User:AlisonW/ArbCom

My response being deemed too long (500 words may be sufficient for people not listed as involved parties, but if a full response is to be adequate then it is surely insufficient.)

Last Friday I was checking something up and also looked at my Watchlist and contributions pages which led me. In that I saw what were substantial (3,813 & 1,506) deletions, without explanation(diffs1)

The diff included a whole cross-referenced subsection of the article and I believed this was obvious vandalism by deletion. When the used concerned RVd the restoration they tried to suggest they'd given an explanation (diffs2) but there were none.

Because of this I looked at their user and contributions pages to see if there was a record of such behaviour. I noted [[User:AlisonW/ArbComDiffs#Group 3|diffs3] suggesting they were protective of religious articles. Their talk page noted previous blocks for similar activity and felt justified in blocking them for the same period as the block by [[User:Bbb23]].

I looked carefully at their history and it appeared to me to fit someone deleting to push their POV. I did not look at the content of the edits I reverted this was an administrative action about mass deletions.

Did I follow current policy on such matters? No, and for which I deeply apologise. I ignored other possibilities. I also forgot to put a notification on their talk page, which I've since apologised for.

Would I do the same again? Not in the same way. Vandalism by way of deletion has been common on wikis everywhere by the nature of open editing and doing such a direct revert here would not be my choice in the future.

Do I consider myself 'involved'. Difficult. I had no interest in their content. Process and policy have clearly moved on since I was majorly active and I'm not sure I consider it all for the better, but it exists as it exists now so clearly I was wrong in my belief last week.

I have made detailed replies to others at User:AlisonW/ArbCom

Would I jump in again? No. I'll probably continue to look at recent changes and my watchlist but without going through all the current policy documents first I won't be doing any blocking, and the likelihood of rollbacks/reverts other than immediately after the edit concerned is very unlikely. Do I apologise to Veverve? That's more difficult, but yes. Their deletions were very major in size and, as I note above, visible edit summaries didn't cover them. But I should have noted that as the articles where this had happened had mostly been edited by others since it would have been more appropriate to put the deleted text on the talk page and ask for wider comment first.

My apologies also to ArbCom for getting drawn into this. --AlisonW (talk) 20:49, 14 June 2023 (UTC)