Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/AlisonW

Case opened on 23:10, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

Case closed on 17:39, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

Watchlist all case (and talk) pages: [/index.php?title=&action=watch Front], [/index.php?title=/Evidence&action=watch Ev.], [/index.php?title=/Proposed_decision&action=watch PD.]

Involved parties

 * , filing party

Prior dispute resolution

 * WP:AN Discussion

Preliminary statements
Preliminary statements given in the case request stage may be found at /Preliminary statements.

Clerk notes

 * Just noting I moved this comment as a clerk action. &#8211; MJL &thinsp;‐Talk‐☖ 06:28, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Just a reminder to all commentators that the word limit is 500 words, and this includes your replies to other users. &#8211; MJL &thinsp;‐Talk‐☖ 18:15, 15 June 2023 (UTC)


 * You can have 250 additional word for responses --Guerillero Parlez Moi 20:08, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

Arbitrators' opinions on hearing this matter (7/1/0)
Vote key: (Accept/decline/recuse)
 * A question for : what have you taken away from the AN/I discussion about your block? GeneralNotability (talk) 17:46, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
 * , I did see that response (but I do appreciate you flagging it for me). I'm interested to see whether the answer changes given the escalation to ArbCom. GeneralNotability (talk) 20:36, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
 * AlisonW, your years of service are appreciated, but I think the most honorable course of action here is to recognize that you are no longer up on community norms, voluntarily hand in the bit, take the time to familiarize yourself with those new norms, and then re-RfA in the future. If that option is not taken, I'm willing to accept or just act by motion (preference for the latter, I don't think there is enough here for a full case). I don't think I have excessively high standards for admins (we're all human and I expect all of us to make mistakes), but when everyone in the room is telling you "you've screwed up," you should be taking time to self-reflect rather than digging in your heels to justify your actions. I'm a firm believer that when you mess up, the correct response is straightforward: apologize, explain why the bad thing happened, say what you're going to do to keep the bad thing from happening in the future. If the initial reply, or even a later reply, had been a no-strings-attached "I'm sorry, I thought I was doing the right thing, I'm going to take some time to review (policies) before I block again" I think this could have ended a couple days ago and saved us all some drama. GeneralNotability (talk) 21:56, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
 * , it's a nice idea, but the issues that get..."elder"...admins dragged to ArbCom aren't "I don't understand block policy" or "I don't know when to use the protect button," they're actions that show that the admin has lost community trust or has displayed judgment so questionable that they shouldn't be trusted with any of the mop's tools. This is one of those situations - this isn't just a bad block, it's a failure to understand INVOLVED, and that is something that is relevant to all admin actions. GeneralNotability (talk) 23:31, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm concerned by what I'm seeing here, and will be interested to hear AlisonW's point of view. In addition, @Veverve would you mind giving your thoughts on this edit in relation to the Bold, Revert, Discuss cycle and dispute resolution? WormTT(talk) 13:49, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
 * @AlisonW, I do thank you for your current statement, and I believe if you'd made that statement earlier, we wouldn't be here. Now that we are here, I think we have some questions to address. Was the block proper (which leads to, were the removals in good faith?) Was AlisonW involved after her reverts? Is this likely to happen again? As per my normal rationale, I have a lower standard of accepting cases regarding administrators, as Arbcom is the only place where desysop is a possible outcome, though not the only outcome. As such, I accept this case. WormTT(talk) 07:38, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Waiting for a fuller response from AlisonW. Meanwhile, I feel that what User:Jc37 and User:Ritchie333 have done - reached out and talked helpfully and respectfully to AlisonW, is a good example of what we should all strive to do. When things are borderline or dubious or might be a mistake, then consider talking rather than blocking or reporting, and have patience - within reason - when waiting for a response. If there is no response, then it is generally better in non-obvious cases to seek other opinions before using admin tools. I tend to think that Bold, Revert, Discuss is somewhat misused, and should be Bold, Discuss, Agree. If we use the words Block, Unblock, Discuss, there is perhaps more clarity that the discuss should come in the middle rather than the end of the cycle: Block, Discuss, Unblock. That kinda makes more sense. If we talked to each other more, and shared more information, we would likely have fewer problems and less stress. SilkTork (talk) 14:09, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm concerned that despite several people attempting to bring AlisonW up to speed, there is still not quite enough awareness of why we are here. I agree with GeneralNotability that an honourable way out of this situation is for AlisonW to resign the tools. If AlisonW is not comfortable with that, then a motion to see if there is consensus to either desysop or issue a sanction on the use of the block tool. I would rather hold off accepting a case until we've looked at those or other options. SilkTork (talk) 23:38, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Ritchie333 - I did look at that comment, and read it in the context of the discussion thread. A user mentions "the dysfunctional WP:ANI culture", to which AlisonW replies "This sequence of events over recent days has shown that there is, indeed, something broken when my simple reversion of what appeared to be many cases of deletion vandalism has resulted in this situation. That current policy appears to vary wildly from past ethos (eg. 'assume good faith' appears to have disappeared?) is regrettable..." Another user then takes issue with some of that and says "You say: 'assume good faith' appears to have disappeared? This whole incident began because you did not assume that Veverve was acting in good faith: even in your arbcom statement (which I realise you are revising) you apparently continue to hold that their edits were vandalism..." And that's when we get the comment from AlisonW "I don't hold that the edits were vandalism, but that they appeared to be so." This doesn't read to me like someone has finally understood the situation - this reads like someone is trying to fine tune their response in a manner reminiscent of Wikilawyering ("relying on technicalities to justify inappropriate actions"). I take issue with AlisonW's belief that "my simple reversion ... has resulted in this situation". If it was a simple reversion we would not be here. It was an edit war, followed by a block when involved, and then - despite attempts to point it out - a refusal to accept that they were wrong. Indeed, AlisonW asserts that "there is, indeed, something broken", and that the "current policy" is what is wrong, rather than AlisonW, because "'assume good faith' appears to have disappeared?". And then we get the "remorse and an admission of fault" in which other people are still blamed: "I failed to assume someone making such major deletions with no explanation in the edit summary might actually be trying to good". An apology in which the other person is blamed is not a true apology. SilkTork (talk) 17:32, 16 June 2023 (UTC)
 * User:Newyorkbrad and User:Paul August, I agree that mentioning the minor procedural errors is not needed or appropriate, and I have struck that comment. SilkTork (talk) 10:24, 18 June 2023 (UTC)
 * I took a very brief look at AlisonW's use of the block tool, and I see three blocks issued in the last decade, and all three strike me as problematic, and I'm seeing some other admin actions that seem out of touch with current standards. I am therefore leaning towards accepting this case. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:13, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
 * , Statements at case requests are limited to 500 words. While we are flexible, espescially for case subjects, your statement is well past 2,500 words. Please limit your comments to the matters under discussion here. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:45, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Accept As always, the bar is lower for acepting admin conduct cases, and I beleive that bar has been met. I am also open to handling it by motion if other arbs want to go that route. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:22, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
 * On the term "legacy admins": I have mostly seen this used on Wikipediocracy to describe admins from the early days who use their tools in a way that might have been ok 15-20 yeaqrs ago, but not since then. It isn't just any admin from say, pre-2007. That being said, I don't really recall seeing it used here on WP much, if at all, before now, and I'm not sure it should be. I don't think it is fair to paint a whole group with the same brush, there are numerous admins from back then that are either still active, handed in their bits voluntarily, or had them removed for inactivity. I can't see how anyone would lump them into the "legacy" group. Also, WPO is a discussion forum with very different standards than in WP project space.
 * It's a real thing, we have seen numerous arbcom cases in the past to establish that, but it is not applicable to every admin from the early days and does seem a little disrespectful to use in an arbitration proceeding. It behooves all of us to remeber that behind every name on our screens there is a real person, and an ArbCom case is enough stress without stereotyping on top of it. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:22, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
 * With regard to the Alison's inital statement here: I also would not count it against anyone for not knowing the rules of arbitration pages. I've been on the other side of that coin a few times and am very aware that it is easy to make an error in that regard. What I would take expection to is not that the statement was overly long per se, but rather that it essentially contained a great deal of information not pertinent to the matter before the committee, instead seemingly trying to explain that AlisonW was so important during the early days of this project that the committee and the community should basically just giver her a pass on being unfamiliar with current expected standards for administrators. I don't know how anyone even vaguely familiar with the contemporary culture of this website could have thought would be compelling, particualrly right now when both the committee and the broader community have just agreed to greatly diminish the advanced permissions and "reserve powers" of Jimmy Wales.  Also, as with the majority of cases involving admin behavior, WP:INVOLVED is a pertinent policy, and AlisonW indicated here that she thinks it is "difficult" to determine if she was in violation of that policy. That's all far more compelling to me than whether she knew about word limits or formatting on arbitration pages. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:48, 17 June 2023 (UTC)


 * Accept per my "would a reasonable person see an issue in this situation" standard for accepting an admin case as well as some private evidence --Guerillero Parlez Moi 19:56, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
 * I'll need to think on this more but I'm leaning accept, with a preference for a admonish/desysop motion as similar to GeneralNotability I don't think there's enough for a complete case here. The issue I see here is AlisonW's understanding of INVOLVED; you should not be blocking editors you have repeatedly reverted in a content dispute, and I don't believe that Veverve's removals were vandalism or all that disruptive. The initial responses at AN were not encouraging either, but I do think it's good that AlisonW was at least responding there and has kept tabs on this case, and has been at least honest in her answers. I think the idea of a suspended one month case is nice, but I'm not sure if it'll necessarily accomplish its stated goal of cooling things down. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 04:46, 16 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Decline opening a case; this request is based on a single incident and its fallout, and much like the Athaenara case last year I doubt we will get anything significant over what has been already provided. That being said, I am still mulling over the appropriate sanction to levy. On the one hand, AlisonW made what the community feels is an inappropriate block, which in and of itself should not merit removal of sysop. However, she then proceeded to double-down with almost no supporters taking her side. Part of being a good administrator is knowing when a debate has been lost, even if one does not agree with the majority, and the lack of such cognisance is obviously the reason we are here. On the third hand, however, I am somewhat heartened by this comment, in that at the very least AlisonW has recognised that boundaries were crossed. Primefac (talk) 12:21, 16 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Accept. I do not know yet if I would prefer a full case or closing by motion. Izno (talk) 17:58, 16 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Accept. I'd prefer it if we could proceed by motion. To do that we need to examine the evidence to see if this is a one-off or a pattern. To do that we need to gather the evidence. To do that we need to open a case. Cabayi (talk) 16:55, 17 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Accept per Cabayi. Enterprisey (talk!) 05:37, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Accept for an expedited case, with a view to potential desysop if AlisonW opts not to resign, broadly per GeneralNotability. (A brief philosophical aside: I'm always a bit saddened when a case like this comes up, not just because AlisonW has made distinguished contributions over many many years to this project but also because a lot of what has already been written here rings true: we now have really high expectations for sysops to know what they're doing, take feedback, and reflect on matters — and while the community is justified in having these expectations, they're higher than most responsible people can meet 100% of the time for a volunteer hobby like Wikipedia.) Best, KevinL ( aka L235 · t · c) 07:23, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

Motion: Desysop AlisonW

 * Support
 * Using an admin tool in a questionable block is not, for me, an automatic desysop. There needs to be more, and the slow and generally inappropriate responses, and the reluctance to see where they went wrong, and the little mistakes which indicate a lack of care and attention to detail (posting a (largely off-topic) statement three times over the limit, posting a comment in the wrong place), indicate to me a user who is not up to date on the responsibility of the tools. I feel the facts regarding AlisonW's behaviour following the concern being raised at their block are here before us, and for me there is enough to reach this desysop conclusion. SilkTork (talk) 10:45, 16 June 2023 (UTC)
 * I genuinely do not think that a full case, even one on a accelerated timetable, is likely to turn up anything that has not been said here. The block that incited this incident was bad, but was not desysop-worthy. However, AlisonW's followup at ANI and here have not met my expectations for admin accountability and communication and have shown her to be very out of touch with modern community norms, and I simply do not think she meets expectations for the admin toolkit. GeneralNotability (talk) 19:02, 20 June 2023 (UTC)


 * Oppose
 * I do not like the idea of desysop by motion, especially for "loss of confidence". I do not believe we should be doing so in this situation. WormTT(talk) 12:29, 20 June 2023 (UTC)


 * Abstain
 * I prefer a case, but this is the only quick option that I see as a viable path forward. --Guerillero Parlez Moi 10:56, 16 June 2023 (UTC)


 * Arbitrator discussion
 * I think this motion is well-reasoned and I would like to support it, but as we are at a majority to accept a full case, that seems to be what the committee will be doing instead. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:18, 18 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes it appears we will be going for a case. Unless some folks withdraw support for the case and shift to a motion. However, that is unlikely. I'm keeping an open mind and may return to the view I had at the start of this case request that this was simply a mistake that AlisonW would not repeat. It depends on what AlisonW says about this and the two blocks in 2021. SilkTork (talk) 17:31, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

Motion: AlisonW block tool restriction

 * Support


 * Oppose
 * If we are sanctioning an admin, it should be all-or-nothing; being an admin is based on the trust of the community. If an admin does not have the trust required to block someone, they should not be an admin. Primefac (talk) 09:34, 16 June 2023 (UTC)
 * I have deeply considered a block sanction since my comment above, and there's still a part of me that would like that to work; however, if we can't trust an admin to use the block tool, then we can't trust an admin to use the delete/undelete and protect/unprotect tools. The point that appears to me to have emerged from comments here and on the AN board is that AlisonW is not quite up to date on Admin policy and procedures, and has been slow to recognise that despite the assistance and guidance of others. SilkTork (talk) 10:13, 16 June 2023 (UTC)
 * absolute non-starter --Guerillero Parlez Moi 10:22, 16 June 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm assuming this was done to put all options on the table, but, as I have often expressed, any admin that needs to be sanctioned to control their behavior is manifestly unfit to be an admin at all. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:19, 18 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Beeblebrox and Primefac cover my feelings exactly. GeneralNotability (talk) 23:47, 19 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Adminship is about trust. If an admin doesn't have trust to block, they shouldn't be an admin. I cannot picture a situation I would support such a motion. WormTT(<b style="color:#060;">talk</b>) 12:29, 20 June 2023 (UTC)


 * Abstain


 * Arbitrator discussion

Motion: AlisonW warned

 * Support


 * Oppose
 * I would rather this come from a case after we take evidence. If this is a one-off then this seems appropriate. If this is part of a pattern, a desysop is correct --Guerillero Parlez Moi 10:38, 16 June 2023 (UTC)
 * AlisonW was given warnings and advice regarding the block, but sadly did not listen - instead kept attempting to justify the edit warring and the block. As such I have doubts if they would heed this warning. SilkTork (talk) 10:48, 16 June 2023 (UTC)
 * We're clearly well past the point where a warning would be an effective remedy. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:20, 18 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Per the above. GeneralNotability (talk) 23:52, 19 June 2023 (UTC)


 * Abstain
 * I don't see the benefit of warning without a case. We'd need to be certain of what happened, and certain that no harsher sanction would be the right outcome. <b style="color:#000;">Worm</b>TT(<b style="color:#060;">talk</b>) 12:29, 20 June 2023 (UTC)


 * Arbitrator discussion
 * I would like to see a time frame, perhaps two years, attached to this warning, as we did with TimWi. Primefac (talk) 09:34, 16 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Two year limit added. SilkTork (talk) 10:05, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

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

Administrators
1) Administrators are trusted members of the community and are expected to follow Wikipedia policies. Their conduct is held to a high standard as a result of this trust. Occasional mistakes are entirely compatible with this; administrators are not expected to be perfect. However, consistently or egregiously poor judgement may result in the removal of administrator status.
 * Passed 11 to 0 at 17:39, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

Administrator involvement
2) Editors are expected to not act as administrators in cases where, to a neutral observer, they could reasonably appear involved. Involvement is generally construed very broadly by the community, to include current or past conflicts with an editor (or editors), and disputes on topics, regardless of the nature, age, or outcome of the dispute; however, involvement does not include prior interactions in a purely administrative role or in making minor edits that do not show bias. The sole listed exception to this prohibition is for straightforward cases, such as blatant vandalism, within which involved editors may take "obvious" administrative actions if "any reasonable administrator would have probably come to the same conclusion".
 * Passed 11 to 0 at 17:39, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

Vandalism
3) On Wikipedia, vandalism has a very specific meaning: editing (or other behavior) deliberately intended to obstruct or defeat the project's purpose. Even if misguided, willfully against consensus, or disruptive, any good faith effort to improve the encyclopedia is not vandalism. Even factually correct material may not belong on Wikipedia, and removing such content when it is inconsistent with Wikipedia's content policies is not vandalism.
 * Passed 11 to 0 at 17:39, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

Edit warring
4) Edit warring is disruptive. An edit war occurs when editors who disagree about the content of a page repeatedly override each other's contributions. Editors engaged in a dispute should reach consensus or pursue dispute resolution rather than edit war. While reverting vandalism is not edit warring, only reverting obvious vandalism—edits that any well-intentioned user would agree constitute vandalism—is considered an exception. Edits from a slanted point of view, general insertion or removal of material, or other good-faith changes are not considered vandalism.
 * Passed 11 to 0 at 17:39, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

Rollback
5) Standard rollback is a fast way of undoing problematic edits, but it has the disadvantage that only a generic edit summary is generated, with no explanation of the reason for the change. For this reason, it is considered inappropriate to use it in situations where an explanatory edit summary would normally be expected. One of the ways in which it may be correctly used is to revert obvious vandalism and other edits where the reason for reverting is absolutely clear. Editors who misuse standard rollback (for example, by using it to reverse good-faith edits in situations where an explanatory edit summary would normally be expected) may have their rollback rights removed. Since rollback is part of the core administrator tools, an admin could be stripped of their administrative privileges entirely to remove those tools.
 * Passed 8 to 3 at 17:39, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

AlisonW
1) is an editor and administrator. Her former account name is VampWillow, which began editing in 2004 and which became an administrator in 2004 (c.f. Former administrators/reason/renamed). Between the two accounts, AlisonW has made some 12,000 edits, 150 block-related actions, 800 deletion-related actions, and 100 protection-related actions (AlisonW Xtools, VampWillow Xtools). Before this case, AlisonW had last made 2 blocks in 2021, with the remainder of their block-related actions in 2012 and prior. Her other records are similar, with the previous 10 deletion log entries stretching to 2015 and the previous 5 protection log entries stretching to 2012.

Particularly, the blocks of both Pragal1983 and Sinan eraaa (the two blocks in 2021) were within administrator discretion.
 * Passed 10 to 0 at 17:39, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

Veverve
2) is an editor who started editing in October 2018. He has made over 50,000 edits to date. Prior to the incident that initiated this case, he has been blocked 1 time partially for edit warring (17 March 2022, 1 week), 3 times fully for edit warring (9 September, 1 week; 16 September, 2 weeks; 12 March 2023, 1 month) and reblocked one time for harassment, in connection to the 16 September block (30 September 2022, 2 weeks) (block log). None of these blocks were undone.
 * Passed 10 to 0 at 17:39, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

Metatron and block timeline
3) This is a timeline of relevant edits made to the article Metatron and the actions taken by AlisonW and others in response:
 * 1) 18 January 2023: Veverve removes the disputed content, citing WP:TRIVIA in their edit summary. The content remains removed until 8 June (nearly 6 months).
 * 2) 16:40, 8 June: AlisonW reverts with summary whole section removed without explanation. Content is relevant and encyclopaedic so reinstated. Discuss on talk page if you consider it necessary. AlisonW has no apparent previous engagement with this article.
 * 3) 05:44, 9 June: Veverve reverts with summary I have explained each and every removal. Read my edit summaries and do not act as if I did not explain myself
 * 4) 05:46: Veverve comments on AlisonW's talk that what is WP:TRIVIA is not encyclopedic. AlisonW does not respond in this talk page section.
 * 5) 09:56: Veverve makes their last (unrelated to dispute) edit of their editing session.
 * 6) 14:31: AlisonW reverts Veverve's 9 June edit on Metatron using rollback
 * 7) 14:33–41: AlisonW comments on Veverve's talk that I can see that you have strong views about religion, however removing an entire section, "in popular culture" is unacceptable and is far from the 'trivia' you suggested on my talk page. This is not a religious text, it is a place to discover information, as such the section is entirely appropriate (emphasis original).
 * 8) 14:47–52: AlisonW reverts 4 more Veverve edits on 4 other pages.
 * 9) 14:55: AlisonW blocks Veverve, without leaving a block notice. The block summary states Disruptive editing: Regular massive deletions of content the editor feels are irrelevant over many articles. She later apologized for failing to leave a block notice.
 * 10) 14:57–59: AlisonW reverts 2 more Veverve edits on 2 other pages; one reversion uses rollback
 * 11) 15:11–16: Veverve objects to the block citing WP:POPCULT, files an unblock request
 * 12)  15:30–33: AlisonW follows up on unblock request. She makes no further comments on Veverve's talk page relating to this incident.
 * 13) 4:12, 10 June: Tamzin first places the request on hold with a question to AlisonW, and then nearly a day later (1:16, 11 June) lifts the block. 3 minutes later, Tamzin starts a discussion at AN particularly regarding whether AlisonW may have been involved.
 * 14) 11 June: Gråbergs Gråa Sång (re)starts a discussion on Talk:Metatron. Veverve participates twice in that discussion before attempting to remove the section again on 13 June. Amakuru reverts that edit, pointing back to the talk page. Veverve leaves a few more comments there on 14 June and then apparently disengages from the article and talk page.
 * Passed 11 to 0 at 17:39, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

Veverve's edits
4) Veverve's edits which were reverted were not vandalism. They were sufficiently explained by edit summary. Lastly, they were within the bounds of editorial discretion according to at least two editing guidelines, Be bold and Manual of Style/Trivia sections and a policy, Verifiability.
 * Passed 11 to 0 at 17:39, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

AlisonW and rollback
5) As Veverve's edits were not vandalism, AlisonW misused rollback twice.
 * Passed 10 to 0 with 1 abstentions at 17:39, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

Content dispute
6) The incident inciting this case was a content dispute.
 * Passed 11 to 0 at 17:39, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

AlisonW and involvement
7) As Veverve's edits were neither vandalism nor outside discretion, AlisonW made a block while involved in a content dispute. Even if AlisonW had not been involved, a unilateral block was not warranted for Veverve's behavior in this instance.
 * Passed 11 to 0 at 17:39, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

AlisonW's justifications
8) AlisonW's first response on Veverve's talk page was content-motivated, as is her comment in response to the unblock request. She was later inconsistent about whether the dispute was content-motivated, with a comment agreeing at AN (apparently sarcastically) that it was, and elsewhere that the dispute was not content-motivated. In the case request she appeared to accept that she was involved and suggested future alternatives on her part to her actions here, an indication that she has received and processed the feedback provided.

She repeated several times that she believed that this case was (page-blanking) vandalism and that the removals were unexplained.

Regarding her belief about the block, at first, she "stands by" her decision to block at AN. She first apologized for her actions and appeared to recognize that what she did was wrong in the case request. She again apologized in case evidence for the incorrect procedure but then backtracked on whether it was correct to block Veverve.

These comments satisfy the requirement to explain her actions.
 * Passed 8 to 0 at 17:39, 16 July 2023 (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.

AlisonW desysopped
1a) For failure to meet the conduct standards expected of an administrator, AlisonW's administrative user rights are removed. She may regain them at any time via a successful request for adminship.
 * Passed 7 to 4 at 17:39, 16 July 2023 (UTC)