Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Technical 13

Statement by Rschen7754
If this case is accepted, I plan to provide crosswiki evidence with the intent of allowing for "The Committee [to] take notice of conduct outside its jurisdiction when making decisions about conduct on the English Wikipedia if such outside conduct impacts or has the potential to impact adversely upon the English Wikipedia or its editors," such as applying for a global right to be able to edit all protected and interface pages (including on this wiki) after losing the templateeditor right on this wiki. --Rschen7754 04:10, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I handed in my Meta admin flag with my steward flag, but I have been told by a Meta admin that there was no onwiki request for deletion of m:User:Technical 13, meaning that the request must have been over IRC or email (or some other offwiki medium). That being said: I find it interesting that Technical 13 has requested deletion of their Meta userpage, as their activity on Meta relates to the evidence I plan to present. --Rschen7754 01:15, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Also noting the past ArbCom filing by Technical 13: In that filing, they again claimed to be busy in outside life. --Rschen7754 02:36, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I remember something about that restoration of rights, but would have to do some research to remember what exactly, unfortunately. --Rschen7754 02:37, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Technical 13's userpage was undeleted by the same admin with the following summary: While this raises some obvious questions, they are not within the scope of this case. --Rschen7754 04:03, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I assume that others can present the evidence on the English Wikipedia better than I can, so I probably won't touch that. My evidence would probably relate to 1) applying for a global right on Meta to be able to have the same abilities to edit protected and interface pages on the English Wikipedia that admins do (even when their template editor permissions were removed, thus ignoring the principle of community trust/evading our local policies), and 2) providing additional diffs from other WMF sites to give additional perspective as to their attitude/manner of collaboration locally. --Rschen7754 16:53, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

Statement by L235
There was previously a pseudo-clerking section here; Callanecc's now done all the needed. --L235 (t / c / ping in reply ) 03:26, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Wow, I'm already breaching my enforced Wikibreak by using my alternate account. Anyways: Thanks, --L235 (alt / t / c / ping in reply ) 03:35, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Having read through every ANI referenced by PhantomTech and other evidence provided, I believe that the Committee should accept this case to look into what appear to be very longstanding conduct issues, unresolvable in other venues.
 * I agree with the points made by Floq and Iridescent. I consider myself to have a working relationship with T13- that is, we sometimes help each other to some degree on IRC about technical issues, etc.- and I agree with the characterization of him as a "mixed blessing". At times, he can be extremely stubborn and unwilling to compromise or change.
 * Also, in response to 's point, I don't think PhantomTech could have opened another ANI without reasonable fear of accusations of forum-shopping.
 * I agree with you completely in that PhantomTech would not be forum shopping, but I'm sure you know that, unfortunately, you have to be really careful when bringing established users before ANI, especially when you're much less experienced on Wikipedia, and I personally couldn't fault PhantomTech for coming to ArbCom in the circumstances. Unfortunately, (without assuming bad faith on the part of any specific editor- I have the highest respect for T13) VestedContributors are a thing. --L235 (t / c / ping in reply ) 17:25, 29 May 2015 (UTC)


 * I would like to suggest that the Committee accept the case but not open it until T13 gets back, since there's no time pressure here. --L235 (t / c / ping in reply ) 17:35, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I think I'm way too familiar with the procedures, but in response to your point, the ArbCom procedures explicitly say Editors named as parties to an arbitration case, and duly notified of it, are expected to participate in the proceeding. Thanks, L235 (t / c / ping in reply ) 02:42, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
 * OK, my bad, I think I read your comment wrongly the first time. Thanks, L235 (t / c / ping in reply ) 03:34, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Hmm, I saw 's userspace draft for their response, and I'd like to respond to some of it, but seeing as it is still unposted, and the arbs look likely to accept anyways, and some people have already started responding, and it violates the word limit a lot, I think I'll just not respond. L235 (t / c / ping in reply ) 22:42, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Hey, this hit net four a while back now; does the Committee want to get the case started? Thanks. L235 (t / c / ping in reply ) 22:19, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Kharkiv07
Technical 13 also constantly marks semi-protected edit request as " Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format." or " Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the template." where he puts very little to no attention to look at the requests; many of his responses are preventing users trying to be productive from editing semi-protected articles.

All of his responses: Examples of marking clear requests as not clear:, , , , Requests that clearly don't require consensus being marked as "no-consensus": , Marking "having sufficient rights" when user did not:

Kharkiv07 ( T ) 19:25, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Statement by TheMesquito
The Committee should hear this request due to the fact that anytime T13 behavior is called into question, nothing is done due to the excuse "he does good work" and then he continues to violate policy because he knows he can without punishment. Just because a user does "great work" does not excuse the fact that they are not following policy. TheMesquito buzz  15:22, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I disagree with your first point, as that was a most definitely a personal attack on the editors of AFC, it was not .snarky, it was rude and was uncalled for, and was done out of spite since T13 was told he should stay away from AFC. Your second point is valid, I did not see the problem there, and as for the Canvassing accusations, it was most certainly canvassing as the policy states "Do not send messages to to many users" and the mere fact that T13 is being so standoffish about it is worrying. TheMesquito  buzz  02:34, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Spartaz
If I may, this feels very similar to the problems we had with Betacommand - another user with good intentions, strong technical skills and a hopeless way of responding to feedback. We all know how badly that ended. While I note that T13 isn't editing right now the committee needs to get a grip on the situation to save us all from the disruptive potential time sink this could become. How we deal with it I don't know but I'm sure leaving this to fester isn't the answer. Spartaz Humbug! 15:47, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree with NYB. Spartaz Humbug! 21:48, 27 May 2015 (UTC)


 * seriously? He can't respond because he is waiting on WMF legal? Is this to a case of CIR now? Spartaz Humbug! 22:45, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm confused about the use of oversight? How did the material removed equate to oversightable material? Spartaz Humbug! 19:17, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
 * A very serious, potentially libellous, accusation against another editor was presented without evidence and two other edits related to this (one itself also containing a serious allegation without evidence) were suppressed on this page today. I am satisfied that no policy was breached. Thryduulf (talk) 00:43, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
 * i guess there must be more subtext that you guys have because I didn't pick that up when I saw it earlier but I appreciate the clarification. Cheers Spartaz Humbug! 06:26, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Comment by Robert McClenon
I am not making a statement as to whether the ArbCom should accept this case at this time. I will comment only on details. First, the statement that User:Technical 13 is taking a short Wikibreak is incorrect. That statement has been on his en.wiki page since at least 29 January 2015. Second, his Meta user page was deleted at his request on 26 May 2015. His en.wiki page is still up, with the incorrect Wikibreak banner. Third, he hasn't edited since the ArbCom notice was posted on 25 May (so maybe the banner is now correct after all). Robert McClenon (talk) 18:34, 27 May 2015 (UTC)


 * I would ask the ArbCom not to decline this case only because the subject has not made a statement. As other editors have noted, it is too common for controversial editors to take long Wiki-breaks when their conduct is questioned.  Any arbitrators who think that a case is not justified at this time may decline for that reason.  A Request for Arbitration can be kept open for a long time or suspended.  I ask any arbitrators who want to hear from the subject first to leave this request open (or suspended) rather than declining it due to the lack of a statement.  Robert McClenon (talk) 16:24, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Floq
I've always considered T13 a mixed blessing; sometimes useful, sometimes mistake-prone, sometimes flexible, more often inflexible, always a little over-enthusiastic and over-confident in his infallibility. I would normally be ambivalent about a case and not post here, especially since now it means the clerks are going to notify me about the progress of a case 4-5 times. But I am sick to death of people suddenly "not being able to comment for a couple weeks" the second something serious happens. This may not be the best acceptance rationale, but I'd suggest accepting the case pour encourager les autres not to tell this fable when a case is looming/in progress. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:52, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Iridescent
What Floq says. While I haven't been monitoring him since then, from all I see little seems to have changed since I declined an unblock request from T13 two years ago. While I don't have any reason to doubt his good faith or desire to help, this seems to be another Betacommand, Mattisse or Merridew who is so convinced that he's an overwhelming force for good that he genuinely believes any criticism of his actions to be itself disruptive. I also endorse Floq's "pour encourager les autres" point unless T13 has provided a very convincing reason for his absence; my patience towards those who contract "ANI Flu" whenever their actions are challenged is not high, particularly given that the last few iterations of Arbcom quite often let people get away with the "been gone for a month and now the complaint is stale so we're not going to take any action" stunt whilst dishing out harsh penalties to participants who had the integrity to turn up and try to explain their actions. – iridescent  19:17, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Newyorkbrad
Floquenbeam and Iridescent both make good points. I think they should both run for ArbCom. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:33, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Comment by B
I don't hugely care one way or the other, but just from reading the diffs in the original request, I disagree with four of PhantomTech's characterizations:


 * A personal attack against editors, calling them "project dictators" - that's hardly a personal attack - it's at most mildly snarky.
 * Here T13 claims to have had no knowledge of the job queue issues while making the contested changes but that he should not revert those changes because he is now aware of the job queue issues and here he proves that he knew about the issue before making the contested changes changes to that template - actually, from reading this, I believe the changes he is referring to are the ones he made on the 6th and 7th - before his ANI post. He said, "I wasn't aware of the job queue issues until after the changes made here" (emphasis mine).
 * Here T13 violates canvassing policy by modifying his script to notify its users of a discussion where they would have a bias. - I'm not clear on what the problem here is - he is inviting people who use a script to join a discussion about improving the script? Am I missing the problem?
 * Here, in part of a longer interaction with a specific IP filled with more WP:IPHUMAN issues, T13 claims he cannot start a discussion on an IPs talk page unless they register an account - this is taking what he says out of context - he neither says nor implies that it is not possible to communicate with an IP user, rather, he says that he prefers not to have discussions on IP talk pages because they get fragmented when the IP changes. He is not at all unwilling to talk to the person and specifically invites the person to continue the conversation on T13's talk page.  Your claim of what he said is patently unrelated to what he actually said.

(As to the other two, concerning the notifications about the discussion of the Wikipediaholism test, regardless of whether it technically (no pun intended) violates a policy, it is at least a bad idea to do such a pointless exercise. I don't think it was a canvassing violation since he didn't pick and choose which side ... and he marked the edits as minor to minimize the RC disruption ... but whatever it is, it's a pointless waste of time.)

I'm not sure there is anything here for arbcom to arbitrate. A simple "please don't do it again" should suffice on the notifications and the rest of it ranges from extremely minor to patent mischaracterizations of what he said. --B (talk) 02:14, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Statement by OccultZone
In the wake of this decline, after 10 hours, T13's template right was restored. What do you think? There was no discussion before restoring the right. I was also involved in the extended discussion from July 2014, I wonder if the right had to be restored without significant discussion, since there were problems with closing template edit requests.

I also remember that Technical 13 had made reasonable amount of protest on ARC, AN, concerning the events that led to the removal of template-editor user right.  Occult Zone  (Talk • Contributions • Log) 02:28, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Kurtis
I have no strong opinion either way. If an ArbCom case is what it takes to settle things, then so be it.

@Newyorkbrad: Touché. Kurtis (talk) 15:32, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

Comment by Salvidrim
Without commenting on whether the case should be approved or not, I'm just noting down something here so that I am notified if it is accepted, because I intend to submit some (very small) piece of evidence privately, concerning the restoration of T13's TE user right in Dec. 2014. ☺ ·  Salvidrim!   ·  &#9993;  21:08, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Jehochman
I like Technical13. Nevertheless, when people make the effort to pursue dispute resolution, they deserve a result, even when one of the parties is unavailable to participate. Unless there is evidence that the filing was done vexatiously, timed to annoy or inconvenience, the case should be heard now, preferably with the input of Technical13, or without if participation is not possible. Jehochman Talk 14:33, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Statement by uninvolved Hammersoft
Responding to the original complaint; In short, I find your accusations without merit. I've not looked into the job queues issue as this is not my area of expertise. But, in every other respect your accusations are without merit. I concur with the first comment made here. You are digging at straws. I fear this case will become a billboard at which people will throw as much stuff as they can, from as far back as they can find, to make T13 look bad. What specific complaint do you have that you would like to see addressed other than that you don't like this editor and his actions?
 * The term "project dictators" was not associated with any particular person. While it might (might) have been uncivil, it was not a personal attack. This is looking for a violation where there isn't one.
 * Modifying a script to notify users of it is not in violation of WP:CANVAS. T13 wasn't advocating they vote any particular way. Rather, he was notifying the users of it. How is that a problem? These are the very people who would be affected by changes. He asked for their comments, and did not indicate any preference for how they should comment. This, too, is looking for a violation where there isn't one.
 * T13 didn't claim he couldn't start a discussion on an IP page. Your statement is false. If you read the diff you supplied, he makes it clear he does not like chasing IPs around. This is quite reasonable. He also notes a willingness to continue the conversation with the IP. Once again, this is looking for a violation where there isn't one.
 * Your second claim of violating WP:CANVAS is also false. The messages he left on user's talk pages were neutrally worded and addressed to those who would have an interest. You have a semantic difference with him over the term "too many" (which isn't defined anywhere) and 'interest'. Disagreeing on those terms doesn't make him wrong and you right. T13 is one of 35 editors here granted the massmessage-sender privilege. I also note that as soon as you raised the issue with him, he stopped the message sending and has not resumed. Great move on his part. And again, this is looking for a violation where there isn't one.

To ArbCom; If you accept this case, you'd better be very clear about the scope of the case. Else, it WILL become open season anyone to dredge up all manner of 'evidence' that may or may not have anything to do with any other 'evidence' provided. This is already happening in this RFAR. How much dirt can we dig up on him? If you don't indicate the scope, you might as well indefinitely block T13 now and toss the keys in the water. --Hammersoft (talk) 18:15, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

2nd To ArbCom: The idea that you should accept this case on the grounds of "pour encourager les autres" is grossly in violation of WP:AGF. The case should not be accepted on the basis of whether T13 is here or not. It is irrelevant to the case. If in the event he can be here, he will certainly be motivated to do so if the case is accepted. If in the event that he can't be here, there's still no reason to not open the case. The project's work should never stop because a person is absent. We don't have to presume he is lying about his absence to conduct our work. Further, attempting to make an example of T13 so that other would-be miscreants 'who contract "ANI Flu"' would be discouraged from doing so would not have any desirable effect. That this suggestion would come from two former arbitrators is shocking. RFAR is NOT about making an example of anyone. This isn't a drumhead trial. Any action taken by ArbCom on the basis of supposedly making an example of T13 brings discredit to ArbCom and undermines the very purpose that ArbCom is supposed to serve. --Hammersoft (talk) 19:08, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Wbm1058
It seems his attention isn't fully devoted to this case, per his most recent edit, while his response remains a user-space draft. I just noticed this yesterday, and want to comment regarding his recent edits to Template:Orphan. I'm involved in maintaining that template, and I responded with this: Regarding the Job Queue, see the discussions here and here. T98621 has been closed. Apparently there is more than one queue, but if the "jobs" statistic at this link is a useful indication, it's apparently shrunk from 15.7 million to something in the ballpark of 283 thousand. Per the phab comment "so we're back to business as usual even though there is still some backlog to recover", I take it that we can take this reason for delay off the table. Per this May 7 edit, you were aware of this job queue problem before your most recent of three Template:Orphan edits this month. We should ensure that there is a consensus for changes before making them live, and as you've already made three edits go live this month, you clearly haven't done that as well as it could have been done. Not that an occasional misreading of consensus should be a big deal. So, he granted himself three mulligans on editing a high-profile template, without adequately determining consensus, and intimidated others from making even a single edit. And, when he finally reverted his edits, apparently in an effort to save face, he felt obliged to also revert two other respected technical editors' edits, which had been previously accepted as they had stood for several months, dating from February and September. I suppose the rationale would be bold-revert-discuss, but these struck me as spiteful reversions, given their timing. Meanwhile, I've hesitated in proposing my orphan solution, as I feel sometimes that getting too close to an area that he's recently edited is like treading dangerously close to a "third rail".

Regarding the focus and direction of this, I would like to see further explained the rationale for why his template-editor rights were restored without discussion. I suggest that this case focus on his use and/or abuse of his template editor and mass-message sender privileges, with the potential sanctions of revoking these rights for a set period of time, or until a broad consensus is formed to restore them. I'm not keen to block this editor, and given their rights-collection, believe that revocation of one or two of them is a penalty that may have the desired effect. He should still be free to submit protected-edit requests for protected templates, and perhaps see what it feels like to occasionally get perfunctory "not done" responses to his requests. Regards, Wbm1058 (talk) 22:02, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Beyond My Ken
If Technical 13 has the time to start a draft response to these charges, then he has the time to respond here. The Committee has accorded him more than a sufficient amount of time, and should accept or reject the case without consideration of Technical 13's supposed time constraints. BMK (talk) 06:41, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
 * T13 should post his response. Whatever he's waiting for from WMF legal ("about one of the arbitrators") can be added later. BMK (talk) 06:45, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Looie496
Technical 13's response, now that it has finally appeared, contains clear legal threats. This makes it impossible for ArbCom to carry on an ordinary case. The correct response is to impose an indefinite block for legal threats, followed by forwarding the case to the WMF for further investigation in case office actions are needed. The block should probably be imposed by motion, with recused, but policy would justify any uninvolved administrator in doing it. Looie496 (talk) 14:04, 15 June 2015 (UTC)