Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Andrevan

Case opened on 19:02, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

Case dismissed on 14:22, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

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

Involved parties

 * , filing party

Prior dispute resolution

 * User:Andrevan/Archive50, the last ten sections or so
 * Alex Shih explicitly asking them to hand in ‘crat flag
 * me asking them the same

Statement by Beeblebrox
I’d really rather not do this, but I’m afraid I feel it is necessary for the good of the project. Andrevan is an “old school” admin and bureaucrat, having acquired those rights 13 and 10 years ago respectively. As far as I can personally recall, I first encountered them last year, when they modified a block of mine for no good reason, and I had to resort to an ANI thread to get the settings put back where I had them originally. (They have made a number of blocks since then but at the time this was their first use of the block tool in 3 years, and there was a clear consensus against it upon review)

Their attitude, then, now, and seemingly going forward is that they know they are from the “cowboy admin” days and they are fine with retaining an attitude of shooting first and asking questions later. This is not an acceptable quality for a user with this level of advanced permisssions. Just last week they were topic banned via AE and then almost immediately blocked for violating said ban. Afterwards, as seems to also be part of their pattern, they posted an “unpology” on their talk page and apparently will not allow further discussion of the matter there.

I therefore suggest that when taken in total, this is conduct unbecoming and at the very least Andrevan should be removed as a bureaucrat. As can be seen in the above diffs, they were asked twice to do so voluntarily but have refused. The committee may also wish to consider whether they are fit to be an administrator as well.

To be clear, this request is not based on abuse of ‘crat tools, but rather on poor behavior in general, and misuse of admin tools, specifically in the field of blocking and unblocking, further evidence of this will be presented should the case be accepted, but just as a recent example, see. They blocked an IP indefinitely and only changed the settings after it was explained to them (after 13 years as an admin) that we don’t do that except in the very most extreme cases, as opposed to as a response to three run-of-the-mill vandal edits. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:58, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
 * The reply below seems to me further evidence that Andrevan really doesn’t get it. This is not about the specific incidents, but rather, taken as a whole, they add up to someone who reflects poorly on the ‘crat and admin corps, and justifies this by saying “that’s the way we did back when admins were REAL admins.” Their “plea of temporary insanity” on their talk also humblebrags about how they are smarter than everyone else. These are not attitudes I want to see in a ‘crat, we expect them to be reserved and careful above all else. And it is not personal, I don’t know what the “unfounded sour grapes” nonsense refers to, I’m not bitter about his unjustified actions being overturned by another admin, why would I be? Beeblebrox (talk) 02:13, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I’d like to clarify again in light of some of the comments below that this is not just about the recent topic ban and block related to it. That is certainly in the mix, but is only the latest issue in what I believe I can establish as a pattern of poor judgement. I haven’t presented every shred of available evidence in the request because that’s just not how this works, if the case is accepted more evidence will of course be presented. Also, regarding named parties, I didn’t want to speak for anyone by adding them here, a lot of people particpated in the recent discussion. Everyone is free to comment and to present evidence should the case be accepted, but if anyone feels strongly that they should be added as a party I certainly don’t have a problem with that. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:44, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

I get what you’re saying, but I’m probably already in danger of going over my word count. It’s been a while since I was on the other side of this coin, but I figured bombing you all with evidence was what the evidence phase was for and at this point what is looked for is just enough to convince that looking further is something the committee should be doing. I presented the recent debacle, another recent error in basic rules of blocking, and a slightly older one, but a search at noticeboards and/or Andrevan’s own talk page easily produces more that may be relevant. I’m busy most of the rest of today but I could possibly whip up a subpage somewhere detailing other instances if that is desired. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:12, 5 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Andrevan is kind of freaking out on me. Had to shut him down on my talk page, now I see he is asking for a boomerang here because I refuse to withdraw the request. Could somebody please ask him to calm down and give me the time I asked for? Beeblebrox (talk) 02:32, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Ok, I’m super tired, but here you go:a few more incidents and a lot more analysis. Beeblebrox (talk) 10:36, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
 * If all that combined with this reply doesn’t convince you that there si a problem here worth investigating I don’t suppose anything will. How they could claim that every single one of their obvious errors is simply “admin discretion” at this late date is beyond me. WP:IDHT is a very poor quality in an advanced permission holder. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:46, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

see talk page. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:18, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Please note that my page of collected evidence User:Beeblebrox/preliminary evidence has been updated with this latest incident. And I also note all support for Andrevan is disappearing in light of this astounding display of poor judgement and lack of understanding of basic policies. I also don’t see why this couldn’t be disposed of with a motion to remove both ‘crat and admin permissions. I don’t enjoy this sort of thing any more than anyone else and this seems like the best path at this point. Beeblebrox (talk) 10:09, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

Statement by Andrevan
This filing is without merit. I have already been sanctioned. I edited the article I was banned from for a period of a week in my entire editing history, and I have no problem with complying with the topic ban. The topic ban is the remedy, and it has already been applied. Beeblebrox's diffs do not show misuse of admin tools or violation of policy.

Blocking a vandal-only IP address, or changing block settings aggressively on a spam/COI account, are within normal admin discretion, so long as I am willing to discuss. I always am, I always respond promptly. I have sporadic patterns of editing and I don't always log in for minor stuff, but I never leave a response hanging.

My actions as a blocking admin were clearly in good faith and, where there were errors, they were minor errors that were corrected when they were pointed out. One or two occasions that Beeblebrox doesn't agree with, do not constitute conduct unbecoming or a pattern of abuse of power. I always communicated and was open to discussion or correction when necessary. Per Beeblebrox, "I don't agree with it I but I suppose it falls within the realm of admin discretion." Ponyo and Floquenbeam concurred that I did not violate WP:WHEEL because I was simply making the block settings stronger and not reverting. Further, Beeblebrox did not "have to resort to an ANI thread," the entire discussion was that thread, which existed before my action, and I replied to it.

Regarding the topic ban, I regret my original posts which many people pointed out were not appropriate. This topic is clearly an area where I cannot edit unemotionally. This is my first time being blocked or banned in any way. Not that I deserve special treatment because I am a long-time admin, but because Wikipedia justice is intended to be protective and not punitive. I made a wrong comment, I didn't abuse my powers.

I believe that this filing by Beeblebrox lacks in good faith or recognition of my many positive actions and activities here. It is telling that Beeblebrox believes that my bureaucrat permission should be removed, yet he cites no examples of use of bureaucrat tools.

Beeblebrox says this is not about specific incidents, but about everything "taken as a whole." Yet he does not build a case or substantiate his claims that I am a "cowboy admin" or that I have violated norms, consensus, or policy. He asked me to resign, and I said no, so now we are here. That's not what this page is for, or how things work. The whole is the sum of its parts, and insufficient parts have been provided to assemble anything.

Give the topic ban a chance to work, as it has just been applied and I have agreed to abide by it. There is no long term issue to speak of, and diffs have not been provided of such. This case request should be dismissed. Andrevan@ 07:19, 5 June 2018 (UTC)


 * User:Beeblebrox is casting WP:ASPERSIONs and should be sanctioned. There is no evidence of misuse of admin tools. Andrevan@ 00:45, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
 * User:Beeblebrox's diffs show acceptable admin discretion and they show me being willing to discuss and to change according to community feedback. They are also very stale, and unrelated to the topic ban situation, which I regret and apologize for, and plan to abide by and stay away from. Andrevan@ 18:05, 6 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Clarifying further per Beeblebrox's reply above. Happy to delve more deeply into the examples, but I stand by the discussion comments I made at that time. Discretion sometimes means having to answer for calls being made. Strong opinions, weakly held, as a rule, doesn't mean I can't admit I am wrong or that I should reverse myself because of community feedback or scrutiny. I will maintain that a) my unblock of Riceissa, as requested by an email from a user, was bold and I should have consulted with the blocking admin or found the original community ban (which I didn't realize existed), but I didn't see any example of Riceissa violating any policies or advocacy POV pushing, and the diffs weren't in the block b) my promotion of Northamerica1000 should have been relatively uncontroversial, even though I supported, per WP:NBD and the fact that our WP:INVOLVED policy allows for relatively uncontroversial actions that any uninvolved user would take. The community made its issues with these decisions clear. By defending myself I wasn't saying the community was wrong -- in fact, you will see that I always say that I am happy to revert or reverse an action per WP:BRD -- but just that it is a valid use of discretion. Discretion means sometimes I will make calls that people don't agree with, and I am happy to discuss and solve those disagreements in a productive way. I would argue that this is exactly what we expect bureaucrats and admins to do. So I'm not saying these small errors from the past aren't errors. I am saying that they don't show a pattern of misuse of tools or "cowboying" or consistent "temporary insanity." Nobody can make perfect calls all the time. I also have plenty of examples in my editing history of making good, uncontroversial calls or properly invoking WP:IAR to solve problems. Sorry for going over the word count. Andrevan@ 19:58, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Regarding actions involving Trumpian users and disputes, OUTING, etc. Clearly I was wrong there and that won't happen again, as I think I've said already, I apologize for those actions as an editor which were policy-violating and inappropriate, but did not involve tool use. The topic ban should hopefully address that, and my emails to the committee about the private evidence are mainly to explain how I got where I got to. Regarding the old unblocks or admin actions, I stand by them. I stand by both my use of reasonable discretion, and defending myself against criticism, while ultimately allowing the community's will to stand, as I should. Nowhere in our policy does it say that admins or bureaucrats should immediately back down from discretionary action without offering a defense of the action. I'm disappointed in the comments of some that have claimed my past actions were "abuse of power," etc., when they are clearly acceptable uses of discretion. I still think Riceissa should be unblocked, but I have agreed to let the community ban stand. I still think promoting Northamerica1000 was the only reasonable action given his RFA, but I agreed to vacate my close and let another bureaucrat close it to avoid appearing INVOLVED. I stand by my recent BN posts which were intended to support consensus by discussion, which is always better than a bureaucratic process. My comments there were intended to illustrate a principle that I believe is very important, namely, doing the right thing with a minimum of fuss, and I stand by them. I'm disappointed to see Worm Turning, as I found his read of the case astute before, and now I am definitely confused about what the point of ArbCom is and how it pertains to me.

Just want to add that when I say I stand by my old actions, I stand by the fact that I did something, I discussed it, and then I did what the community consensus was to do. I believe I have consistently shown that I follow the consensus. That doesn't mean I can't discuss or defend my action. Andrevan@ 20:34, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

Arbitrators' opinions on hearing this matter (10/0/1)
Vote key: (Accept/decline/recuse)
 * Generally, when looking at cases where administrative tools (and indeed 'crat tools) are requested to be removed, I have a lower bar as ArbCom is the only place that can remove them. When evaluating a case request, I look for certain things - a pattern of mild abuse of the tools, egregious and clear cut misuse of the tools, evidence that the user's judgement is impaired or that they have lost the trust of the community. I'm leaning decline at the moment, as I don't see the patterns or significant history of these behaviours - I see actions as an editor which have lead to sanctions as an editor, and a fairly normal level of reaction to the sanctions. To those who would have us accept a case, can you show that we have reached the last resort? Is the topic ban and block not sufficient? I would expect that if he carried on, or kept demonstrating the same behaviours to see a case here, but it currently feels a little early. WormTT(talk) 07:37, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I've looked at the suppressed edit, and combined with Andrevan's response, I'm still leaning decline as I believe a topic ban and block is sufficient consequence for the actions, especially given Andrevan's admittance to error. However,, I'm curious to this pattern that you believe you can show. Are we talking about repeated behaviours after having matters discuss? General poor choices - especially ones that can't be resolved with AGF? I'm not expecting you to throw out a shed load of evidence, but at the moment, aside from the "temporary insanity", you've pointed to one incident of debatable poor judgement and complained of him being a "cowboy admin". Well, Wikipedia has long been based up on the idea that we're not a bureaucracy, IAR is basic principle. I'm going to need to see something more. WormTT(talk) 19:43, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
 * thank you very much for putting the effort in to do that. I do understand your concerns, and, I want you to understand they are not without basis and absolutely not aspersions. There are already 4 arbitrators who have decided we should be looking further into a case. I'm going to land at decline , but weakly. A topic ban has been imposed, and a block made - that should be sufficient for the editor level behaviour. Many of the other issues are either stale or within admin discretion. At the moment, I'm not seeing a case is needed - but I do think we are close to needing one WormTT(talk) 15:21, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I said my decline was weak, and I'm going to move to the other side, based Andrevan's recent edits, especially at BN, I am less confident that Andrevan has actually learned from this experience. When combined with the evidence put forward, each issue on it's own is not a problem, but I do think a case is needed to establish if there is a pattern of poor judgement and what should be done. Move to accept WormTT(talk) 08:43, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
 * , I don't think that would be appropriate, from either a procedural or a fairness point of view. There are two sides to every situation, the committee would need to look at all the evidence and Andrevan should have the chance to respond. From a procedural point of view, under the removal of permission section of procedures, we can remove by motion either at Level I or Level II, the former does not match the situation and the latter would require a full case if Andrevan disagrees with the motion. If he agrees with the removal of permissions, he is still able to request this either on his talk page or at meta: (which is the only place that 'crat permissions can be removed) <b style="text-shadow:0 -1px #DDD,1px 0 #DDD,0 1px #DDD,-1px 0 #DDD; color:#000;">Worm</b>TT(<b style="color:#060;">talk</b>) 10:10, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Just noting as well that we have the option to dispense with case request as a summary hearing (per ARBPOL) but I agree that since there is some dispute that wouldn't be appropriate. However, we can also close a case at any time per WP:AC/PR. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 10:18, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the clarification. <b style="text-shadow:0 -1px #DDD,1px 0 #DDD,0 1px #DDD,-1px 0 #DDD; color:#000;">Worm</b>TT(<b style="color:#060;">talk</b>) 10:21, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Prior to my question to, I think the only time I have ever interacted with the editor was this recent occasion where I expressed disagreement over their comment. If anyone think these are grounds for recusal, I will be more than happy to do so. A brief comment about the statements so far: I am not sure if I was "explicitly" asking Andrevan to hand in their bureaucrat flag, my intention was to make a personal suggestion based on the matter of principle. I agree with  that editors with advanced permissions should continue to hold whatever beliefs they have, but I think it's counterintuitive to have them expressing explicit political beliefs on multiple occasions over several days, while making allegations and some inappropriate comments in highly visible noticeboards and other areas, and at the very same time expecting them to continue to put themselves in a position to assess difficult consensus like a close RfA decision.  I have no opinions about the merit of this case request. Alex Shih (talk) 08:47, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Recuse. Alex Shih (talk) 15:09, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Accept based primarily on private evidence involving suppressed edits. ~ Rob 13 <sup style="margin-left:-1.0ex;">Talk 13:06, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I am very disinterested in reviewing administrative actions from 2014, even if they were egregious. Such issues would have needed to been raised at the time they occurred, not four years later. I'm interested in a case with the scope of "Andrevan's recent activity in the American politics topic area". This would include recent accusations against other editors related to the topic area as well as the aforementioned suppressed edits, the latter of which would be reviewed privately. ~ Rob 13 <sup style="margin-left:-1.0ex;">Talk 12:47, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Awaiting further statements. In response to some of the comments, please note that editors are not sanctioned for commenting on an arbitration request or case (unless perhaps the edits are so seriously disruptive that they wouldn't be permitted on any page). Both "involved" and uninvolved editors may comment; what is important is relevant information and thoughtful analysis. Newyorkbrad (talk) 13:15, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Accept. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:36, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Accept based on same evidence noted above by BU Rob. RickinBaltimore (talk) 13:29, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Accept based on the same grounds. This needs to be cleared up. Doug Weller  talk 16:43, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Accept    primarily on the basis of accusations about other editors.  DGG ( talk ) 02:22, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Haven't come to a conclusion on this one yet. The Trump-related behavior was not good, and went on for an awfully long time to be ascribed to "temporary insanity". Likewise, although it's understandable and probably unavoidable to be stressed by an arbcom case, the posts on Beeblebrox's talk page are really unhelpful. That being said, the case does seem a little thin to me. (Maybe the best idea is to just wait for more from Beeblebrox, or others who have examples on hand - no need for anything long enough to require a subpage.) So far the accept votes seem to be based on points quite different from those raised in the request itself, which I'm not sure how to interpret. Opabinia regalis (talk) 07:51, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
 * On looking into the newer stuff, I think there's enough for a case here. Accept. Opabinia regalis (talk) 07:28, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Accept There is enough here to take a look at whether a pattern of mistakes is disruption, and/or that the oversighted material may be completely incomparable with adminship. -- Amanda  (aka DQ) 18:35, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Accept per Amanda. Katietalk 00:50, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Accept, also per Amanda. &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 01:00, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Accept largely per Amanda, but also the most recent block. Just noting as well that the Committee is just finalising details a couple things prior to opening the case. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 10:14, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

Temporary injunction (none)
=Final decision= All tallies are based the votes at /Proposed decision, where comments and discussion from the voting phase is also available.

Motion to close
Because has resigned as an administrator and a bureaucrat, this case is dismissed. Andrevan may not regain either the administrator or bureaucrat permission without passing a new request for adminship and/or bureaucratship.


 * Passed 12 to 0 by motion on 14:19, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

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