deal with bad actors in the PIA area who are coordinating off-wiki, so there is precedent for taking this case just within the PIA area itself. (If you want non-PIA precedent, may I interest you in EEML or WTC?) —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 17:53, 7 November 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.

Covert canvassing and proxying in Israel-Arab Conflict: Clerk notes

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

Covert canvassing and proxying in Israel-Arab Conflict: Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter <0/0/0>

Vote key: (Accept/decline/recuse)

BilledMammal I assume that you will email us this private evidence? CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 05:19, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@BilledMammal I take it you're referring to the email dating from July? I can't say that you have that email lined up nicely with "private evidence A, B, C" and so on. Or have you just sent something? CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 05:37, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am troubled by the process here. Ordinarily, it is impermissible to cast aspersions on editors, as documented at WP:ASPERSIONS and as grounded in policy at WP:NPA, WP:AGF, and WP:CIV. I am concerned that @BilledMammal's reliance on off-wiki evidence to make public, on-wiki accusations of misconduct, without any finding by the Committee that such misconduct did in fact occur, is inconsistent with those policies.

There's a reason that the arbitration policy explicitly provides that Evidence based on private communications (including, but not limited to, other websites, forums, chat rooms, IRC logs, email correspondence) is admissible only by prior consent of the Committee and only in exceptional circumstances. (emphasis added). The "consent of the Committee" is required because the Committee is the body charged with adjudicating disputes involving privacy implications, and it can unjustifiably besmirch someone's reputation to accuse them publicly of misconduct in reliance on evidence that they cannot see and cannot reasonably or fairly respond to.

I suggest that we close this public case request as out of process. In the event that the Committee opts to take action on BilledMammal's private submissions, it can then fashion the appropriate process, such as a shell case for in camera proceedings with a public final decision, as the committee held in Stephen (see motion), or a hybrid public-private case like the committee held in Reversal and reinstatement of Athaenara’s block (see motion). Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 17:35, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Jéské Couriano: My objection is to using this case request to post accusations that would be inappropriate to post anywhere else based only on private evidence. If the Committee finds merit to the submission of off-wiki evidence, it is in the right position to fashion the appropriate process. In my term on the committee I've heard a number of cases involving off-wiki evidence, including both entirely-private proceedings and proceedings with a public component, so that's not the part I'm hung up on. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 18:00, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Abstentions	Support votes needed for majority
0	6
1–2	5
3–4	4

Abstentions	Support votes needed for majority
0	6
1–2	5
3–4	4