Jump to content

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case

Edit links
Page semi-protected
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Arbitration | Requests

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Firefly (talk | contribs) at 14:13, 17 September 2023 (→Motion: Mark Ironie and CorbieVreccan shared account: motion enacted). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

"WP:ARC" redirects here. For a guide on talk page archiving, see H:ARC.

Shortcut

Requests for arbitration

Arbitration Committee proceedings
Request name Motions Initiated Votes
CorbieVreccan, Mark Ironie, and Tamzin Motions 12 September 2023 3/7/0
[edit]
Open cases
Case name Links Evidence due Prop. Dec. due
Backlash to diversity and inclusion (t) (ev / t) (ws / t) (pd / t) 10 Oct 2024 24 Oct 2024
[edit]
Recently closed cases (Past cases)

No cases have recently been closed (view all closed cases).

Request name Motions  Case Posted
Amendment request: Palestine-Israel articles (AE referral) Motion (orig. case) 17 August 2024

No arbitrator motions are currently open.

CorbieVreccan, Mark Ironie, and Tamzin

Initiated by -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) at 19:01, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Involved parties

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request
Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

Statement by Tamzin

I'm filing this at the suggestion of several users at AN. ArbCom has already considered a narrow aspect of this privately: Whether off-wiki evidence of a personal connection between CorbieVreccan and Mark Ironie, combined with point 1 of what's discussed below, warranted ArbCom sanctions. While I briefly mentioned other issues (points 4 and 5), I did not present the case as a general review of Mark and Corbie's admin actions, and to my knowledge the Committee did not treat it as one.

After Mark and Corbie's connection was made public at ArbCom's behest, I raised this matter at AN, where a broader portrait of repeated violations of WP:MEAT, WP:INVOLVED, and possibly WP:COI has emerged. To summarize what I and others have presented in that thread:

  1. Almost all of Mark's significant non-mainspace, non-own-userspace participation since the start of 2020 has been in support of Corbie. This includes 1/1 of Mark's blocks, 3/3 of Mark's warnings, 2/3 of Mark's calls for sanctions, 4/4 of Mark's AfD/RM !votes, and 2/2 of Mark's other talkpage participation. (timeline)
  2. Corbie was given a final warning in 2019 by Seraphimblade for disruptive editing in the Native American topic area. Mark had defended Corbie at length in that discussion and sought sanctions against Corbie's opponent.
  3. Across 20 XfDs, Corbie and Mark have !voted the same way in 18, and mostly the same way in 2. (analysis by BilledMammal)
  4. In February, Corbie indefinitely semi-protected the article Two-spirit (authorship stats), ostensibly as an AE action (never logged). They acknowledged their involvement, linking to WP:CTOP, which forbids involved CTOP actions.
  5. In June, Corbie deleted User:Immanuelle/Two-spirit because Editor does not understand topic and has been disruptive on Indigenous articles. Image is offensive. They self-reversed after a DRV in which they cited no policy basis for deletion.
  6. There are some concerns that Corbie has a COI with respect to Celtic reconstructionism and rival schools of paganism. I'll note that, 5 years after being renamed from a username that made that COI more obvious, they logdelled the pagemove. (While I'm not saying that name as a courtesy, past usernames on the same account are public information, and Corbie has acknowledged their off-wiki identity in the past.)
  7. User talk:Mycelium101 § September 2016 may or may not have been a good block (not an OS, can't say), but Corbie certainly shouldn't have made it against someone accusing them of COI, and Mark certainly shouldn't have declined unblock.
  8. Corbie revision-deleted my required notification of the AN thread as purely disruptive. They self-reversed after criticism, but never adequately explained the action.

In the AN thread, both admins have taken an approach of generally denying wrongdoing, without substantively disputing the allegations. Mark says that they genuinely agree with Corbie each time they've !voted together, and I'm sure that's true. Most meatpuppetry cases work that way. "Failure to exercise independent judgment" isn't just about the opinions expressed, but the time, place, and manner of expressing them—WP:CANVASS, essentially. I have blocked experienced users in similar situations. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 19:01, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • @clerks: That's 495 words, as much as I could condense all the evidence; preemptively requesting 250 words for replies. Also, additional clerical note: Since Corbie accused me of misconduct, and in acknowledgment of some editors' concerns about the "anchoring" effect of only naming the "accused" in case names, I've included myself in the request name. I have no strong feeling as to what an eventual case ought to be called. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 19:01, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Cryptic: I will say, I think the older usertalk revdels are probably fine, since WP:DELTALK allows privacy RDs in userspace, which provides a limited extension of WP:U1 onto usertalk pages, and it's generally understood admins can self-action U1s when the matter is non-controversial. The issues with the revdel of my edit were that the matter was decidedly controversial, and that it accused me of disruptive behavior; I don't see this as present in the other ones (tagged as RD6, although RD5 would be more apt). -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 20:27, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • To address my background for looking into this: I had heard, years ago, from a user in very good standing, that they had seen the SPI against Mark before it was deleted, and that it made a compelling case. I thought little of this again until I saw Mark's !vote at AN/I to sanction Skyrise and Darker Dreams, but didn't have the time or energy to look into it then. When Pingnova (not an "off-wiki friend[ ]" as Corbie says, but a new user who had sought advice on Discord on writing about an LGBTQ topic) noted that the protector and main editor of Two-spirit were the same person, I decided to start looking into the claim I'd heard. I could not verify the particular relationship alleged, but could verify that they knew each other pre-Wikipedia. I knew no specifics of the SPI's MEAT allegations, so I conducted a de novo review of Mark's edits, the results of which were unambiguous.
    As to Pingnova, I think simply looking at Corbie's interactions with them will substantiate my WP:BITE concerns, but that's small beans compared to what we're discussing here. Corbie attacking the motives of people calling them out for years of policy violations is not a suitable response under WP:ADMINACCT—nor is repeatedly acknowledging the violations but saying they were fine. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 22:07, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Thryduulf: Thanks for the context. Is the implication there that the users' former usernames are suppressable information? I've been avoiding saying them as a courtesy, out of empathy as someone who's also experienced off-wiki harassment, but all 3 renames (2 for Mark, 1 for Corbie) are publicly logged and endure in years' worth of past talkpage edits, including both of their RfAs. (As noted above, Corbie logdelled the pagemove from their own rename, but the rename log itself remains public.) Without meaning to question the good intentions of any of our oversighters, who I'm sure were just trying to help two admins dealing with harassment, this seems like one of those cases where it would have been better to convey the hard truth that you can't make your identity private when you've already widely publicized it, rather than use oversight to try and put the toothpaste back in the tube, giving a false sense of privacy. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 00:04, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Risker: The most recent instance of Mark intervening on Corbie's behalf in a matter is 21 August, 5 days before I first contacted ArbCom. I don't see where I've called anyone a villain or horrible admin, and older evidence has only been cited as pertains to recent misconduct. If an admin repeatedly using their tools and social stature to support their off-wiki associate, to the exclusion of almost any other participation outside of mainspace, "press[es] the right buttons"... well I'd sure hope it would. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 02:49, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Ivanvector: Just to make sure my evidence is not misunderstood (and while strongly agreeing with the general thrust of your comment): I do not contend that all of Mark Ironie's tool use starting in 2020 is in matters regarding Corbie. In the timeline I presented at AN, there's four line items that are underlined (i.e. admin or admin-adjacent) but not highlighted (i.e. apparently not related to Corbie), representing a total of five routine protection accepts/declines (across three sessions) and a single AN/I comment calling for a block of CejeroC. In addition, Special:Log/Mark Ironie shows a valid G11 of Draft:BUYING.COM.BD, a reasonable enough G14 of Manth[deleted version] (page since unrelatedly histmerged), and a good-faith mix-up about self-granting some redundant groups. Hence my characterization of Almost all of Mark's significant non-mainspace, non-own-userspace participation since the start of 2020 has been in support of Corbie: Really the only admin or admin-adjacent action in this time period that goes beyond checking a backlog and actioning/declining, and is not related to Corbie, is the call for blocking CejeroC; contrast 6 pertaining to Corbie.
    Oh and a brief note on warnings, since Mark raised it at AN: Yes, a warning is not an inherently administrative act. However, a warning from someonne who appears to be an uninvolved admin, especially if they use one of the heavier-duty warning templates like Mark did with Walrasiad, will be taken by most users as a threat of admin action, and every admin should know that. (As a general note, I recommend {{involved admin comment}} to all.) -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 16:45, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Indigenous girl deserves better than having this play out on her talkpage, so @CorbieVreccan, I'll respond briefly here to say that this is not an accurate characterization of what you said to me by email (ArbCom please see inbox), and I will not otherwise dignify your comments with a response. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 21:51, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @CorbieVreccan: If you could keep your comments toward me relating to this case here in arbspace, I would appreciate it. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 22:20, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • [Much obliged for extension.] I don't object to resolving this case by motion. However, I would request that arbitrators address Corbie's unsubstantiated claim that multiple women, children, queer people and people of transgender experience have been put in real, physical danger by my actions. The remark was deeply hurtful—not just in the abstract; it genuinely hurt more than any comment I can recall receiving on-wiki. I am not requesting any particular sanctions, but this is a personal attack that should be in some way addressed. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 03:48, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by CorbieVreccan

I'm sorry this is long, but I've been accused of a lot. Things have been dug up from over 15, almost 20 years ago. I've been WP:OUTED and put in danger again.

The sometimes-shared IP was disclosed to Arbcom and multiple checkusers during the Starwood Arbitration in 2006, before our RfAs in 2007, and I've made sure to mention it when working with Checkusers ever since. Notably, when working with CU's to block the User:Ekajati, 30 account sockdrawer. No one ever said until Sunday night that we needed to disclose this publicly.

Arbcom knows the reason for my name change, it had to do with real-world violent stalkers and physical danger. It was done by 'crats for my and my family's safety, not for deception.

Skyerise, who I am certain is the ban-evading Ekajati sockdrawer stirred up a lot of this.

I have sent additional evidence to Arbcom and Mark says he will be posting his publicly as well. Skyerise has claimed I have a sock account. I do not. I've never heard of the account she linked at AN. I don't sock. I immediately recognized Skyerise's voice, personal attacks and editing patterns as Ekajati, as have others. I haven't posted the Ekajati/Skyerise stuff publicly before now because I knew she'd out me the way she and Tamzin now have. She knew it wasn't worth it to me to be outed again, as she participated in the stalking. The forgetfulness of others with the passage of time, her having relocated and everyone using new equipment now has made her over-confident.

Skyerise is now focusing on my COI on the CR article, which I disclosed at my RfA. When the COI template was created, I did not tag the article or list it on my talk page under my new name, again, due to the name change/safety reasons, and because, aside from reverting vandalism I mostly stay on talk these days.

She had this same focus on me with the Ekajati account: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Starwood#Statement by Ekajati (Her statement about us is struck as the committee found her charges irrelevant).[1] She is still bitter that Mark filed the arbitration that led to the discovery and block of her and her 30 socks. As I write this, she is now slashing and burning her way through the Celtic reconstructionism article and lying about me some more. She's waited 17 years to do this.

The articles that I have semi-ed which I also edit have almost always been at the request of editors on talk. I have usually asked on talk first if that's what others think we should do, and always included a link where they can go to RFPP if they want it undone. Always. I have never had anyone request an undo. [Adding: I had noticed a number of other, very active and respected, admins doing this and no one seemed to take issue with it. Not an excuse, but a reason. I agree that, even so, we were all not in line with policy, even when requested, so I will go to RFPP in the future. Sorry. - CorbieVreccan ☊ ☼ 22:56, 12 September 2023 (UTC)][reply]

They mentioned Two Spirit because on the same day Tamzin emailed Arbcom, I had reverted someone on that article that she has a personal, off-wiki friendship with, who she then she came to the Indigenous wikiproject to defend.[2] She accused me of being bitey, but my initial replies to them were friendly and neutral.[3][4]

I have never been, nor am I now, anyone's Meat Puppet. As someone who has been editing Wikipedia since 2005, and an admin since 2007, I have gotten to know a number of Wikipedians. I've met some offline, as well. Some I've stayed in touch with, others have fallen out of touch. The Wikipedians I have connections with, we've bonded over shared interests. We have the same articles on our watchlists. If activity on an article, or an XfD happens, we both/all may well show up. We may well have similar opinions. We may say, "Per that person", if they make a good argument. There are many people over the years I've said, "Per this person" about. Many more than the one that's been singled out here.

10 or 15 years ago, Mark was one of the people I had the most in common with. Not so much now. So, aside from a couple mistakes that we have apologized to Arbcom about, any agreements in XfDs are extremely old and were largely in the 17 years old Starwood AfDs where the only opposing !votes were one person - a sockdrawer. - CorbieVreccan ☊ ☼ 21:36, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Response to Tamzin's point 8: I did explain at AN. Twice. And apologized:

_________________________________

Skyerise has posted on my talk page saying she can't be Ekajati because she removed spam links from the Starwood article.[5]

She was very patient and ignored most of the articles for 4 years or longer with the Skyerise account.

Note the identical wording and phrasing in the edit summaries here: https://sigma.toolforge.org/timeline.py?page=Starwood_Festival&users=Skyerise&users=Ekajati&server=enwiki

There are 27 more to go through.

I believe she knew this was coming and, especially given the Starwood-related "evidence" and outing, this is co-ordinated retaliation. - CorbieVreccan ☊ ☼ 23:36, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Response to @GeneralNotability:, I'm not going to throw other admins under the bus here, but I was encouraged to do privacy-protecting revdels, and others did some for me, as well. This is the first time anyone has said there's an issue with it. Again, I'm sorry, but I was doing the best I could with a crappy situation. If I knew this would happen, of course I would have done a clean start. But I think it's really unfair that I'm being punished for protecting myself, and others for protecting me, for retaliation that came at me from criminals because I protected the 'pedia. We have a whole new Arbcom now, so apparently what they did for me doesn't matter. And yes, I've worked with Trust and Safety, they make consoling sounds and refer you back to Arbcom. You have no idea how betrayed I feel right now. - CorbieVreccan ☊ ☼ 01:10, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
And I'll say it again, Mark and I have not been coordinating. I haven't even seen his emails with Arbcom, and I haven't shown him mine. I immediately volunteered an iBan and apologized for any lines crossed. Our sometimes-shared IP has been on record with Arbcom and CU as long as we've been Wikipedians and before our RfAs. We were given assurances that our names would be largely hidden, even if not everything from the past could be hidden. Yes, in almost 20 years on the 'pedia I've made some mistakes. I guess every single one of them is being dug up now. - CorbieVreccan ☊ ☼ 01:16, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@GeneralNotability: I have gradually come to the painful realization that you are correct - in limbo. Not good. - CorbieVreccan ☊ ☼ 01:21, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Barkeep49: This will probably require me going through my old email account. I am exhausted right now so it will probably have to wait till tomorrow. I know I sent some things during the private correspondence. If I send you the Trust and Safety correspondence, can you pass it on the General Notability? - CorbieVreccan ☊ ☼ 01:25, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm thinking about the blocks I've done on vandals and spammers on articles I've edited. Honestly, I thought the blocks were clean, as the users were socks and/or purely disruptive. Most of them were because more-regular editors of those articles came to me for help when an article was being disrupted and, I admit, I often did not check to see if I'd edited the article before. Again, I've seen other admins in good standing do this every day. @Beeblebrox: this is the type of help I usually give to editors who come to me for help. If I were to give up the tools, my only concern is that we have faced such a lack of understanding about some of these articles that those articles, and the editors who work on them, would suffer. I work in some specialized areas that clearly some users want me out of. I do know that Mark has said he is considering giving up his tools. And yes, of course I've considered a clean start. Bear with me, this is very stressful. A lot of what has been posted is distorted.
Last night I looked at the Mycellium sockpuppet/personal attacks/doxxing episode and other things oversighted, that some are now demanding be made public. While I can send more info privately, it was connected to personal safety. Thank you @Barkeep49: for saying, I think this ArbCom has to be careful against changing the agreements reached by previous ArbComs and to @Risker and TonyBallioni: for pointing out that the revdels and oversights were done before the policy was changed. I also did some revdels before I was aware of the change in policy. It is not reasonable or fair for me to have to defend the actions of Oversighters that were made in alignment with what were then the current policies. Nor is it fair to reverse their actions now that policies have been changed. I gave private info to Arbcom over the last two weeks about some of that. - CorbieVreccan ☊ ☼ 20:22, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've asked another admin to do the protection on Two-Spirit. (I didn't know the protection had to be logged at the time I did it. I'm sorry for the mistake.) That's all I have the energy for right now. - CorbieVreccan ☊ ☼ 21:11, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've sent an email to arbcom, cc-ing Mark, asking for clarification on some points. - CorbieVreccan ☊ ☼ 21:37, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • The way this is going, it seems folks want me to not use the buttons, or, I assume I am going to be dragged for a while and then asked to not use the buttons in the main areas that matter to me. So, I've submitted the desysop request.[6] I've already volunteered an iBan with Mark Ironie, if we continue to edit here. We volunteered the iBan over two weeks ago, when Arbcom first contacted us and then we thought this was done with. Will this be satisfactory? - CorbieVreccan ☊ ☼ 19:21, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am too worn out and stressed to deal with this. I have no plans to edit Wikipedia anymore, under this account or a new one. I gave it 18 years. Thank you to those of you who spoke up and were compassionate. No thanks to those who were cruel and abusive. Done now. - CorbieVreccan ☊ ☼ 21:10, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Mark Ironie

I acknowledge I have made mistakes in the past and in fairly recent interactions concerning CorbieVreccan (talk · contribs · count · logs · page moves · block log) on Wikipedia. Mea culpa. My bad. I will not do it again. Sorry. I accept any judgement/decisions from Arbcom if this request passes beyond this stage. I'm a Wikipedian and whatever is deemed best for the project by Arbcom satisfies me.

My response is unlikely to change any outcome here now that it is public. Any outcome from the community is insignificant compared to the results from opening this on a public noticeboard on WP. The results are increased physical danger to both of us irl. This is not melodrama, hyperbole, or "Oooh, dramaz on the internet, my feelings are hurt and I feel unsafe." I know the difference between internet threats which are usually empty of real world actions and credible threats where injury and/or death is a real possibility. NeoNazism. This is besides the point of any consequence to me as a Wikipedian but it is a result of this current airing of grievances about my actions/violations in proceedings, including the use our original usernames.

Firstly, there have always been wikipedians who knew of our connected IP. Nearly from the beginning of being editors on WP, there were people who knew this: Bureaucrats, members of Arbcom, Checkusers, admins, and editors. Certainly no later than 2007 and continuously since then. (I'll note I was not even aware of a requirement to post a userbox for connected accounts until recently informed so by Arbcom in email.) Many of those people are no longer active on WP. A lack of institutional memory at checkuser and Arbcom means I have few people to call on who will verify what I'm saying. Of course, that means editors/people have to believe what I'm asserting without much evidence to back up my veracity. Mostly, those people are dead ends in terms of active editors who can corroborate this from the 2000s. Sorry.

A little history: Before 2010, there was some latitude for connected accounts as long as it was disclosed to Arbcom and SPI checkusers. We still had to be editors in good standing, not violate the Five Pillars or the editor standards of behavior. Surprise! Some of the standards were different then and there was some flexibility in WP's structure if editors were protecting and building the 'pedia without trouble.

Throughout 2007, I was trying to curb User:Rosencomet's extensive linkspam and creation of pages for non-notable people. NN means just that: Searches for reliable sources turned up little-to-no significant WP:RS/WP:V sources that met the standard for WP:N. Rosencomet/Jeff Rosenbaum, who basically controlled the website (wait for it... rosencomet dot com) for the ACE, was inserting links into articles for everyone who presented or played music at their annual gatherings Starwood Festival and WinterStar from the entire history of the events. The "See also" on Starwood and ACE articles linked to all of these other articles, creating a semi-WP:Walled garden with an inordinately large series of links to their website. Later, Rosencomet/Rosenbaum was even giving in-person workshops on how pagans could game WP systems to accomplish what they wanted on WP.

Complicating the issue was the drawer of Ekajati, which eventually involved 30 user accounts. A majority of pushback on deleting these links came directly from Rosencomet and this sockdrawer. Eventually Ekajati, et al. was banned from WP completely. Of course, a sockdrawer of this size doesn't just stop editing because some accounts were blocked. More on that below.

I brought this issue to Arbcom and it became the Starwood Arbitration. The result? For multiple insertions of a link to a commercial website under the control of user:Rosencomet into a large set of articles? A caution to Rosencomet to refrain from the behavior.

Below is an excerpt from a longer report showing the connection between the Ekajati sockdrawer and a currently active Skyerise (talk · contribs · count · logs · page moves · block log).

The behavioral evidence is exceptionally strong in this case. User:Skyerise has a massive amount of article overlap with several sock puppets of Ekajati. I don't think this is just editors with common interests. It is very probable Skyerise has sockpuppet accounts now as well but I haven't submitted a formal SPI because the checkuser data for Ekajati, et al. is so very stale and useless. So this assertion can only be confirmed through behavioral analysis, writing patterns, etc. I'm familiar with this kind of analysis and invite anyone who understand the techniques to apply them for these users. I have no way of knowing if Skyerise is operating any socks currently but it seems more likely she used off-wiki means to find editors to support her in a recent flurry of activity on Witchcraft and associated articles. That activity went from 0 to 60 very quickly. She learned from previous mistakes in socking.

Editor Interaction tool: IPSOS (sock) and Skyerise with extensive overlap

Ed. Interaction tool: users QaBobAllah (sock) and Skyerise

Ed. Interaction tool: Users TunnelsofSet (sock) and Skyerise

Interaction for Hanuman Das (sock) and Skyerise.

This wikihistory for a specific article, Vajrayana, showing significant edits from 3 old sock accounts: Ekajati, GlassFET (talk · contribs · count · logs · page moves · block log), and Will in China (talk · contribs · count · logs · page moves · block log) as well as Skyerise. This is a typical example from an extensive list of other articles with similar distribution of Ekajati socks and Skyerise.

If it seems like I'm dwelling on insignificant details not related to this request for arbitration and a response from me, I'm outlining why CorbieVreccan and I are currently under scrutiny and part of it is this history. Take my acceptance of responsibility for my actions at the top as a given throughout this statement.

A little while ago (on the same date (August 26) that Tamzin (talk · contribs · count · logs · page moves · block log) submitted her report to Arbcom on connections between CorbieVreccan and myself, in fact), Pingnova (talk · contribs · count · logs · page moves · block log) began editing the Two spirit article in ways that broke citations, moved text to different places away from the citation, then deleting the text for not having a citation. He was greeted politely for a few exchanges, given links to policies, and invited to the WP:WikiProject Indigenous peoples of North America to discuss the changes. Pingnova rather quickly became abusive and insulting and then nonresponsive to talk page messages while still, well, disintegrating the article, not improving it. User:Tamzin had vouched for Pingnova, saying she met Pingnova on discord and Pingnova seemed very knowledgeable about Two Spirit and other Indigenous subjects. It became clear, however, that Pingnova lacked accurate knowledge but was strangely belligerent, proceeding to break the article through numerous edits. He broke the connections between citations and the text supported by the citations. He added sources which did not meet the standards of WP:RS or WP:V.

I have more to say, particularly about the goads on the Witchcraft article(s) which led me to comment and !vote at ANI. So the I fell for these deliberate goads. Yep, I think it was deliberate so this whole process could take place. The outline of this pattern is fairly clear. As the saying goes, don't piss on my leg and tell me it's raining. I can provide more extensive details and diffs on the subject if requested but I'm exhausted tonight. My actions are my responsibility and no one, not CorbieVreccan or anyone else, influenced or suggested the actions I took recently. Cheers, Mark Ironie (talk) 05:35, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The thing I'm saddest about is that, as a user/editor, I've lost any semblance of good reputation from this. It doesn't matter what I do. Some of the links presented here are being misrepresented as showing some violation of policy or bad behavior when they don't show that at all. I don't have the energy or time to refute or clarify them. There are some users here who have deliberately lied about events Corbie or I participated in. All I have on WP is my honesty and integrity. That was the reason I registered under my old username. I believed in honesty about my identity, in responsibility for my actions. I changed my username when using it became a real world threat to my safety and life. I wasn't hiding anything by the change; I kept the account and did not reincarnate. At this point, I doubt I can reincarnate unless I completely avoid any articles I've worked on, articles I'm interested in improving because I have a knowledge base about the subject. That motivates me and makes editing pleasurable and fun. If anyone has any inkling of connection to my old account, they can instantly discount my opinion, revert my edits, maybe accuse me of sockpuppeting, even if this current account is closed and inactive. In a conflict with other editors, I can immediately be threatened with being taken to a noticeboard if I don't back down. Whether it is pertinent or not on a noticeboard, I can be certain all of these recent filings will be brought up to discredit anything I say or do. I have never used sockpuppets in all my time on WP. I've said I don't care about having the admin buttons and that's true. For me, being an admin is insignificant. (I do enjoy doing some admin housekeeping tasks like PP when needed but I can live without it.) If I reincarnate, I would still have to put the shared IP userbox up if Corbie continues with the same account or even a new account. That would immediately show connected accounts. Not too difficult to identify who we are and harassment would continue, probably by outing both previous accounts. Policy or oversight would not stop or contain this from happening. Oops, too bad for me. Between us, all-in-all, I believe Corbie is the more capable and valuable editor to the project. I have no desire or inclination to find some way around our sometimes shared IP. It would be rather difficult. I'm not saying I will stop participating on WP, just that my editing options are extremely limited coming out of all this, regardless of any decision by Arbcom.
The first article I created has been nominated for deletion. It looked like this before September 12. Issues that have been thoroughly discussed on the article talk page were ignored, including COI discussions. Now that our names are public, it's the perfect time to erase anything in the article. I don't really care but I think it was considered a good article until yesterday. I expect this sort of thing to continue. Cheers, Mark Ironie (talk) 23:05, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've submitted a desysop request at the Bureaucrat Noticeboard WP:BN. Thank you, @Beeblebrox for the link. I'm disappointed that I'm not allowed to remove the rights myself though. That would be a fun last admin act. Oh, well. Cheers, Mark Ironie (talk) 00:08, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Black Kite: I have included a selection of links about the Ekajati and Skyerise connection. I have more evidence but I thought to keep it brief here since it has some bearing on this case. This wasn't intended to be a thorough SPI report. Cheers, Mark Ironie (talk) 00:35, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have some tasks/obligations I need to finish so I'm not leaving WP immediately. Abandoning participation on WP seems my likeliest course in the future; no clean start, no new account. I doubt I'll participate in this current process much if at all, even if I'm still editing for a few more weeks. Any decisions/sanctions/motions by Arbcom will probably be moot in actual effect considering it looks like IG is retiring. I see CorbieVreccan is leaving as well. I believe they both are serious about this being the end of any WP participation going forward. I'd be very surprised if either change their minds.
Editing WP and being an admin is volunteer work. It's been a privilege for me personally. If the community (and Arbcom) thinks my violations of policy/guidelines have been a net negative for WP, injuring good faith editors, content, and providing preferential treatment for CV through meatpuppeting, I'm disinclined to continue for long. Really, losing the admin buttons is trivial to me beyond the loss of trust by editors on WP. A bald list of my policy violations does not examine the circumstances around the individual events. It doesn't account for transparency by both CV and myself on this matter to appropriate members of Arbcom, checkusers, admins, and bureaucrats for many years. A lack of written institutional memory for Arbcom and checkuser has regulated this fact to unverifiable assertion from me. I'll read this process as it continues but y'all can carry on. Thank you and bonne chance. Cheers, Mark Ironie (talk) 20:26, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Indigenous girl

Well, this is certainly interesting. I'm not sure what's being asked of me, why am I here? Is i because of the issue with CV, Buffs and myself in the past? That's the past, I don't even remember what the outcome was but Buffs and I no longer cross paths. I stopped editing a handful of articles he and I both edited. There was more to that whole story. Boy oh boy was there but not even Truth and Safety did anything because this occurred shortly after the Fram incident. Is it because CV and I very often edit the same articles? Well, Indian County is only so big. I edit what I know. I am not comfortable editing in spaces where I am ignorant. That would not benefit the 'pedia (though I have done minor fiddly fixes on topics that I'm ignorant of). I've voted per a number of other editors because, as I've said else where, I am inherently lazy. If they've said what I intended to say or something close enough, it's per so and so. Is it because CV and I both live in the same state??? Golly, forgive me for choosing to go to college where I chose to go. I would prefer to go to Cornell so if you'd like me to change location you can pay for my education. I don't know what else to tell you all.

I've run EI on a number of folks participating here and y'all should be thanking all that's good that you don't live in glass houses. It's incredibly hypocritical. I used to follow CV around like a sad puppy, it's super pathetic, but I was a child when I started editing and they were kind to me. Was it wrong of me? Yes, of course it was, I recognize that now.

So now I'm going to talk about the Indigenous articles. Tamzin, in the future, please capitalize Indigenous. It's proper and respectful. Thank you. Some of the issues stem from editing Indigenous articles. It is incredibly frustrating having to deal with bullshit day in and day out (I'm just going to let my freak flag fly at this point, I no longer care). New editors show up boldly colonizing Native articles when they have no idea what the hell they are talking about AND THEY LIE. They lie about their experience and they lie about being part of the community. They sing the tonto speak songs with all the colors of the arctic wind up in Alaska. And people believe them. And they damage the 'pedia. So called friendly folks from Minneapolis come in and make changes to articles when they very obviously know jack shit. The more experienced editors have to clean up their messes. We have to correct things and revert and then we get into trouble because we are not nice. They claim to work with members of community, bold faced lying to admins because if they actually did they would not post pictures of sacred things and call ceremonial items peace pipes. We are constantly shit on and expected to smile and accept it. We are not to be allowed to edit drafts about our own community because non-Natives are. We are expected to sit on our hands when they add inaccuracies, misinformation and things about Germans. And if we get the least bit frustrated or bothered look where we end up. I'm not going to bother with diffs. I simply don't care anymore. Why should I, this place has no integrity. It gives no fucks about peoples safety, I learned that the hard way.

I am out of town and it took me forever to be able to get signal. If you want a response from me it may not be until Saturday but hopefully it will be sooner. Indigenous girl (talk) 03:14, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

For some clarity I would appreciate it if folks were to read the Reconciliation thread at the Indigenous peoples of North America project talk page [7] and pay particular attention to threats if the wishes of particular individuals are not followed, regardless of the experience and knowledge of project members. I don't think it's fair to be tone policed, while a (not so very)new editor runs amok on established articles and total crap is included in draft articles (but no members of the community associated with the draft subject need participate! They can start their own damn draft!). I am not saying that anyone is perfect and without error. Myself included, I'm very good at making mistakes, good thing I don't have fancy buttons. But ya know, you can't accuse somebody of using the fancy buttons to do something against policy when you use your own fancy buttons and status as threatening leverage and that's exactly how it was taken. Over all I really like Tamzin. I really do. I've enjoyed communicating with them over past issues and even during the PN drama. I more than a few others from the project think they were bullshitted and that is upsetting to me. Indigenous girl (talk) 17:22, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Skyerise

For what it's worth, I'm happy to make a statement. I kind of cycle through topics, some of them fringe, weeding out unsourced and badly sourced stuff. On and off I've come across articles created by Rosencomet (talk · contribs). The first time I did this, around 2016 I think, I watchlisted a bunch of them from his user page and addressed them as they came up in my watchlist. More recently, in March, I tackled Association for Consciousness Exploration and Starwood Festival, cleaning up COI that had been left for years. In the process I read Rosencomet's talk page and noticed the frequent posts from CV and MI under their previous usernames. It all seemed a bit over the top, but when I looked the editors seemed not to be here anymore so... Anyway, someone in the ANI thread brought up the previous usernames and that rang a bell, I noticed Rosencomet didn't have a {{Deceased Wikipedian}} template, revisited his talk page, and followed up on a thread that indirectly led other editors to discover the COI, which I've since been working to clean up. Skyerise (talk) 19:45, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Addition: CV suggests here that I was expected to remember something about her changing her username due to being stalked. It's possible that I should... but I just don't. I had early COVID and have the long-COVID brainfog problem. I don't remember much of anything about any Wikipedia drama from prior to 2020. What I've said above about earlier dates I gathered from old talk page posts. Skyerise (talk) 20:31, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Response to @BilledMammal: I was about to ask that myself. I think I'm being accused of OUTING but that was Shells-shells here. For the record, I'm neither Tamzin nor Shells-shells, nor am I in communication with either. Skyerise (talk) 01:55, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Addition: I've been thinking about this whole socking accusation, which came completely out of the blue for me. My take is that it shows the dangers of admins having a close association. To the best of my knowledge, I've never encountered and certainly haven't tangled with MI either under his current or previous usernames. Yet he supported admin action against me after CV took me to ANI. And MI's reply in this arbitration suggests that the reason he did so was that CV had shared with him her view that I am some old "drawer" of socks they previously had a problem with. So he supported admin action against me based on a second-hand fantasy. My initial statement here, made before CV's accusation, is entirely sufficient to explain any overlap I may have with said farm; sometime in 2015 or 2016, I added to my watchlist most if not all of the articles listed on Rosencomet's user page. I began to edit them as they appeared on my watchlist due to other edits, mostly with an eye to BLP issues and sourcing. That's it. I've never been tempted to sock or even edit logged out. I've had several blocks, not once have I evaded them. I either post an unblock request or wait it out. My limited experience with puppet masters would indicate that if I were a previous puppetmaster, I would have socks now, especially if I had "grown bold" as CV suggests. I don't have any other accounts, which I'm sure has been checked by now. I think that's a pretty good defense against that allegation. Skyerise (talk) 11:22, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@SilkTork:: shouldn't it be possible to restore the status quo as it was prior to the AN thread? by (1) revdelling the comments making that identification in that thread, (2) deleting the related article and its talk page and archives, then (3) revdelling the identification in the AfD itself. As far as I know, the information is still fairly localized. If safety wasn't an issue before the AN thread, then returning to the previous state should suffice, shouldn't it? Though a clean start in addition seems advisable. Skyerise (talk) 14:41, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion from Serial Number 54129

...that Barkeep49 be careful what he wishes for; several editors at AN/I queried the recent role of the committee in this issue's previous incarnation. Should the committee list itself as a party?

At the same time, it is impossible that this case would not be accepted; the alleged issues—admin meat puppetry, wp:involved, misuse of blocks etc.—make ArbCom the only possibly fair venue for a hearing, let alone the only one with the remit to do so. But it's true: the committee's role was brought up several times at A/I, so that should be addressed somehow. If only to alleviate any underlying concerns the community may have. SN54129 20:01, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No Barkeep, the (hypothetical) proposition would be that the committee as a body would be a party per the numerous criticisms of it at AN/I. SN54129 11:38, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If there's one thing that CorbieV and MarkIronie have in common here it's that they produce walls of text (word limits, clerks?) blaming everyone but themselves. The accusations of socking, for instance; usually we'd require a ot of diffs for that, or it would be private evidence. Whatever CV might think privately, and whether they like it or not, Skyerise has been here 14 years with 100K edits and is an editor in good standing. Thar these allegations are diff-less makes them personal attacks. SN54129 11:38, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

With the admin conduct issues rendered moot by now, as Beeblebrox suggests, the case should probably be returned to AN/I for behavioral examination, particularly their allegations of threats of harm, etc. This is on top of the unsubstantiated allegations of socking (unfortunately reiterated here by other editors). As I said above, per WP:WIAPA, re. Accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence. Serious accusations require serious evidence, usually in the form of diffs and links. Socking, after all, is bad enough, but it's pretty much an on-wiki offense only, whereas accusations of stalking and harassment are very much a matter for your local law enforcement. So diffs, and lots of them.

Incidentally, if something unfortunate does happen to Skyerise's account in the near future, let the record show that at this point in time the allegations were unsourced and not backed up, and no-one can claim hindsight. After all, as the committee recently affirmed, Violations of Wikipedia's behavioral expectations are not excused on the grounds that the editor who violated those expectations has the correct position. In another case, the committee also concluded that—specifically regarding socking—Blaming Y['s socking] for X's own poor behaviour is contrary to the spirit of Wikipedia. SN54129 10:31, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Cryptic

I did a fairly cursory audit of CorbieVreccan's revdels after the AN-notification revdel, and two items stood out:

  • Following on from the logdel in Tamzin's #6, there's also a number of revdels in CorbieVreccan's userspace, apparently in an attempt to obscure these birthday-committee edits which could conceivably have led back to their previous username; I didn't mention them at WP:AN since nobody had brought up the username change there yet, and I wasn't going to be the first to do so.
  • The revdel visible in the logs for Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Mark Ironie may or may not have been proper - again, no OS access, so I can't say - but what is visible also looks bad.

—Cryptic 20:17, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

An interaction ban would directly prevent these users from following the best practices laid out at WP:Sockpuppetry#Sharing an IP address. the interaction-banned users are generally allowed to edit the same pages or discussions so long as they avoid each other.... if Alice is banned from interacting with Bob, Alice would not be allowed to: ... • make reference to or comment on Bob anywhere on Wikipedia, directly or indirectly precludes When editing the same articles, participating in the same community discussion, or supporting each other in any sort of dispute, closely related accounts should disclose the connection. CorbieVreccan, for example, would still be able to go to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Celtic reconstructionism right now and !vote keep, but wouldn't be able to say whether Mark Ironie asked them to. Meanwhile, they can't openly collaborate in writing articles, whether or not they disclose. This seems to me like the precise opposite of what should happen. An WP:IBAN only makes sense if you're looking at the shortcut link, not at the text it actually points to. Heck, even the {{User shared IP address}} boxes are an interaction ban violation. —Cryptic 01:47, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Moxy

Looks very bad as per WP:STEALTH, but there has to be a good reason. Let's make sure Wikipedia:SHARE is adhere to so the community can have some confidence in these administrators.Moxy- 21:54, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by AntiCompositeNumber

I would suggest that ArbCom and/or the Oversight team more broadly, if it has not recently done so, evaluate whether the suppressed revision(s) of Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Mark Ironie should remain suppressed. --AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 22:38, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Thryduulf

Regarding the suppression of Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Mark Ironie, this was discussed on the Oversight mailing list at the time (January 2020) but spent more time discussing associated issues rather than the question itself so did not reach an obvious consensus (Arbs let me know if you want me to submit the thread as private evidence). The reason it was suppressed was because it included the former usernames of both Mark and CV. I can't see any issue with restoring it but with those names redacted, which matches a suggestion in the list thread (which went unresponded to at the time). I'm not going to do that unilaterally though, especially now the matter is here. Thryduulf (talk) 23:15, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Noting I didn't see Barkeep's comment on this until after I hit save. Thryduulf (talk) 23:17, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Tamzin: It was noted in the OS thread that there is a mix of public and suppressed/revdelled links between the old and new names, and that the connection can be trivially traced based on the public information if you go looking for it, and this was one of the points in favour of unsuppressing and a suggestion similar to your "hard truth" option was also made. The harassment received and previous suppressions were the main arguments for continued suppression.
Some context for anyone not familiar: Oversight is a tool of first resort - i.e. we suppress and then discuss, unsuppressing or downgrading to revdel if that's the conclusion. There is no formal policy regarding no consensus, but most often the suppression remains.
I would recommend not sharing the old usernames here unless ArbCom say you can, because that is definitely not going to make anything worse while the alternative only probably won't. In the case of the SPI, including the old names is not necessary for the context so there isn't a clear benefit to restoring without redaction. Thryduulf (talk) 00:44, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Cryptic et al that the interaction ban between CV and MI seems to be the exactly wrong solution to the issues here. Thryduulf (talk) 08:16, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@DeCausa: Can the arbs indicate how/if [the single user motion] will apply to a clean start?. I think the only way it could work without making a clean start completely pointless would be for the two to simply never contribute to the same discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 22:43, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Sideswipe9th

I just wanted to get some clarity as to the scope here, if this case is accepted. I'm aware of and have been party to some issues relating to CorbieVreccan's conduct on several other articles within the GENSEX content area. While she didn't, to my knowledge, use the admin tools in relation to these other issues, would these conduct issues be in scope of this case request? Diffs can of course be provided if this is within scope. Sideswipe9th (talk) 00:37, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by BilledMammal

Reviewing a small sample of the recent blocks CorbieVreccan has made I have found some that I believe to be concerning.

On 11 April 2023, they blocked Treetoes023 (talk · contribs) for 48 hours, for Disruptive editing - User promised not to edit pages outside their area of expertise until they'd learned more. Then proceeded to edit more of those pages. ; see also deleted contribs and filter log.

CorbieVreccan appears to be WP:INVOLVED with this editor in this topic area, having disagreed with a significant number of their proposals and edits in the weeks prior to the block (see interaction log). The block was objected to at the time by Moxy, but mostly went by unnoticed with an uninvolved admin declining to review the unblock request because it was only 48 hours; in the unblock request Treetoes023 disputed the claim that they had promised not to edit Indigenous articles.

They have also made several blocks related to the Pretendian, to which they have made significant contributions. On 28 December 2022, they blocked Knoterification (talk · contribs) for 72 hours, for Edit warring on multiple articles, past final warnings by multiple editors. Immediately prior to the block they had been edit warring on Pretendian; a month prior they had been edit warring on Mullato. In neither case was a bright line crossed. 11 days later they blocked 92.3.99.234 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) for 32 hours, for Edit warring, disruption, refusal to enage on talk on the same article; again, no bright lines were crossed.

There are some other examples that I find less concerning due to the nature of their contributions to the relevant pages (primarily reverts and gnoming) but warrant mentioning:

09:27, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

This seems to have mostly resolved itself, but I would like to ask an uninvolved admin/arb to review the block of at least Treetoes023; while it has expired it remains a blemish on their record and an inappropriate block is certain to be discouraging to long-term participation. 02:00, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Risker

I have told this to the arbitrators in another forum, and I will repeat it here. This case doesn't show that the two main alleged villains in this case are horrible, bad admins. It shows that one admin who specializes in knowing how to press the right buttons can drag up diffs from 15 years ago, and get a case accepted. Arbcom is being played like a fiddle here. The most recent diff that anyone has come up with is from 2 years ago; Arbcom would normally never even consider a case that doesn't show recent issues. The closest thing to a "recent issue" is the revdel of a diff that the user genuinely believed was something that had already been addressed privately with Arbcom. Why Arbcom is deciding to really hang these two out to dry, after they had already discussed this matter privately, is disturbing. The username changes were done back at a time when we did not have the privacy-protecting tools we have now, and when the policies were radically different. This could all have been handled very neatly by Arbcom saying "okay you two, act like any other users who share an IP and don't comment on the same XFD/RFA/whatever," and then shutting down this nonsense. Simple solutions work best. Risker (talk) 02:39, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Tamzin, that's the first I saw of that diff. Still doesn't change my opinion. The solution is as I have stated above. Risker (talk) 03:05, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by TonyBallioni

Two comments on this:

  1. On the oversighting and privacy of renames: the current portion of the OS policy that says they will not be granted was drafted by me and submitted to the OS list because people getting renamed for various reasons and requesting suppression had become a trend in the 2017-2020 era of the project. Various oversighters had interpreted it different ways, and it was starting to make its way on-wiki as a point of disruption with various users claiming outing based on revealing renames and clean starts even though the whole of our policies related to these items does not support such a position. One of the changes made in the drafting and subsequent discussion was that a clause about exceptional circumstances was removed to prevent people from claiming their circumstance was exceptional. It was acknowledged we could do it by IAR or similar discussion and seen as unneeded. The addition to the policy page additionally is not an actual core piece of the policy but the standing interpretation by the Oversight team of what we would ordinarily consider as being supressable, but documented publicly so that people know not to ask us. It was put where it was geographically on the page so as not to be a part of the core criteria. All this to say: while that is the norm on suppression of renames, it isn't as cut and dry and when I added the change to the page in July of 2020 the talk page post explaining that was a shorter version of the above paragraph. If what Risker is saying was true and due to previous technical limitations this was what was available, this really isn't what that section of the OS page was intended to address.
  2. On the 2020 list discussion: Risker's proposed outcome was also my proposed outcome of that OS list discussion; I can understand if no one followed up on it given the timing and world events, but if functionaries and arbs were aware of this (which I think its reasonable to assume that the parties here thought) and no one reached out to them to give a private note, then that really is on the 2020 ArbCom and any before that didn't make any comment. If this committee wants to formalize it, I don't think anyone would really oppose an IBAN, but part of the context here is that you have people acting in a way where they think others are aware and not acting is an implication that their actions are okay. I'm unaware of any private communication that may have previously been had with them, but at some point silence from those in a position to speak is a form of speaking.

I don't have really have that strong of an opinion on this case, but since this type of thing has historically been one of the issues I've been more vocal on as a functionary, I figured I could provide context. TonyBallioni (talk) 03:32, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Shells-shells

I am not coordinating with anyone. My other edit was a mistake, and I'm sorry I made it. Please address it in whatever way is best. Shells-shells (talk) 07:25, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Fram

If they really needed the rename for such serious reasons, they should have made a WP:CLEANSTART, completely abandonding the old accounts (and associated rights), completely avoiding articles they have a very strong COI with, and just starting again from scratch. Now there are claims that we can't mention their old usernames which supposedly get oversighted, even though e.g. even their RfAs are still available under those names. Instead, they spend years misusing their tools to badly cover their tracks, and lash out to everyone who has an issue with this. Just desysop them already, and let them start over from scratch if they still want to contribute to enwiki (but without the COI edits). Fram (talk) 07:30, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Primefac: I understand your position vs. using old names, and doing it just to spite or annoy the editors should be treated harshly; but in a case which involves two admins where their RfAs were under those old usernames, and which involves serious COI editing including the inclusion of books written by at least one of them, with their old username on the cover (and thus in the article), it may well be inevitable that these names pop up in rather essential evidence. I see Mark Ironie claiming that this (the AN and Arbcom case) means that they both risk injury and even death. Which is also the reason why they changed usernames apparently, as if that rather minimal effort would somehow stop those people wanting them dead. I have a very hard time believing those extreme claims, but if they are true, I refer to my previous post; abandon your accounts (instead of e.g. voting keep in a COI AfD while this is ongoing) and start again from scratch and without COI editing. You are then safe, this drama goes away, everyone's happy. Fram (talk) 16:47, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Softlavender (non-party)

I would just like to put in a good word for the two admins in this case that I have interacted with previously. Although Tamzin is a fairly new admin I've been impressed by her diligence and carefulness when I've bumped into her (this is not to say I have always agreed with her). As for CorbieVreccam, my acquaintance with her is from this spring, when she went miles and miles out of her way to dislodge and clean up after a truly massive and destructive sockfarm that had been plaguing Wikipedia for nearly a decade over dozens of articles, and the situation had been ignored by the gatekeepers at SPI until she stepped in with her careful research and proof.

What I want to say here is that both CorbieVreccam and (now that I check) Mark Ironie are very old-school admins (they both call sockfarms "sock drawers" -- yikes!) who have also been away from Wikipedia for many many years at a time. It appears a lot of the problematic and seeming COI content was created in the freewheeling days of the early to mid 2000s when basically anything goes. I don't think they understand how massively much more stringent things are on Wikipedia in the 2020s.

This is a plea to allow for as much leniency as possible within the realm of the evidence. (I obviously don't know the off-wiki evidence.) I would hate to see two admins get de-sysopped because of foolishness carried over from habits from early Wikipedia days. (I of course don't know what to do about the name issues.)

Softlavender (talk) 07:57, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

UPDATE: If Corbie is leaving Wikipedia, I'm deeply saddened by the loss of the only editor (after the loss of Jytdog five years ago) who bothered to help out with the worst, most destructive, and most prolific and persistent sockfarms I've ever had the misfortune to deal with in my 17 years on Wikipedia. I never edited on any of the COI and personal-interest articles in question in this investigation. As an editor-interaction analysis would show, I met and edited with Corbie only early this year and only on several of the self-promotional autobiographical articles the sockfarm created and edited and faked. Since she was an admin she tirelessly helped with the deleted edits/articles and with diligently tracking and blocking the socks that SPI didn't catch, and reverting the fake promotional spam.

What I am concerned about now are the allegations that Corbie was lying about stalking and threats to her life. In my email correspondence with her this spring (I have not corresponded with her since early June), in May I noted that the sockmaster had created two more sockpuppets using variations of her real name. Her email response to me was unsolicited proof that she has been grievously stalked and that the threats were real and very grave:

[Redacted]

I have now forwarded the evidence to ArbCom.

I can forward the email to ArbCom if desired. I hope it's OK that I posted this without her prior permission. If anyone has a prblem with me posting this, it can be revdelled. Softlavender (talk) 02:40, 16 September 2023 (UTC); edited Softlavender (talk) 03:44, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Soni

I would like the Arbcom to state a clear bright line stance on talking about/linking the old usernames for CV and MI. It is possibly a convoluted mess anyway, and there seems to be significant confusion on if the information should be considered private or not, given how clearly both old accounts are linked to the current ones.

If talking about the old accounts (and bringing up behaviour on them) is okay, please say so. If it is not, I'll rather Arbcom be telling all parties explicitly than risk further confusion. Soni (talk) 08:21, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • I will second others that the interaction ban seems insufficient, as worded. As Fram noted, there are also COI issues in play as well from as late as a few days ago.
I am unaware of how deep the non-admin issues of this matter go, so at the very least, those should be looked at and resolved properly by either the community or Arbcom (whether it's a partial ban, just a warning, or something else).
Soni (talk) 21:07, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by SportingFlyer

It looks like Arbcom will take this case and for good reason, but I am concerned about the process here. There's clearly private information we're not entitled to as a community, and while bringing the issue to the community's attention doesn't quite fit WP:OUTING, it feels like it's close, especially given the SPI clerk apparently looked into this on their on volition without a formal complaint (possibly wrong on this.) I would ask Arbcom to address what the proper rule should be in this situation where one user with access to private information makes their complaint to Arbcom public as it feels to me as if this should have been Arbcom's role to bring this to the attention of the community. SportingFlyer T·C 08:53, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Vanamonde

Echoing Primefac below, I want to remind folks here that the privacy of old usernames is not a binary: there are outcomes in between completely private (ie, clean start) and completely public. A troll well-versed in the ways of Wikipedia could dig out an old username, but not all harassers are of this variety: the twitterati upset about a sentence in a random article are unlikely to be able to dig deep enough. We should offer users who have experienced harassment the courtesy of not using their previous usernames unless necessary. Vanamonde (Talk) 14:08, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Ivanvector

I have no problem with admins using their tools to protect their own privacy when they're involved, presuming the action follows the policy for that tool and thus any uninvolved tool holder would have done the same. It's rather clear from the community's focus on it that an admin revdeleting a compulsory templated notice is well outside the bounds of acceptable use. CorbieVreccan's justification for it is also highly questionable considering that it's rather easy to look up their former username without needing any advanced permissions, or an account at all. ArbCom should address this failure in protecting a harassed Wikipedian's privacy.

But my concern here isn't about privacy (others have commented on it enough) but about administrative meatpuppetry. Administrators are warned very strongly in two different sections of the admins policy (WP:INVOLVED and per WP:TOOLMISUSE) not to use the tools in areas where they may be perceived to have a conflict of interest. CorbieVreccan and Mark Ironie have disclosed publicly that they sometimes share an IP (though not as instructed by the multiple accounts policy); whether that happened yesterday or in January 2001 is irrelevant, as it is now public knowledge. They often edit the same topics, and there's nothing wrong with that. But as Tamzin observed, for the past four years Mark Ironie has only used the tools, or suggested that they would, in situations where CorbieVreccan would clearly be involved if they had done so. And contrary to CorbieVreccan's statement, these are not incidents being dug up from many years in the past, they are recent and ongoing.

The policy on multiple accounts expressly forbids users operating more than one admin account, and that's because the policy on involvement is meaningless if admins can just have another admin following them around and using the tools for them when they would otherwise be forbidden. What really is the difference between one user with two admin accounts, versus an admin who always has a second admin they can call on to admin for them? I don't have another admin at my beck-and-call: when I'm involved I go to the noticeboards, like everyone else is supposed to do.

The simple solution here is that only one of them should be an admin, but it's not that simple. Again per Tamzin's evidence, CorbieVreccan has (occasionally but over a lengthy term) used admin tools in an area where they have a declared conflict of interest, and in which they have previously been warned about their own behaviour. Along with the patently egregious uses of revdelete mentioned earlier, this is behaviour that ought to call any admin's suitability into question.

ArbCom should consider whether either CorbieVreccan or Mark Ironie should continue to hold advanced permissions. And if the answer is no, then Fram's clean start solution should be considered in the interest of renewing their privacy. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 16:04, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It is not meatpuppetry in and of itself for two editors to share a connection; the actions that we're here for are all related to their admin-piggybacking, but that is resolved with their resignations. What other disruption is an iban solving? It seems unduly punitive. At any rate, meatpuppetry is something the community is well equipped to address on its own. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 22:28, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@SilkTork: I hope that this comment is not meant to suggest that a person should be sanctioned on Wikipedia as a result of being a victim of real-life harassment. I would expect someone serving on a committee charged with dealing with harassment in the post-MeToo era to have a working understanding of the harms of silencing victims; our own victim blaming article would be a good place to start but there is plenty of scholarly writing on the topic. If you genuinely believe that sanctioning harassment victims is a workable solution, you should step down from the Committee or recuse yourself from matters of harassment from now on. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 13:15, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for that response, SilkTork. I'll respond further privately. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 14:23, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Courcelles

I’m going to chime in and say that I’ve reviewed the accusation that Skyerise is Ekajati a month ago based on communication from CV. What I was able to reconstruct looking through old logs did not appear to support the allegations, though it’s not conclusive given the time frames involved. Courcelles (talk) 18:22, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Black Kite

Like Courcelles, I have also looked at Skyerise's contributions in relation to communication from CV. Whilst I would only put the likelihood that Skyerise is Ekajati somewhere between "Possible" and "Likely", I do not believe that Skyerise is an only account. I have not acted on this as I have not completed looking through the evidence and I could also be claimed to be involved with Skyerise as I have previously blocked them for persistent disruption. Black Kite (talk) 18:54, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Extraordinary Writ

Noting that Mark Ironie has requested desysop at WP:BN. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 00:02, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Robert McClenon (CV and MI)

I see that this case is about to be accepted by ArbCom. Many of us don't have a clue, or only have a few clues, as to what this case is about. I am asking that, when ArbCom opens the case for evidence, a clear statement of the scope of the case be provided, so that editors who have had some dealing with the subject admins will have some idea whether they should provide evidence. My involvement with CorbieVreccan is only that I recently tried to mediate a content dispute about Witchcraft in which some of the other editors claimed that CorbieVreccan was engaged in gatekeeping and article ownership. I don't know if that allegation has any merit, and I had to fail the mediation due to forum shopping.In the SmallCat case, which seemed to be more straightforward, I tried to offer evidence that I thought was relevant, and it was found by ArbCom to be out of scope. This shows that it may be helpful for editors to have some idea what a case is about. This is just a request that ArbCom give other editors some idea as to what sort of evidence submissions are desired. Robert McClenon (talk) 06:09, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by ToadetteEdit

In the case of Skyerise and the blocked Ekajati (talk · contribs), after seeing the edit counters and interaction timeline, they could be operated by the same user. Their most edited articles of both are all related to magistry and religion topics, especially Buddhism. They also have a similar summary behavior in the editing interaction tool, as stated by CV above. edit counter for Skyerise, edit counter for Ekajati

Toadette (chat)/(logs) 08:53, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Waggers

The WP:MEAT aspect of this is what most concerns me. If found to be true, that behaviour is against policy regardless of whether the involved editors have the admin tools, so I'm a little concerned to see this case potentially being framed purely as an admin conduct issue. It's an editor conduct issue.

Regarding the wider scope of the case, a few people have mentioned the danger of trawling through ancient edit histories to bring up long-resolved issues as evidence in this case. While some analysis of long term behaviour patterns might be appropriate, I echo the comments that we should avoid that level of dirt-digging. As always, defining the scope of the case will be key. WaggersTALK 12:54, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by DeCausa

I would just like to reiterate Waggers' above comment about the WP:MEAT issue. Although mis-use of admin tools is the most serious issue, evidence of extensive co-ordinated tag teaming in "ordinary" editing shouldn't be ignored. Examples: Here Mark makes his only edit to an article and its talk page that CV is extensively involved with. It's to support CV's position in this 2021 move request. Here they're supporting each other's opinion in another move request in 2022. Sure, they've both edited that article previously but Mark hadn't edited the article or talk page for 5 years before that move request. There are other examples in the original ANI thread. I would urge the committee to include within scope whether there has been systematic MEAT behaviour outside of use of admin tools. DeCausa (talk) 13:48, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A deal's obviously been done but the IBAN is bizarre - they're not in conflict - just the opposite. How does that deal with the MEAT co-ordination? The wording of IBAN is interaction-banned users are generally allowed to edit the same pages or discussions so long as they avoid each other. So that's carte blanche to support each other. DeCausa (talk) 20:20, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with Cryptic that an IBAN "only makes sense if you're looking at the shortcut link, not at the text it actually points to". But Corbie looked. DeCausa (talk) 06:19, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Are we to take from this that there's a difference of opinion within the committee on how/if WP:OUTING applies to this case? I ask because I emailed the committee 2 days ago for guidance on something I had done connected to this case. I haven't had a reply or even an acknowledgement. Is it because what I did was ok, there's disagreement or you're all just too busy? DeCausa (talk) 15:59, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by GRuban

As DeCausa writes, an IBan is not the solution here. As Risker writes, a "view yourself as involved in anything the other is involved in, don't use tools on the same issue" seems the simple solution; though I wouldn't muzzle them in commenting, just the comment should include "as my IP-mate Mark writes...", so those who are interested in counting votes would know to count them as one, but those who are interested in reading opinions would be able to read the opinion. I also would urge against desysoping the pair, unless an Arbcom case finds they had malicious intent here. --GRuban (talk) 20:29, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by North8000

With the two desysops the admin aspect is practically moot which presumably was a or the major reason for considering a case. Arbcom has private evidence and thus more knowledge than us on this, and most of the reason for considering a case seems to be only in private evidence. Arbcom should probably should decide whether this should still be an arbcom case in the context of those folks no longer being admins.....possibly due to the need and ability to consider substantial private evidence on something that may not be allowable/ sanctionable for regular editors. If however, it looks as if private evidence would be inconclusive regarding this, possibly some pragmatic resolution such as agreeing to operate as if they were alternate accounts just to pragmatically resolve this. Iban seems a misfire regarding this. I've edited a few of those articles and was subjected to some pretty outlandish baseless attacks from CV. I consider it old news except to note that it seemed weird that they instantly went from 0 to an outlandish 10 totally out of the blue/ for no reason that was apparent to me. Also noting that IG declared an unspecified COI in one case on those and only participated in talk. Arbcom should make sure that this is fully resolved and I'd support some type of private resolution or voluntary promises to reach that goal. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 20:31, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Statment by RoySmith

I mentioned off-wiki a day or two ago that I didn't see any way arbcom could not accept this case. It ticked both the admin conduct and private evidence boxes. Now it appears it no longer ticks either, so why does arbcom need to be involved? The 2-way iban motion seems out of scope at this point. If the case request had come after both parties had already resigned and all of the privacy aspects were already moot, would arbcom have even considered doing anything? I suspect not.

If the principal parties want to self-impose an iban on themselves, they can do that by posting at WP:AN their binding declaration to never interact with each other again. If people want to make it more formal, the community can pile on a few perfunctory support votes and somebody can speedy close it as enacted. There really is no reason for this to have arbcom's signet seal, and arbcom should endeavour to only act when all other avenues have been exhausted. I encourage the arbs to just decline this with no additional action. RoySmith (talk) 22:47, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Darker Dreams

It seems clear everyone is on the same page for what the expected effect of the proposed ban is. (Whether or not they support it.) As User:DeCausa and User:Cryptic point out WP:IBAN as written reads like it does exactly the opposite. The way the ban descriptions read to me, it appears what's being described would be better captured as an WP:ABAN or WP:TBAN for articles/pages/subjects in where the other has taken action, excluding their own WP:User spaces. - Darker Dreams (talk) 01:58, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Esowteric

I feel for CV and MI, and their safety and peace-of-mind (if they can find any) is of paramount importance. Please seriously consider Skyerise's proposal for revdelling (or even nuking) the evidence trail (eg Celtic reconstructionism and AfD which Skyerise cleared of WP:SPS and WP:COI). You can find it at the end of #Statement_by_Skyerise (in this recent diff after some revisions here were redacted).

More generally, if this goes back to the Admin noticeboard, I would just add that CV has also been accused of tag-teaming and WP:OWNy behaviour with another non-admin at Witchcraft and a number of associated articles, and this has led to warnings and sanctions being attempted against, or succeeding against, other involved editors (who have sometimes been innocent, sometimes blameworthy, sometimes a mix of both). At times those articles have been a WP:Battleground. Esowteric + Talk + Breadcrumbs 19:13, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Addition: And last but by no means least, though a wagonload of mud has been slung in Skyerise's direction, I'd far sooner see a little contrition being shown. Esowteric + Talk + Breadcrumbs 20:29, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Addition: Have the issues been resolved and closure achieved? This edit summary would suggest that emotions are still running high: "Not really true in many senses so why include [mention of WP:MEAT]? Goalposts being changed, plus an exceptionally thorough misrepresentation of many facts by dishonorable people." Edit difference. Esowteric + Talk + Breadcrumbs 13:21, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by jc37

So looking at the above, I'm rather uncomfortable with the new motion to treat 2 accounts as the same person..

Accounts are to the person.

If there's a problem with, well, whatever the issue is determined to be, then address that issue per account.

This proposal would seem to not only violate policy, but set a new standard that opens up a whole slew of potential issues. - jc37 20:55, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Barkeep49 - That laguage (well a form of it) first appeared there as a result of this apparently BOLD edit: [9].

I realize that that wording has been on the page for a long time. But, while I think we likely agree that the intent is positive, I think the phrasing is unfortunate and problematic.

And as I note this, I'm wondering: has this phrasing ever been used as part of dispute resolution before?

A relevant sentence from that page (still there even in that edit) seems more in line with what we do: "A new user who engages in the same behavior as another user in the same context, and who appears to be editing Wikipedia solely for that purpose, shall be subject to the remedies applied to the user whose behavior they are joining".

That seems the more appropriate way to handle things. Each editor is responsible for their own edits. Not anyone else's.

All that said, if we add a single word to the page, I think we can fix the issue though. Just replace the word "Wikipedia's" with the "Wikipedia consensus". Specifically: "...Closely connected users may be considered a single user for Wikipedia consensus purposes." - jc37 21:29, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

3RR has to do with BOLD editing. And BOLD is interdependent with CON - both need the other for Wikipedia to work effectively. So like I said, I don't disagree with the intent, just that the phrasing is problematic. Saying "Wikipedia's purposes", is a very broad thing to say, and presumably goes well beyond merely bold editing and contributing to a consensus. - jc37 21:42, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Since the very next line in the policy refers to edit-warring (which 3RR is part of), I went ahead and added Con [10]. I hope this helps. - jc37 21:53, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's not talking about "edge cases". When you say "Wikipedia" without any clarification, you're saying everythin, all policies, guidelines, etc. All of it.

To take a simple one, you would be setting the stage for role accounts. Because if shared IP is all it takes to allow, let's say a college dorm, to edit together, or how about a business to edit together? Even if they disclose the IP share, imaging if several hundred different people, all with accounts decided to edit at AfD. They're all considered "one editor", sure, but think of how that's going to weight a discussion. And that's presuming that anyone - including the closer - bothered to check their userpages to see if they were shared IP.

You can tell me that these things will never happen, and that's fine. But if all we need do is be a bit clearer in our intent, to avoid future disruption, I think being clearer is a positive thing, with little effort lost.

All that said, what in the following two sentences does not do what you feel needs done?

  • When editing the same articles, participating in the same community discussion, or supporting each other in any sort of dispute, closely connected users may be considered a single user for Wikipedia consensus purposes if they edit with the same objectives. Closely related accounts should disclose the connection and observe relevant policies such as edit warring as if they were a single account.

It covers consensus, bold editing, and edit-warring. Is there something else you feel needs covered? - jc37 22:19, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

? I did nothing hidden, and no ones trying to "force" you to do anything (as if we could?).

Anyway, per BRD, as you've now reverted, happy to discuss.

If your issue is a feeling of disconnect between two adjacent sentences, I suppose the sentences could be merged together. Though edit-warring was in a separate sentence before I edited the page today. So apparently this is an issue that needed resolving anyway? - jc37 22:35, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"Ideas can be connected. Even when they are in multiple sentences." - Right. Which is why I'm confused why you are also saying that having it as two sentences is splitting the idea.

And note: my point here, isn't about being concerned about sanctioning the editors in question (a complicated situation which I don't envy any of you), it's about setting a precedent about treating 2 accounts as a single editor in every Wikipedia situation. - jc37 22:52, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]


Statement by Crescent77

As the discussion seems to indicate there was repeated credible threats of actual physical violence against one of our editors, I'm assuming law enforcement was contacted to ensure their resources could be brought to bear on this issue, as appropriate? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Crescent77 (talk • contribs) 23:53, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by {Non-party}

Other editors are free to make relevant comments on this request as necessary. Comments here should address why or why not the Committee should accept the case request or provide additional information.

CorbieVreccan, Mark Ironie, and Tamzin: Clerk notes

This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).

CorbieVreccan, Mark Ironie, and Tamzin: Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter <3/7/0>

Vote key: (Accept/decline/recuse)

  • Accept I was and am concerned about a variety of elements around this case and had been suggesting, from the start, that while some elements needed to be handled in private, and those elements still need to be handled in private, overwhelmingly this can and should be handled publicly. We should do so now. Barkeep49 (talk) 19:08, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    And while I've wasted no time voting to accept, I very much want to hear, especially from the parties, about what the scope of this case should be and who other parties to the case should be. ArbCom has identified one other potential party already (which as with WP:HJP doesn't mean they will be a party, just notified that they're being considered at this stage) but depending on the scope I could see the need for others. Barkeep49 (talk) 19:18, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Serial Number 54129: I feel like be careful what he wishes for implies I wouldn't want ArbCom to examine its own decision making; far from it I have already posted onlist an examination of where I could have been more effective in expressing my opinions. And that's hardly unique; ArbCom regularly examines its own conduct and decisions. I would be very surprised if there isn't some of that assuming this becomes a case. I also think it appropriate for the community to give feedback on decisions, or potential decisions, which is one reason that I had felt this should be public all along. At the same time I am also mindful that we represent the entire enwiki community, not just the people we hear from who are angry with a decision (and thus far more motivated to offer feedback). Barkeep49 (talk) 20:10, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @AntiCompositeNumber: ArbCom has begun to discuss that. Barkeep49 (talk) 23:00, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    One note which is that the current wording in OSPOL about renames was added after the OS discussion about the SPI. Barkeep49 (talk) 00:51, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @CorbieVreccan speaking only for myself I think this ArbCom has to be careful against changing the agreements reached by previous ArbComs. It can be done but generally shouldn't be done. That said I'm unaware of ArbCom issuing you advice in this instance. I have also not completely read the archives as they relate to you. So you telling us more about who encouraged you to do what would be helpful - it's not throwing other admins under the bus in my eyes, it's setting an appropriate context to understand what happened and why. Barkeep49 (talk) 01:21, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Jc37 WP:SHARE is policy and that's where the wording is from. This motion is making the determination that this applies for these two editors Closely connected users may be considered a single user for Wikipedia's purposes if they edit with the same objectives. Barkeep49 (talk) 21:06, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Jc37: WP:PGCHANGE says that what happend in 2008 could still happen today. I think it's less likely to stick today than in 2008 but the fact that it has been status quo for so long means it's every bit as much policy as something that went through a 98 part RfC as it seems like a lot of policy has to do these days. In terms of this case, the example given is 3RR which is not a consensus process but is one where I support treating them like a single editor. Barkeep49 (talk) 21:32, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    It doesn't help me @Jc37. I now feel like you have two ideas rather than 1 coherent one. It's not at all clear to me what edge cases adding consensus prevents while it is clear to me that things I want included are not part of "consensus purposes". Barkeep49 (talk) 21:57, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I had been sitting on the revert to see what your explanation is and have now pressed publish over at SOCK. I think the status quo wording is one cohesive idea. In your AfD example they would have failed to disclose their connection in that discussion and could be subject to (and like would be subject to) sanction accordingly. The change into two ideas - one saying that you're a single purposes for consensus and one that says you should disclose and should act like 3RR applies to you jointly weakens the policy considerably and in ways I find undesirable. I also have to say I think it's a bold strategy to try to edit policy in order to get arbs to do what you want with a sanction. Barkeep49 (talk) 22:25, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Ideas can be connected. Even when they are in multiple sentences. Barkeep49 (talk) 22:45, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Accept While I think there may be innocent explanations for some of the issues we're seeing, there are clearly enough problems and overlap to warrant a structured look. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 19:26, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Mark Ironie @CorbieVreccan Just to make sure you're aware, by resigning during this ARC, you will likely be considered under WP:CLOUD, meaning that you may not simply request a return of your adminship at a later date. You will most likely have to instead run for admin again. If you already knew that, then ignore me. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 20:19, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Mark Ironie Some version of this thought has been bouncing around in my head since the start of the case, and your latest comment has crystallized it for me. I understand that you appropriately disclosed your connection to numerous folks over the years. ArbCom was aware of that. But disclosure does not absolve you of transgression. Disclosure is a must. It is not some get out of jail free card. Nor is it an agreement by ArbCom or the funcs that we will watch your contributions for misdoings. It is the editor's responsibility to edit within the rules. The fact that you disclosed meant that you would not get summarily blocked as socks. It did not mean that you were being given a blank check by ArbCom to do whatever you wanted with. I'm sad to see this end in so much drama, and doubt that I would have voted to desysop here, but what is done is done. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 20:51, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Accept Per others, and subsequent discussion at ANI shows a case will be needed here. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 19:47, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Decline per the resignations (which is a difficult decision that I appreciate was done) and the Iban. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 02:21, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @DeCausa No, the suppression there concerned a different thing. I’ll reply to your email shortly. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 16:13, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Accept, the private evidence already received makes this unavoidable. Cabayi (talk) 20:55, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Accept --Guerillero Parlez Moi 22:29, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Decline without the admin tools, I don't see a locus of a case that needs to happen today. The community should get a chance to examine the POV pushing. If they can't, I would be open to a case. In the mean time, I would support an i-ban between MI and CV if another arb thinks it is a good idea. --Guerillero Parlez Moi 19:33, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Accept with the usual GeneralNotability wall of bullet points:
    • I should have suggested that this go to full case when we were still in private discussion – something more needed to be done than what was done, and this was not a blatant WP:LEVEL2 situation, but I didn't say anything. Basically a mix of me being concerned that I was overreacting and real life generally getting in the way. The private evidence clinches the existence of off-wiki connections, but the publicly available evidence that Tamzin laid out was more than enough to get us to an ADMINCOND case anyway.
    • I don't believe the Skyerise ?= Ekajati situation should be in scope for this case, nor do I think that CorbieVreccan should be spending the overwhelming majority of their section making that argument. I currently am imagining the scope of ADMINCOND of CorbieVreccan and Mark Ironie, with a specific eye toward inappropriate off-wiki coordination between the two. Unless Skyerise/Ekajati was forcing the two of them to collaborate, I don't see their (Skyerise's) behavior as likely to be mitigating.
    • I have significant ADMINCOND concerns about the revdels/logdels that Tamzin mentions. While some are very old, some are as recent as 2021, and I think there is enough of a pattern of behavior for that to be something we consider as a committee.
    • No matter how carefully we treat the privacy-sensitive aspects of the case, we crossed into Streisand territory quite a while ago. The genie is out of the bottle, the cat is too busy clawing at our faces to go back into the bag, and we can't put the toothpaste back in the tube. Take your pick of idiom.
    • GeneralNotability (talk) 00:58, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      • CorbieVreccan, if T&S is sending you to us when you are concerned for your real-life safety, that is unacceptable and I will be in touch with them about it. But the fact of the matter is that any rename leaves a trail, and even if we suppressed every mention of your names there would still be ways to figure it out. What we have right now is privacy limbo: not enough to actually protect you from someone who seriously wants to find it, but just enough to impede accountability to the community, and so this benefits nobody. GeneralNotability (talk) 01:19, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      • Un-accepted. GeneralNotability (talk) 23:38, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Accept. An investigation into the situation seemed warranted based on internal discussions and concerns. This case request is timely and appropriate. SilkTork (talk) 07:38, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think I am at an official decline as I feel there are issues here which warrant investigation, and I am uncertain the motion is sufficient, especially as it doesn't include Indigenous girl who has been part of what appears to be a pattern of co-ordinated support to push agendas in favour of what CV wants (which may not be what true consensus wants). However, I recognise that keeping this case open publicly can add to the unwanted attention on CV and related people, so I am withdrawing my support for having a case. SilkTork (talk) 09:41, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am unsure where I fall on this request at the moment. While there are a lot of problematic edits on display, many of them are fairly old; we have no "statute of limitations" on such matters, but I feel like keeping with the precedent from the last few admin conduct cases would behove us, in that we should keep to the (relatively) recent edits, say from 2020 to present. For instance, the similar-voting at AFDs linked in Point 3 should probably be ignored as they are almost all stale (most coming in 2006-07), while points 4 and 5 should be looked at as recent instances of problematic editing. There is a lot of dirt-digging going on here, and I am still parsing out old habits from new ones.
    As a thought regarding renames: while the cat is out of the bag, as a courtesy and a matter of not shining more light on the situation, I see no reason why those old names should be brought up and would ask that if this case is accepted that participants keep that in mind and avoid using them directly. Primefac (talk) 08:38, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Fram, I am sure it is inevitable, but my point was more that there seemed to be a few editors who were trying to bring to light those names. I suspect the RFAs will be linked, as will other discussions/actions from before the renames, but they can be piped as a simple measure of minimal obscurity (i.e. the names will not be visible on the page). Primefac (talk) 18:58, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Accept per some of the more recent additions of concerning conduct. Primefac (talk) 19:09, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Decline, this was primarily going to be an admin conduct case, which has been been invalidated by the self-requested desysop of both admins in question. Primefac (talk) 19:35, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just in case this particular point has been lost in the shuffle, this case is shaping up as an admin conduct case. If neither of the two main named parties were admins anymore, we would probably not proceed with the case. A simple "please remove my admin tools" post over at WP:BN would do it. However, at this time I do somewhat reluctantly vote to accept(changing vote, see below) the case due to the privacy aspects of it, which only the committee is equipped to address. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:00, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Decline The core issue here was admin conduct, and both admins in question have handed in the toolset, I don't see a case here anymore, although there may still be issues to be handled at the community level. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:58, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Accept This situation is incredibly complex. It is not merely an administrator conduct case, and treating it as such is an anti-pattern. The original issue brought to our attention privately was related to improper coordination which is a problem regardless of administrator tools. The motion below attempts to resolve that. It is insufficient given our case request. The request points out tool misues (resolved by voluntary desysops under a cloud). The request points out issues of coordinated editing between Corbie and Mark (to be resolved by an IBAN). The request points out years-long COI issues which, due to privacy concerns, are not well suited for public discussion (we have no pending resolution). The request points out civility issues and a final warning given to two of the named parties which, based on Tamzin's 03:48, 15 September statement, seems to be continuing (we have no pending resolution). These issues are non-trivial and remain issues whether Corbie and Mark have sysop tools or not. These issues are also not unrelated. The admin conduct complaints stem almost entirely from tool use in two main topic areas: neopaganism and Indigenous North Americans. Corbie has a COI in the former, and she and IndigenousGirl were nearly topic banned for their behavior in the former topic area in 2019. The allegations of meatpuppetry against Mark (exemplified by BilledMammal's analysis in the AN thread linked by Tamzin) seem largely related to Indigenous North Americans. The issues are complex enough that even we got side-tracked on the administrator conduct issues, and we were the ones who added IndigenousGirl as a party! The issues in these topic areas go back years, implicate serious privacy concerns, and are complicated to address individually. These make it difficult for the community to address in a public and unstructured way. We should not be content to desysop and punt. I think, given what's been presented, we still have more to do. Ideally we would have a case examining the topic area(s) and related conduct (hence my accept), but even a more comprehensive response to the various concerns raised in the request would be useful. — Wug·a·po·des 04:33, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think Wugapodes is broadly correct but it'll take me until tomorrow to enter a final vote. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 04:36, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • At this point I think that what is available onwiki is sufficient for the community to judge/adjust behavior, with the adminship piece out of the way. I don't agree with Wugs, though I understand how he came to the opinion, we have mechanisms already out WP:FTN direction about what may be going on in the topic area that should be employed first. I vote to decline. Izno (talk) 19:57, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Per Izno, and the motions are sufficient. Decline. Enterprisey (talk!) 06:19, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Motion: Two-way interaction ban for Mark Ironie and CorbieVreccan

Mark Ironie (talk · contribs) and CorbieVreccan (talk · contribs) are subject to an indefinite two-way interaction ban, broadly construed.

For this motion there are 13 active arbitrators. With 0 arbitrators abstaining, 7 support or oppose votes are a majority.

Support
  1. As proposer. This request can now be effectively resolved by motion. With both having requested removal of their admin rights, the admin angle is now moot. While I'm not sure this would have ended in a desysop after a full case, the parties have chosen to resign, and that is their choice. A decision made in haste is still a decision. But I think the issue was less one of admin rights, than the fact that Mark and CV were voting very similarly in discussions, which looks a lot like stealth canvassing or meatpuppetry. Since Mark and CV have already volunteered an I-ban, I think that makes it easy for us to formalize it. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 19:46, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Per my comment above. --Guerillero Parlez Moi 19:47, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I appreciate the attempt to tailor remedies to fit problems (as someone who does it himself and then Beeblebrox old-man-cloud-yells at me), but I think the typical IBAN is sufficient. Izno (talk) 19:59, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Not totally certain the adjustment is needed, but if the other one better provides intent, works for me. Izno (talk) 19:45, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  3. I think the parties themselves are ok with this, and it seems to resolve the underlying issue rather than kicking it back to the community. And Izno, I do totally understand the desire to try and customize remedies to situations, it's just that some if not most of the dumbest things this committee has ever done came about that way, and if I want to yell at airborne moisture I will do so. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:07, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Barkeep49 (talk) 20:40, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Per my comment below I think a sanction is needed but I have been convinced by Cryptic and L235 that this is the wrong one. When I have some more time I will propose an alternative if some other arb hasn't done so. Barkeep49 (talk) 15:01, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Enterprisey (talk!) 01:16, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Per Barkeep below. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 02:17, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  5. to forestall further activity giving rise to yet more suspicions of sock/meat puppetry. Cabayi (talk) 10:10, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
  1. I must oppose for the reasons given below. KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 02:54, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Per Kevin. GeneralNotability (talk) 23:42, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Primefac (talk) 05:54, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain
  1. I get the Ip sharing bit, but I also think it works into the Iban, but I also think there could be a better option. Not enough to oppose this but I’m not as confident in my support. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 18:36, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Arbitrator discussion
  • I'm not sure. I'd be happy with requiring disclosures when participating in future discussions and requiring them to follow rules as if they were one user (i.e., 3RR limit, etc.). I don't know if I see a need for a full IBAN with the full set of restrictions at WP:IBAN. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 19:49, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    That feels like it would require more monitoring than a simple iban. This is certainly a different set of circumstances than the usual iban though. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:02, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I have to wonder whether the institutional memory of this case request might do the job well enough on its own without passing a formal IBAN, or whether it'll be forgotten in short order. GeneralNotability (talk) 00:39, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    One answer is to impose a follow-the-law restriction that gets recorded at WP:EDR, for example: CorbieVreccan and Mark Ironie are required to disclose a connection and edit and observe relevant policies as if they are collectively one user whenever "editing the same articles, participating in the same community discussion, or supporting each other in any sort of dispute" (WP:MEAT). It gets on the books but is no more restrictive than necessary to accomplish the goals.
    Separately and additionally, an admonishment or sanction for case conduct might be appropriate. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 00:56, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I mean, technically everyone is already required to follow WP:MEAT. The whole issue here is that these two have not been doing so for quite some time. That's why I am supporting the iban. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:21, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, my suggestion addresses GN's concern ("institutional memory"), not a substantive intent to IBAN the two users. Speaking personally, I don't think an IBAN is necessary on the substance as I am exceedingly doubtful that we will see this recur from the two users. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 01:43, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I am not going to be too particular here. But I think one or both of these users might want a cleanstart. I'm explicitly not opposed to such a start (despite the wording of the policy) but do think a reasonable sanction needs to be in place as it's about the editor not the account. Barkeep49 (talk) 01:54, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @L235 and @Moneytrees would this language work for you Mark Ironie and CorbieVreccanbe will be considered a single user for Wikipedia's purposes. When editing the same articles, participating in the same community discussion, or supporting each other in any sort of dispute, these editors must disclose the connection and observe relevant policies such as edit warring as if they were a single account. which is a lightly modified version of WP:SHARE Barkeep49 (talk) 18:40, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, very much so. KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 18:46, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Barkeep49 👍 Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 18:59, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would rather a full case to examine all the issues because, as the Committee is aware from some of my comments on the list, I have concerns about the working relationship and methodology of CorbieVreccan and Mark Ironie. However, given the stress that CorbieVreccan appears to be under, finding appropriate motions to quickly resolve the issue might be best. I am not yet convinced, though, that this IB between CorbieVreccan and Mark Ironie is enough - at the least an IB with Indigenous girl should be added because of the inappropriately close supportive relationship between Indigenous girl and CorbieVreccan. And, given the nature of some of the emails we have received about the real life danger that CorbieVreccan faces because of editing Wikipedia, an enforced break from Wikipedia might be in CorbieVreccan and her family's best interest (sometimes it is not easy to voluntarily break from something you enjoy, even when there are dangers involved). Barkeep's comment above regarding a cleanstart may be one way of doing that. A motion in which we require the CorbieVreccan account to be closed, though allow the user behind the account to have a clean start if they wish, provided they inform ArbCom of their new account, and keep to any restrictions imposed here, or arising out of this situation, might be worth considering. SilkTork (talk) 03:53, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I understand and share your concerns User:Ivanvector regarding this situation. (Redacted) The first and most obvious choice is that CV voluntarily makes a clean start, and then remains out of trouble so that there are no more attention attracting situations like this ArbCom case. If CV is unwilling or unable to do that voluntarily, then I am considering, (Redacted), if we should not do the responsible thing and give genuine protection to not just CV (Redacted). My comment is put up here for public discussion, so thanks for responding, even if it is in the negative - all debate is useful. I'd like to hear any possible solutions. At the moment, from my understanding of the emails we've been receiving, there is a real world possibility of serious harm. The Committee have looked into redacting every mention of CV's real name from Wikipedia, but we feel that is not possible, is outside our remit, and wouldn't do any good. I'm not going to spill beans, but cleansing Wikipedia of CV's previous user names will not prevent connections being made while CV is still an active user. CV making a clean start is the best possibility. SilkTork (talk) 14:05, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Something that I think is also worth considering is a topic ban from all the areas where Mark and IG have been supporting CV. Indeed, that may be more worthwhile than an IBan. SilkTork (talk) 11:41, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Motion: Mark Ironie and CorbieVreccan shared account

Mark Ironie (talk · contribs) and CorbieVreccan (talk · contribs) will be considered a single user for Wikipedia's purposes. When editing the same articles, participating in the same community discussion, or supporting each other in any sort of dispute, these editors must disclose their connection and observe relevant policies such as edit warring as if they were a single account.

For this motion there are 13 active arbitrators. With 0 arbitrators abstaining, 7 support or oppose votes are a majority.

Enacted – firefly ( t · c ) 14:12, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support (Mark Ironie and CorbieVreccan shared account)
  1. As proposer and per my comments in the motion above. Barkeep49 (talk) 19:02, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support over the first motion, with the understanding that this doesn't necessarily preclude a full case on the merits per Wugapodes depending on how the vote on opening the case above goes. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 19:04, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  3. This is fine too. Izno (talk) 19:44, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  4. sure --Guerillero Parlez Moi 20:42, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Strikes a good balance. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 21:20, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  6. I like this one a lot more, and do not consider the concerns raised a few sections up to be well-founded. GeneralNotability (talk) 23:37, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  7. I'm not sure this is necessarily better than the Iban, but if it works, it works. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 01:12, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Primefac (talk) 05:54, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  9. This is fine too. Enterprisey (talk!) 06:19, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose (Mark Ironie and CorbieVreccan shared account)
Abstain (Mark Ironie and CorbieVreccan shared account)
Arbitrator discussion (Mark Ironie and CorbieVreccan shared account)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case&oldid=1175798655"
pFad - Phonifier reborn

Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.

Note: This service is not intended for secure transactions such as banking, social media, email, or purchasing. Use at your own risk. We assume no liability whatsoever for broken pages.


Alternative Proxies:

Alternative Proxy

pFad Proxy

pFad v3 Proxy

pFad v4 Proxy