Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Stephen

Main case page (talk) — Evidence (talk) — Proposed decision (talk)

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

Case opened on 18:24, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

Case closed on 22:59, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

Watchlist all case (and talk) pages: Front, Ev., PD.

Case information

Involved parties

• Stephen (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Preliminary decision

Motion: Stephen (case request)

Consistent with the Arbitration Committee's procedure on return of permissions following expedited removal, Stephen (talk · contribs) has requested that the Committee open normal arbitration proceedings to examine the removal of permissions and surrounding circumstances. Stephen has additionally requested that the case be heard privately, and the Committee agrees that there are significant privacy issues constituting extraordinary circumstances. Accordingly, the Committee directs its clerks to open an in camera arbitration case titled "Stephen", with no public evidence or workshop phase. Instead, relevant evidence may be submitted to the Arbitration Committee by email (arbcom-enwikimedia.org).

Passed by motion at 18:24, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

Final decision

All tallies are based the votes at /Proposed decision, where comments and discussion from the voting phase is also available.

Principles

Administrators

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

Passed 11 to 0 at 22:59, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

Leading by example

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

Passed 11 to 0 at 22:59, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

Decorum

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

Passed 13 to 0 at 22:59, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

Limitations of CheckUser

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

Passed 13 to 0 at 22:59, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

Private evidence

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

Passed 13 to 0 at 22:59, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

Editors and the Arbitration Committee

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

Passed 13 to 0 at 22:59, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

Findings of fact

CU discovers unregistered editing

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

Passed 13 to 0 at 22:59, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

Initial contact with Stephen and desysop

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

Passed 13 to 0 at 22:59, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

Post-desysop response

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

Passed 13 to 0 at 22:59, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

Stephen's explanations sufficient

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

Passed 6 to 4 with 3 abstentions at 22:59, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

Remedies

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

Restoration of administrative permissions

1) The administrative permissions of Stephen are restored.

Passed 9 to 4 at 22:59, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

Enforcement

Enforcement of restrictions

0) Unless otherwise specified by the Arbitration Committee, should any user violate a restriction imposed directly by the Committee, that user may be blocked as an arbitration enforcement action. Such blocks must be logged in the arbitration enforcement log.

In accordance with the procedure for the standard enforcement provision adopted 26 April 2026, this provision did not require a vote.

Appeals and modifications

0) Appeals and modifications

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

All active arbitration enforcement actions may be appealed. Only active restrictions may be appealed, and all labelled enforcement actions (including ones alleged to be against policy) must be successfully appealed under the applicable arbitration enforcement appeals procedure before they can be modified.

Unless otherwise specified by the Arbitration Committee, the following procedure governs arbitration enforcement appeals. An editor may:

1. ask the administrator who first issued the enforcement action (the "enforcing administrator") to reconsider their original decision;
2. request review at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard ("AE") or at the administrators' noticeboard ("AN"); or
3. submit a request for amendment ("ARCA"). If the editor is blocked, the appeal may be made by email.

Appeals submitted at AE or AN must be submitted using the applicable template. Only the restricted editor may appeal an editor restriction. Any editor may appeal a page restriction.

A rough consensus of administrators at AE or editors at AN may specify a period of up to one year during which no appeals (other than an appeal to ARCA) may be submitted.

While asking the enforcing administrator and seeking reviews at AN or AE are not mandatory prior to seeking a decision from the Committee, once the Committee has reviewed a request, further substantive review at any forum is barred. The sole exception is editors under an active sanction, who may still request an easing or removal of the sanction on the grounds that said sanction is no longer needed, but such requests may only be made once every six months, or whatever other period the Committee may specify.

Changing or revoking an enforcement action

An administrator may only modify or revoke an enforcement action if a formal appeal is successful or if one of the following exceptions applies:

• The administrator who originally imposed the restriction (the "enforcing administrator") affirmatively consents to the change, or is no longer an administrator; or
• The restriction was issued more than a year ago.

A formal appeal is successful only if one of the following agrees with revoking or changing the enforcement action:

• a clear consensus of uninvolved administrators at AE,
• a clear consensus of uninvolved editors at AN, or
• a majority of the Arbitration Committee, acting through a motion at ARCA.

Any administrator who revokes or changes an enforcement action out of process (i.e. without the above conditions being met) may, at the discretion of the Arbitration Committee, be desysopped.

Standard of review

On community review

Uninvolved administrators at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard ("AE") and uninvolved editors at the administrators' noticeboard ("AN") should revoke or modify an arbitration enforcement action on appeal if:

1. the action was inconsistent with applicable policy (i.e. the action was out of process),
2. the action was not reasonably necessary to prevent damage or disruption when first imposed, or
3. the action is no longer reasonably necessary to prevent damage or disruption.

On Arbitration Committee review

Arbitrators hearing an appeal at a request for amendment ("ARCA") will generally overturn an arbitration enforcement action only if:

1. the action was inconsistent with applicable policy (i.e. the action was out of process),
2. the action represents an unreasonable exercise of administrative enforcement discretion, or
3. compelling circumstances warrant the full Committee's action.

References

In accordance with the procedure for the standard appeals provision adopted 26 April 2026, this provision did not require a vote.

Enforcement log

Any block, restriction, ban, or sanction performed under the authorisation of a remedy for this case must be logged at Wikipedia:Arbitration enforcement log, not here.