Requests for arbitration
Admin Tamzin's judgement
Initiated by Only in death does duty end (talk) at 13:09, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
Involved parties
- Only in death (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), filing party
- Tamzin (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request
Statement by Only in death
Tamzin has made a number of very poor decisions recently, for a relatively new admin particularly we expect mistakes, what we do not expect is doubling-down and getting worse. As I think they rise to the level of requiring the removal of their advanced tools there is no prior dispute resolution here. Its an escalation of behaviour which is sub-par for any admin and very clearly demonstrates why they were lucky to pass RFA in the first place given the many opposes based on their judgement and convictions.
Specifically on the use of tools recently:
- Tamzin blocked Volunteer Marek for breaching 1rr/edit warring. (I am not requesting the block is lifted or otherwise vacated, this is strictly about Tamzin's use of tools in dispute resolution.) Even a cursory view of the underlying dispute on the article talk page should indicate that block was a terrible idea without discussing with the relevant parties first. What made this particularly bad is that when Marek was understandably annoyed with high-handed treatment despite the facts of the dispute, they were then silenced from their own talkpage in a further display of, what only appears to be, petulance at their actions being questioned. We generally have the expectation that admins a)think before acting, b)try and resolve a dispute without resorting to a banhammer at the first opportunity, c)when someone questions their actions, not muzzle them on spurious and flimsy grounds.
- Tamzin's use of deletion for user page (and associated pages), which apart from the incorrect use of reason (U1) is problematic for a number of reasons. Primarily its clearly and obviously wrong - you have to be unable to read the relevant CSD's to actually not understand that. The second is that clearly they have read the policy, because they then applied G8 correctly to the subpages (see Tamzin's deletion log). This is an indication they read the policy, they understood the policy, they chose not to follow it. Arguably this is worse than the Marek incident, as at least with that you can blame poor decision making. This is knowing something is wrong and doing it anyway.
There are other incidents, primarily with judgment rather than use of the toolset, which can be entered into evidence should a case be accepted.
- Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Tamzin
- Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Tamzin/Bureaucrat_chat (please note Xaosflux's comments about topics to stay away from, and where the topic of dispute which led to Marek's block lies.)
One final comment to WTT, I started writing this case request after my last comment on Tamzin's talkpage, while filling in the template is a time consuming process, I dont feel that it should take a threat to be dragged to arbcom to look at reviewing an admin's behaviour to get them to actually sit back and think about what they did, and/or start listening to people when they point out what they did was wrong. There was clearly no sign of Tamzin showing any self-awareness of how bad that actually is. Even had I been inclined to not do this request as a result of the AN discussion, that would have been better opened many many hours earlier. (As it happens I was not particularly inclined to given the circumstances.) Only in death does duty end (talk) 13:25, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
The only reply Tamzin (regarding that IP) is that even when you shoot the messenger, you should still read the damn message. Only in death does duty end (talk) 13:28, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
@Primefac, would that be the venue where you personally also said it should be G8? (Which is also incorrect.) Or the venue where the entire discussion was deleted? I lose track. But since this may need some more explanation as to why I think its the more telling problem with Tamzin's judgement: The reason why we have rigid criteria for speedy deletion is that it is one of the few processes we have in place that explicitly gives Administrators permission to take actions that bypass community deletion consensus discussion. Pages are tagged, deleted, no community input. In order for that to work we have to trust the administrator a)knows and understands the rules, b)isnt going to break them. Its a user page, no one really gives a crap about the specific page. The problem is how do we know that its not being abused elsewhere. We dont, we operate on trust based on our perception of the Admin. We dont actively monitor or otherwise have oversight on every CSD action so there is no feasible other way to operate. When one is brought up and its clearly and obviously wrong, and there is no actual evidence of an admission as to why its wrong. AND it's clear they knew it was wrong when they did it, what are we supposed to do? Shrug our shoulders and go "Oh thats ok then". No, its symptomatic of a decision process that says 'I dont need to follow the rules' which is borne out in Tamzin's replies in the related discussions. (This is my final comment btw) Only in death does duty end (talk) 14:00, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
@Barkeep, Knowing ARBCOM are not going to accept a case and thinking they should accept a case are two different things. Do I genuinely feel Tamzin's judgement is so bad that it merits their tools removed? Of course. Arbcom is the only venue for this and has made it perfectly clear only Arbcom will deal with that. Do I genuinely feel Arbcom are going to accept this request? Of course not, it was doomed from the start. Just because I know something is unlikely to happen doesnt mean I shouldnt take action regardless. And really, I should absolutely not have had to raise this request, Tamzin had plenty of time to rethink their behaviour, they had plenty of time to acknowledge they were wrong, until the threat of having the ability to be an admin was taken away, there was no indication they were of a mind to listen to what far more experienced people had already told them. You seriously think I want to open a request, have my behaviour looked at? The reality of the situation is that anyone who does put a request up, accepted or declined, opens themselves up for significant potential hurt. Look at how quick Tamzin was to accuse me of being an anonymous EE mobile IP address (which 2 minutes checking should have indicated why that was a ridiculous accusation). Hell you could have always surprised me and said yes. But that would require Arbcom do some checking yourselves into Tamzin's dubious and malleable justifications for their actions. But Arbcom doesnt do that, it waits for the evidence page to fill up. So no, I dont genuinely think you would have ever accepted this case. I do think Tamzin's behaviour wouldnt change without involvement from an authority that has the backing to genuinely stop and make them think. Regardless of the many outcomes this request fills, I still think you should accept the case. An admin who has to be strong-armed into reviewing their bad actions is not showing genuine understanding of why they are wrong, and its certainly not an indication they will change in the future. All it really indicates is they will do what they want regardless. So yes, I knew full well in that response, and even in opening this request in the first place, I would probably gather a fair bit of backlash. But really, if Arbcom want to chastise me for opening a case request I know isnt going to be accepted, you should be looking at the reasons why it had to be done in the first place. Which in this case is Tamzin's rigid act first, never reconsider later attitude towards their tool use. I would dearly love there to be a credible alternative venue for addressing Admin's use of tools (key word, credible, here) but you get it because you sit in the big chair. Tamzin doesnt understand: dispute resolution, de-escalation, blocking when involved, correct use of the deletion tool, and I would argue from their IP question they dont understand either IP's or our core policy on outing. That's enough for me to say they shouldnt be an admin. Only in death does duty end (talk) 15:30, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
(And yes I know opening an Arbcom request is absolutely the very opposite of de-escalation, but since the alternative is Tamzin continuing as an administrator, the risks of no action outweigh the consequences. Only in death does duty end (talk) 15:35, 7 November 2022 (UTC))
Statement by Tamzin
Regarding the block of VM, for now I'll let my comments at AN serve as a statement here as well, unless any arbs have further questions.
Regarding the deletions, I'm happy to discuss them by email with ArbCom if anyone would like; I think it should be obvious to anyone who can see the deleted pages' content a) that no policy was violated in deleting them and b) why that topic is unsuitable for public discussion.
@Only in death: Do you have any connection to the IP that was WP:PROJSOCKing about that same matter recently? -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 13:25, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
- @Only in death: No, I'd really like a yes/no answer to that. Are you 31.118.18.187? -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 13:35, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
- @Barkeep49: As an SPI clerk, I have never enforced, nor seen any one else enforce any prohibition against asking a user whether they have loutsocked as a particular IP. Indeed clerks and admins routinely go a step past that when we block people for loutsocking, effectively saying in the process "I know that you are IP such-and-such" and leaving it to the blockee to refute or concede that. I have no idea whether OID is 31.118. I do think it's fair to ask, given that they seem to be the only people in the world who care about that utterly mundane series of userspace deletions. And it's a question of material relevance at this A/R/C, given that I took administrative actions against 31.118. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 14:03, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
- I do want to stress, lest anyone say "Well it did work" regarding OID's threats (the purpose of which wasn't exactly a secret—
I will be relatively patient and give you an hour to reverse your egregious block. Then its a case before ARBCOM for general conduct unbecoming.
): I explicitly refused his attempt to bully me; rather, it was the level-headed intervention of Zero0000 that prompted me to request self-review. So these threats were both disruptive and ineffective.I do think ArbCom may want to consider whether they like someone using their name to try to force admins into actions (even if they happen to be right). It's one thing to say "Your action violated such-and-such bright-line desysop policy and if you do not revert it I will have to take you to ArbCom"; it's another to do one's best Bond-villian-with-a-doomsday-timer impression, with the plutonium replaced with arbs. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 15:38, 7 November 2022 (UTC) - @Soibangla: For better or for worse, ArbCom policy is that you can only appeal a DS sanction while it is active. I don't think your recounting of events is fair, though: I very explicitly warned you to stop using your talkpage to continue discussion of a dispute you were TBANned from, and only blocked you when you persisted. As to the "permanent black mark" of a block log entry, well, I've got one of those too—an indef from an arb, no less—and it's never held me back. Furthermore, for me to revdel your block log entry actually would be a potentially first-offense-desysoppable policy violation. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 18:10, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
Statement by Newyorkbrad
I have concerns about the Volunteer Marek blocks, as per my comments in the AN thread, but bringing this here now is a premature and unnecessary escalation. Newyorkbrad (talk) 13:37, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
Statement by BilledMammal
I don't believe it is appropriate to ask an editor to out themselves. I don't have enough information to say whether the IP and OID are connected, but if an editor has suspicions they are and that they have acted in violation of policy they should take those suspicions to the appropriate location. BilledMammal (talk) 13:40, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
Statement by Zero0000
I have been watching this incident since it began. The discussion that Tamzin opened at AN is completely adequate as a forum. If any questions of principle arise that need discussion, that discussion can take place at some appropriate place. Meanwhile, I don't think there is a case for disciplinary action against Tamzin, and I suggest ArbCom not take this case. Zerotalk 13:44, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
Statement by GizzyCatBella
I think this is premature. I've asked the filing party to reconsider --->[2] - GizzyCatBella🍁 13:47, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
Statement by Pppery
Can someone please explain what's wrong with the deletion? I'm genuinely not seeing it, and I usually interpret CSD criteria pretty narrowly. The only problem I can find is that the talk page was deleted under the wrong criterion (was G8, should have been G7). * Pppery * it has begun... 13:56, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
Statement by Sarrail
AN can be used for this discussion. ARBCOM is considered as a "last resort" when handling open requests, but right now, I don't think now is the time to open a request like this and is considered premature. Sarrail (talk) 14:07, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
Statement by Red-tailed hawk
Two things to start:
- I am unable to find any prior noticeboard discussions related to Tamzin's alleged issues with deletions of a userpage. If there are issues, I'd expect someone to have brought them to WP:XRV or WP:DRV before going to the last resort: an ArbCom case.
- The thread(s) about the block of Volunteer Marek have been open for less than twelve hours. Filing a case at ArbCom is extremely premature at this venture if that block was the reason.
Overall, the rationale for opening a case is quite weak. As far as I can tell, no deletion nor block of Tamzin's has been overturned prior to the filing of this case. A single bad block (or a couple allegedly bad userpage redirect deletions) does not generally warrant immediately flying to ArbCom unless (1) something truly egregious occurred or (2) the community is unable to handle review of the decisions. I see nothing here that demonstrates (2) is plausibly the case; we regularly handle claims of WP:INVOLVED blocks at AN. I really don't think that this action rises to the level of (1); Tamzin had already requested self-review at AN and publicly expressed that she understands that she should not have made the block before this ArbCom case request was filed. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 14:08, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
- I will note that Tamzin appears to have lifted the TPA revoke and the siteblock at this point, and has posted an apology on WP:AN. I see no plausible reason for a case at this point. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 14:53, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
Statement by Floq
500 quatloos to the first person to de-escalate anything, anywhere on WP, today. --Floquenbeam (talk) 14:12, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
Statement by WaltCip
Wot Floq said.--🌈WaltCip-(talk) 14:54, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
- Just noting for the record that I'm also mildly outraged by OID's admission that the filing was intended as brinkmanship rather than as a last resort for dispute resolution.--🌈WaltCip-(talk) 15:16, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
- Other editors are now using this case to tee off on Tamzin's conduct on other totally unrelated issues. Can we please close this? 🌈WaltCip-(talk) 20:49, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
Statement by GoodDay
Tamzin has apologised for her site-blocking VM & has reduced the block to a page-block & restored VM's talkpage access. Admitting a mistake & undoing it, is something I respect in an administrator. Therefore I recommend this request for Arbcom to step in, be rejected. GoodDay (talk) 15:43, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
Statement by Robertsky
At this stage where apologies have been offered and blocks reversed/reduced, it would be wise that OID to withdraw this request (even if, begrudgingly), especially since this comment has come to light. If this request is instead closed through rejection by Arbcom members, I would like to see some sorts of admonishment against OID instead for this unnecessary brinkmanship. – robertsky (talk) 16:00, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
Statement by JPxG
Like everyone else, I witnessed the spectacle at Tamzin's request for adminship, and like many people, I initially had some concerns about their capacity to handle the role with regard to political topics. However, since then, the pattern of behavior I've noticed is that these concerns were not justified, and Tamzin seems to be quite good at it, even in situations that are complicated and stressful. While I do not agree with all of their opinions about everything, I cannot come up with an example of a bad administrative decision they made. Of course, Eastern Europe is a tense subject, so I will not pretend to know what is going on with the Volunteer Marek thing mentioned here, but it seems like even in the worst-case scenario this is an isolated incident of a bad block (which Tamzin has already reduced in scope), and certainly not something that rises to the level of an arbitration case over their general conduct. jp×g 17:13, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
Statement by Soibangla
Though others commend Tamzin's technical prowess, I have basis to question Tamzin's judgment and temperament to be an administrator. This involves a matter I'd prefer to not relive, regarding quite a drama at Talk:Recession in July. I was topic banned from the US Economics space due to my perceived excessive vehemence in argumentation, as certain editors were aggressively attempting to inject a political slant into a science article, consistent with a false right-wing media narrative (incidentally, my position ultimately prevailed by RFC consensus, but not before I endured numerous personal attacks calling me a liar, a disinformation agent and a paid political operative, but no admin saw fit to say a word about it, instead banning and blocking me, but I digress).[3] As I was discussing, in a moderate tone, the nature of the ban on my Talk page, Tamzin saw fit to block me "for violating the TBAN that was just imposed," though I was discussing it on my Talk page, not in the topic area in which I had been banned. Now, Tamzin and others might possess esoteric knowledge of PAGs to justify this move, but in my view it didn't pass a basic test of reasonableness; it seemed to demonstrate capricious poor judgment. As a result of this block, there is now a permanent black mark against me in the block log: "Violation of TBAN immediately after warning," which sounds like a particularly egregious violation, like I'm a really bad editor. It baselessly impugns my integrity here, forever. I call on Tamzin to purge that entry from the block log, and to acknowledge their poor judgement in a new topic on my Talk page, in lieu of referral to ArbCom. soibangla (talk) 17:42, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
Statement by Sir Joseph
This seemed, and confirmed, to be a 100% drama filing. This should be declined, with a trout at the very least to OID. Sir Joseph (talk) 19:11, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
Statement by Trainsandotherthings
What, an administrator who is receptive to valid criticism and has even opened themselves up to community review when their actions were challenged? Why is someone demanding an ArbCom case? When someone screams about "admin abuse", it's most likely true – they're probably abusing admins again. In light of the filer's shameless admission they created this filing solely for drama/brinkmanship purposes, this should be speedily closed and OID warned not to make spurious filings, lest they fall afoul of WP:POINT. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 19:25, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
Statement by Black Kite
Yes, it was a terrible block (after the p-block, which was at least defendable, though I don't think it was correct). Was it worth an ArbCom case absent a pattern of behaviour? No. Black Kite (talk) 20:03, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
Statement by North8000
Looks like a severe problem. And it is currently NOT getting addressed at WP:AN. What's at WP:AN is just a self-requested review of a block. Arbcom may be a bit early, but out of courtesy, admins don't self-police although this time can be different. Maybe a separate wp:AN on the admin conduct is the best move at this time but it needs more that a self-requested review of a block. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 20:58, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
- This was one of my rare opposes at RFA giving the reason as: "But what I see as clear cut acceptance of domination of what happens in Wikipedia based on political views is a fundamental and serious problem." And they've jumped into the fray on a political article.North8000 (talk) 21:30, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
Statement by Buffs
The initial block by Tamzin was out of line and should not have been for 1RR or 3RR. If a case was to be made for edit warring, I suppose a case could have been made, but then again, it wasn't asserted until well after the fact (you don't get to met out punishment and then choose a crime later). After being asked not to post on his page, Tamzin blocked the user for his disagreement and repeatedly reposted on his page (seven times) in violation of WP:OWNTALK. Should WP:AN fail to yield any substantive results, I think a simple summary judgement from ARBCOM would suffice, even if it's no more than a trouting. Buffs (talk) 23:05, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
Statement by Softlavender
This is a remarkably precipitous RFAR, opened less than 25 minutes after Tamzin had self-requested a review on AN of her actions concerning Volunteer Marek. The RFAR therefore seems in bad faith. (If it was opened simultaneous to the self-requested review, it should have been withdrawn immediately upon noticing the AN self-requested review.) Especially when one considers that Volunteer Marek, whatever the value of his positive contributions to Wikipedia, is at the same time one of the most contentious and belligerent wiki editors, and is called up to AE and ANI (and even ArbCom) on a regular basis. Tamzin made one or more seemingly involved admin actions in the heat of the moment, and then went to AN to get the situation reviewed and straightened out. Everything is being straightened out there. There is no hew and cry there for her mop. Heck, we had an actual former Arb brought to ANI recently for involved admin action(s), and they never even admitted the action(s) were involved. Given that yardstick, I'd say Tamzin has been exemplary in her post-Marek behavior and her willingness to learn and change. Recommend declining this with prejudice. Softlavender (talk) 07:05, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
Statement by Stifle
Extremely premature, OID should be trouted and Tamzin invited to the rouge admins cabal. Stifle (talk) 09:53, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
Statement by Cinderella157
Please see my comment at WP:AN. The VM et al affair up to Tamzin requesting a review has been a total cluster. They deserve to be beaten about the head with a very large fish. A trout is just not adequate. However, [s]uch an admonishment should be noted but I don't think that in itself (this incident) any further action is required
at this time. Buffs has suggested a summary decision. That would probably avert the senseless slaughter of a few coulombs of electrons in continuing the discussion at AN. Cinderella157 (talk) 10:40, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
- There is no need for an ArbCom case at this time. My comments regarding this matter were already posted here at the ANI thread in question. Please let this matter drop. --Jayron32 14:42, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
Statement by Robert McClenon (Tamzin)
It appears that the filer is citing two issues where he thinks that Tamzin has shown poor judgment and should be desysopped. I understand one case and disagree with the conclusion, and I do not understand the other, and so disagree. The first issue is a bad block of Volunteer Marek. There is agreement that it was a bad block, and Tamzin has apologized for it. The fact that the filer makes an issue of one bad block apologized for says more about the filer than it does about Tamzin. The second issue appears to be some user page deletions. I don't understand the issue based on the filer's statement, and I still don't understand it after reading the comments, except that I understand that other editors agree that it shouldn't be an issue. The second issue says nothing about Tamzin and something about the filer.
There are two long-term productive editors involved in this flap who have made mistakes. We all make mistakes. One of the editors has acknowledged her mistake. The other editor is fortunate that ArbCom doesn't sanction frivolous filers. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:21, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
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.
Admin Tamzin's judgement: Clerk notes
- This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).
Admin Tamzin's judgement: Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter <0/8/1>
Vote key: (Accept/decline/recuse)
- Tamzin has self requested review at AN almost in parallel to this request. I would say that this should generally be handled by the community if possible - Arbcom is the final port of call, though I am aware that we are the only place to deal with administrator access. I'd like to wait here until the ANI thread has resolved. WormTT(talk) 13:16, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
- I'm generally satisfied that no case is going forward here, though I do not intend to "decline" at present. We have to remember that Arbcom is the final port of call for dispute resolution and community discussion is a port of call too. I am very reluctant to accept any case which hasn't gone through "individual discussion -> community discussion -> Arbcom". @Barkeep that's not to say that a single AN thread will make me accept or decline a case, but the AN thread does inform my thinking - who the players are, how they are interacting with each other, where the community sentiment lies. These are important factors for me because they should be important factors for the administrator in question. An administrator who doubles down in the face of widespread community feedback is a concern. I also believe editors are more willing to raise issues at AN, which is less formal than Arbcom - you are likely to get told "you can't say that here, you have to say that over there" at Arbcom, and it gets confusing and intimidating.
As for the merits of this case, I think more informed minds than mine have explained the situation calmly to Tamzin and they have responded, so I'm not seeing an urgent need for a case. I'm also very aware that it appears @Only in death has used this request as 1) a threat to act within their timescales and 2) a toothless threat as they never expected the case to be accepted. Neither are a good look and neither are how the committee is meant to be used (Final point of dispute resolution etc.) Equally, I'm not happy with Tamzin's insistence on asking about an individual being an IP address - Barkeep puts it better than I could. In summary, not a great look all round. WormTT(talk) 08:53, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
- I'm generally satisfied that no case is going forward here, though I do not intend to "decline" at present. We have to remember that Arbcom is the final port of call for dispute resolution and community discussion is a port of call too. I am very reluctant to accept any case which hasn't gone through "individual discussion -> community discussion -> Arbcom". @Barkeep that's not to say that a single AN thread will make me accept or decline a case, but the AN thread does inform my thinking - who the players are, how they are interacting with each other, where the community sentiment lies. These are important factors for me because they should be important factors for the administrator in question. An administrator who doubles down in the face of widespread community feedback is a concern. I also believe editors are more willing to raise issues at AN, which is less formal than Arbcom - you are likely to get told "you can't say that here, you have to say that over there" at Arbcom, and it gets confusing and intimidating.
- I agree with WTT that we should let the community processes play out first. Regarding the U1 issue, this has already been dealt with in at least two different venues, and feels more like an attempt at adding justification for the filing than a serious issue that needs investigation. Primefac (talk) 13:40, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
- Decline with prejudice; this thread indicates that this filing was never meant as a serious attempt at Arbitration against Tamzin, doubly so as the AN thread was already started. Primefac (talk) 15:07, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
- Just as a reply to Barkeep49 below, while I do agree that this particular instance is not any sort of bright-line issue that requires investigation, there have been administrators who have self-destructed upon being the subject of an AN thread (e.g. the case against Carlossuarez46). While I do not necessarily believe that Tamzin was going to do this (especially given that they started the request for review) there are many ways in which a separate discussion can have knock-on effects that would affect a case request. Primefac (talk) 15:16, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
- Decline with prejudice; this thread indicates that this filing was never meant as a serious attempt at Arbitration against Tamzin, doubly so as the AN thread was already started. Primefac (talk) 15:07, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
- I will have more substantive comments to follow but I want to say this now: Tamzin asking a user to identify their IP address is not OK. If you have reason to believe OID is that IP as an SPI clerk you know how to appropriately ask for action. Doing so at an ARC is not it. Barkeep49 (talk) 13:56, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
- I disagree with my colleagues that we have to wait for AN. Even if the community universally rebukes Tamzin this is not a brightline situation so a single incident would not be sufficient for me to accept a case. Some sort of pattern would need to be established and the userspace deletion is not that pattern for me (partly for the reasons Red Hawk mentions). I think Arbs tend to give too much weight to the framing of the initial filer rather than considering subsequent evidence which comes in. So I will await further community comments because not finding OID's pattern compelling doesn't mean there's not enough evidence to justify a case. But as of now I'm leaning towards declining this request. Barkeep49 (talk) 14:56, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
- Only in death I am upset to see this comment. If you think there's a valid case request you should make it. You should not do it as a scare tactic and to bolster your admonishments of others in the future by spending large amounts of community time (as any plausible case request does). Barkeep49 (talk) 15:06, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
- After reading OID's response to the comment above I understand that while they don't think ArbCom will sanction they genuinely believe ArbCom should sanction. But I agree with L235 below. Even without this element, I find the actions before filing this case worth a warning/admonishment. 1 hour to do what you want is not a reasonable expectation in most Wikipedia contexts and so that comment is the one that shouldn't have been made and then we wouldn't need some follow through. I think ArbCom has made several mistakes in the past 3 years by only considering the framing of the filer so I'm committed to not declining on this basis alone - though I do not fault Primefac for doing so as it is a reasonable response - but that doesn't mean I find the circumstances around the filing of this case OK. Barkeep49 (talk) 17:17, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
- Only in death I am upset to see this comment. If you think there's a valid case request you should make it. You should not do it as a scare tactic and to bolster your admonishments of others in the future by spending large amounts of community time (as any plausible case request does). Barkeep49 (talk) 15:06, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
- Decline per my comments above. Barkeep49 (talk) 15:02, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
- I disagree with my colleagues that we have to wait for AN. Even if the community universally rebukes Tamzin this is not a brightline situation so a single incident would not be sufficient for me to accept a case. Some sort of pattern would need to be established and the userspace deletion is not that pattern for me (partly for the reasons Red Hawk mentions). I think Arbs tend to give too much weight to the framing of the initial filer rather than considering subsequent evidence which comes in. So I will await further community comments because not finding OID's pattern compelling doesn't mean there's not enough evidence to justify a case. But as of now I'm leaning towards declining this request. Barkeep49 (talk) 14:56, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
- I am still considering this request on the merits, but I agree with Barkeep49 that @Only in death's comment here is completely out of line – in my judgment, it's sanctionable. When you file a case request because
when you say you are going to do something, you do occasionally have to do it so people know you mean what you say
, you are abusing community resources only to make sure people view your comments as credible threats in the future. OID is also nearly 3x over the 500 word limit. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 16:59, 7 November 2022 (UTC)- I can see no issues with the deletion and consider anything pre-RfA as out of scope. In view of Tamzin's apology, I am inclined to decline the case request as regards the block. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 17:12, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
- Decline per my comments and Beeblebrox's. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 18:04, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
- I can see no issues with the deletion and consider anything pre-RfA as out of scope. In view of Tamzin's apology, I am inclined to decline the case request as regards the block. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 17:12, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
- Decline I am certainly one of the more hawkish arbs when it comes to holders of advanced permissions, I consider holding them to account for their actions to be one of the committee's most important functions, but you have to come correct with a case request, show a pattern of poor judgement when using the tools, along with previous attempts to resolve the underlying issue. This was not even attempted here. We can't accept a case when one has not even really been presented, which the filing party seemingly was perfectly aware of. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:00, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
- I'd note that at this point the case is clearly going to be declined. I would therefore suggest that uninvolved parties do not need to make statements unless they have new, compelling information not previously considered. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:13, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
- Decline per Beeble. --Izno (talk) 20:37, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
- Decline Based on the comments here, I find this request WP:POINTY. ANI can decide the merits of the block, and I trust Tamzin to take their feedback to heart. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 20:39, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
- Decline - Donald Albury 22:17, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
- Decline this deliberately premature filing. An ArbCom case is the end of the road, not the atarting point. Cabayi (talk) 12:06, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
- It shouldn’t matter at this point, but I would recuse if this had gone to a case. --BDD (talk) 18:14, 8 November 2022 (UTC)