Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Technical 13/Evidence

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
Main case page (Talk) — Evidence (Talk) — Workshop (Talk) — Proposed decision (Talk)

Case clerks: Liz (Talk) & Callanecc (Talk) Drafting arbitrators: Courcelles (Talk) & DeltaQuad (Talk)

Wikipedia Arbitration
Open proceedings
Active sanctions
Arbitration Committee
Audit
Track related changes

Any editor may add evidence to this page, irrespective of whether they are involved in the dispute. You must submit evidence in your own section. Editors who change other users' evidence may be blocked without warning; if you have a concern with or objection to another user's evidence, contact the committee by e-mail or on the talk page. The standard limits for all evidence submissions are: 1000 words and 100 diffs for users who are parties to this case; or about 500 words and 50 diffs for other users. Detailed but succinct submissions are more useful to the committee. This page is not designed for the submission of general reflections on the arbitration process, Wikipedia in general, or other irrelevant and broad issues; and if you submit such content to this page, please expect it to be ignored. General discussion of the case may be opened on the talk page. You must focus on the issues that are important to the dispute and submit diffs which illustrate the nature of the dispute or will be useful to the committee in its deliberations.

You must use the prescribed format in your evidence. Evidence should include a link to the actual page diff in question, or to a short page section; links to the page itself are inadequate. Never link to a page history, an editor's contributions, or a log for all actions of an editor (as those change over time), although a link to a log for a specific article or a specific block log is acceptable. Please make sure any page section links are permanent, and read the simple diff and link guide if you are not sure how to create a page diff.

The Arbitration Committee expects you to make rebuttals of other evidence submissions in your own section, and for such rebuttals to explain how or why the evidence in question is incorrect; do not engage in tit-for-tat on this page. Arbitrators may analyze evidence and other assertions at /Workshop, which is open for comment by parties, Arbitrators, and others. After arriving at proposed principles, findings of fact, or remedies, Arbitrators vote at /Proposed decision. Only Arbitrators (and Clerks, when clarification on votes is needed) may edit the proposed decision page.

Evidence presented by PhantomTech

Preliminary statement

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Technical 13 has a history of permission removals and temporary blocks resulting from problematic behavior. Continued problematic behavior indicates that past remedies have not been effective and that more severe remedies are required. The most recent AN/I thread resulted in no action with almost all who opposed claiming that the problems brought up were not serious or that T13's work makes up for the problems, these users made up about half of those who responded while the other half encouraged the situation to be looked into but did not seem to want to get too involved. This lack of a willingness to get involved that many editors, for whatever reason, seem to have is why I think the arbitration committee should get involved in this investigation of T13's behavior. Some example of past behavior include inappropriate attempts to sway the opinions of editors [1] [2] and failure to admit fault or change behavior pointed out to him [3]. Pointing out problems to T13 seems to be useless as several instances, that I'm aware of, of problematic behavior have occurred in the 3 weeks since the most recent AN/I thread was posted:

  • A personal attack against editors, calling them "project dictators"
  • Here T13 claims to have had no knowledge of the job queue issues while making the contested changes but that he should not revert those changes because he is now aware of the job queue issues and here he proves that he knew about the issue before making the contested changes changes to that template
  • Here T13 violates canvassing policy by modifying his script to notify its users of a discussion where they would have a bias.
  • Here, in part of a longer interaction with a specific IP filled with more WP:IPHUMAN issues, T13 claims he cannot start a discussion on an IPs talk page unless they register an account
  • In another breach of canvassing policy and a disruption to recent changes patrol, T13 began sending out what would have been well over a thousand posts to notify people of a discussion on a humor page until eventually stopping after a talk page message, only to claim he did nothing wrong while quoting the exact part of the policy he violated
  • In another reply to the above, he claims that the hudreds of messages he sent were not "too many", wikilawyers saying that he is not a bot which is technically true but at 20+ edits per minute with AWB is effectively no different and, finally, in what appears to be pointy behavior, he implies that what he did was better than an RfC since any notices from an RfC would have been posted by a bot

PHANTOMTECH (talk) 00:51, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Request to ArbCom

Considering T13 planned to be here on Monday, can more information be provided as to why he is unable to comment? Also curious as to how the case will be affected. PHANTOMTECH (talk) 03:59, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note the date and type of deletion [4] PHANTOMTECH (talk) 06:30, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Response to Euryalus

@Euryalus: Very few who opposed brought up the age of evidence. With a quick look back at the "Recent issues" section numbers 1 and 3 are the only issues I can find that are more than a few days before the posting date, April 30th, with the oldest of all the "recent issues" points being less than a month old. PHANTOMTECH (talk) 00:40, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note - words/legal threats

I'm not sure a response to T13 is needed and I've reached my word limit so I won't be writing a response here to what T13's statement unless an arb requests I do. However, I will note that T13's response to Looie496 itself contains a legal threat (it doesn't seem to be directed at Looie496) and all these redactions are making me think there were more. PHANTOMTECH (talk) 19:03, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

T13 engages in inappropriate attempts to sway opinions, including attempting to appeal to emotions

  1. Diff/Edit Summary (Emotion)
  2. Diff/Edit Summary (Emotion)
  3. Diff (Emotion)
  4. Diff (Editor of the Week)
  5. Diff (Emotion, see first and last point of {U|PhantomTech})
  6. Edit Summary (Emotion)
  7. [Note to self: Insert more?]

I'll try to clean this up, but for now this is the best I can do.

  1. Edit summaries at T13's statement draft. Examples: Ex1, Ex2, Ex3
  2. Diff/Edit Summary
  3. [5]
  4. Something between this? (seems to be a safe assumption)

T13 has canvassed on multiple occasions

  1. T13 attempts to explain how he chose who to notify of an AN/I discussion, later claiming he was just notifying the parties involved
  2. (repeat from statement) T13 modifies a script of his to notify its users of a discussion about a site wide change. The change is related to something that would be used by the script but the notification is not transparent and the audience has a natural bias toward the script.
  3. (repeat from statement) Notification spam - Done at a rate of 20+ per minute and would have totaled well over 1000 notifications to users, of which T13 admits (last point in {U|PhantomTech}) almost all users were inactive. This also violated the bot policy. Examples: Ex1, Ex2, Ex3

T13 has wikilawyered

  1. Claims notifications were not too many because the limit was not specifically defined and the number notified is a small percentage of total accounts.
  2. Last point of {U|PhantomTech}: I followed the letter of policy
  3. More in preliminary statement.

T13 fails to accept blame

  1. Diff (last half)
  2. Diff/Edit Summary
  3. [Insert more]

IP Discussion

This section contains multiple issues but they're all related to the discussion with the IP mentioned in my preliminary statement, so I thought it would be best to group them.

  1. T13 claims to exclusively [follow] WP:AGF, weaseling his way out of having to defend the bad faith accusations made immediately after. When the IP user points out the bad faith, T13 replies calling it a personal attack on him.
  2. T13 discouraging the user the IP was complaining about (the complaint was about a lack of talk page discussion) from discussing.
  3. T13 seems to claim (middle addition) that it is fine for users to not participate in discussion and that either IP users should not be allowed to bring up concerns about experienced editors or that no one is.
  4. In the discussion on T13's talk page, one of T13's replies claim the IP editor has a dictator tone. After replying to other points in T13's reply, the IP asked for clarification on T13's dictator tone accusation (twice) and has not yet received a reply.

{Write your assertion here}

Place argument and diffs which support the second assertion; for example, your second assertion might be "So-and-so makes personal attacks", which should be the title of this section. Here you would show specific edits where So-and-so made personal attacks.

Evidence presented by Technical 13

Preliminary statement

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I apologize for my delay in responding, and I am drafting a response currently. I am also waiting on a response from WMF legal to an email about an issue concerning one of the arbitrators here before I post it live to this page. Doug Weller and DeltaQuad are aware of the issue, and hopefully can confirm that for me if needed. 20:27, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

PhantomTech
  • That's how I perceive them (unless you're saying I'm not human and therefore not allowed to have my own perceptions of things), and I'm not the only one. In that reply to FoCuSandLeArN, I also said "I have no issue with that and have found other things to do with my time to be productive."
  • I saw an issue and poked around on IRC (per this comment, like you said), was told by Legoktm on IRC not to worry about it since the queue had already been turned on (as I stated in that same thread the next day) and was functioning as it was expected to. It turned out it needed more poking, but I wasn't aware of that until after the changes.
  • What part of the canvassing policy does it violate to notify users of a script of a discussion about upcoming changes to that script that will directly impact them? I'm not aware of any such verbiage, and would be happy to comply if you can point me to it.
  • I offer two options near the very top of that comment after I explain why I don't do discussion on IP talk pages. Those two options were "We can discuss it on ANI (since you started the discussion there) or we can discuss it here I suppose (although I am pretty busy, so I may be very slow in responding to any comments you may make)." ANI (the hard way), or on my own talk page (the easy way). What exactly is wrong with that?
  • I explained my interpretation of why it wasn't a canvassing violation per WP:APPNOTE. I'll expand this to say that of the 885 users notified, 753/885 were inactive editors (85.08%) (15 are blocked – I admit I should have filtered those people out of the list, at least one came back specifically to comment on the discussion, at least 30 are now active again – didn't think to keep an exact count before I had already checked 500 of them). That means I notified 132 out of 114,238 (about 0.12%) active users. I don't consider that a lot, sorry. If someone wanted to specifically define a lot in relation to the 47,697,838 Wikipedia accounts, I'd be more than happy to respect that.
  • So, you admit that you dehumanized me by calling me a bot. Shame on you. My claim is that I followed the letter of policy by not using a bot. I could have very easily posted it as an RfC, but my goal wasn't "just" about the topic of a humor page. The biggest part of the goal (based on a sample of 20 random names in the list of about 1,700 that yielded a result of about 93% of people (technically 95% at 19/20, but one was real close with only one edit in a year that happened to drop them in the "active" group, so I gave only 3% for that one) using those templates being inactive (about 120 active users)) was to try to encourage some of our now retired and/or inactive editors to come back to Wikipedia and join a "fun" discussion about a silly humor page to remind them that Wikipedia is still here and try and peak their interest to come back. We kind of have declining numbers of editors, and I was hoping to poke at a few decent retired ones to get renewed interest.
Arbitration Committee
  • Courcelles: You accepted based on a fact that has been determined to be false, is your position still to accept?
Final note

Since the safety of my family is not a concern to anyone here, know that I will protect my family first and ask questions later and I will record any further threats and if such threats happen will take the appropriate legal action. For those of you who commented and do not see a response to you here, I had to trim a lot of stuff to fit it all in here, please see User:Technical 13/Drafts/Response for your specific response. — {{U|Technical 13}} (e • t • c) 13:32, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Looie496: What legal threats are those? The only statement where I use the word legal is directly to any person that threatens me or my family. There is no statement that I will be filling any lawsuits against the foundation, just the I will call the police and let them handle the criminal threatening issue. — {{U|Technical 13}} (e • t • c) 14:11, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

{Write your assertion here}

Place argument and diffs which support your assertion; for example, your first assertion might be "So-and-so engages in edit warring", which should be the title of this section. Here you would show specific edits to specific articles which show So-and-so engaging in edit warring.

{Write your assertion here}

Place argument and diffs which support the second assertion; for example, your second assertion might be "So-and-so makes personal attacks", which should be the title of this section. Here you would show specific edits where So-and-so made personal attacks.

Evidence presented by Salvidrim

  • Just leaving a note here that I have (or will shortly) sent an e-mail to the Committee concerning the reinstatement of T13's TE user-right in December, as well as some other privacy-related information. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 14:22, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence presented by Rschen7754

Preliminary statement by Rschen7754

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

If this case is accepted, I plan to provide crosswiki evidence with the intent of allowing for "The Committee [to] take notice of conduct outside its jurisdiction when making decisions about conduct on the English Wikipedia if such outside conduct impacts or has the potential to impact adversely upon the English Wikipedia or its editors," such as applying for a global right to be able to edit all protected and interface pages (including on this wiki) after losing the templateeditor right on this wiki. [6] --Rschen7754 04:10, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I handed in my Meta admin flag with my steward flag, but I have been told by a Meta admin that there was no onwiki request for deletion of m:User:Technical 13, meaning that the request must have been over IRC or email (or some other offwiki medium). That being said: I find it interesting that Technical 13 has requested deletion of their Meta userpage, as their activity on Meta relates to the evidence I plan to present. --Rschen7754 01:15, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Also noting the past ArbCom filing by Technical 13: [7] In that filing, they again claimed to be busy in outside life. --Rschen7754 02:36, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@OccultZone: I remember something about that restoration of rights, but would have to do some research to remember what exactly, unfortunately. --Rschen7754 02:37, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Technical 13's userpage was undeleted by the same admin with the following summary: [8] While this raises some obvious questions, they are not within the scope of this case. --Rschen7754 04:03, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@DeltaQuad: I assume that others can present the evidence on the English Wikipedia better than I can, so I probably won't touch that. My evidence would probably relate to 1) applying for a global right on Meta to be able to have the same abilities to edit protected and interface pages on the English Wikipedia that admins do (even when their template editor permissions were removed, thus ignoring the principle of community trust/evading our local policies), and 2) providing additional diffs from other WMF sites to give additional perspective as to their attitude/manner of collaboration locally. --Rschen7754 16:53, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Summary

Main point: Technical 13 avoids being accountable to community consensus and proper procedure when it is inconvenient or likely to go against him. Rschen7754 05:36, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Technical 13 applied for global interface editor while their templateeditor rights were revoked on enwiki

Technical 13 has a pattern of making requests to admins offwiki, without community oversight

Technical 13 does not wait for community consensus before making controversial edits

Technical 13 has engaged in other problematic behavior on Meta

Evidence presented by Konveyor Belt

Note for posterity

Technical 13 was indefinitely blocked by User:Floquenbeam with talk page access removed log entry, after Technical 13 requested blocking by email, stating he had retired.

Evidence presented by {your user name}

{Write your assertion here}

Place argument and diffs which support your assertion; for example, your first assertion might be "So-and-so engages in edit warring", which should be the title of this section. Here you would show specific edits to specific articles which show So-and-so engaging in edit warring.

{Write your assertion here}

Place argument and diffs which support the second assertion; for example, your second assertion might be "So-and-so makes personal attacks", which should be the title of this section. Here you would show specific edits where So-and-so made personal attacks.

Evidence presented by {your user name}

before using the last evidence template, please make a copy for the next person

{Write your assertion here}

Place argument and diffs which support your assertion; for example, your first assertion might be "So-and-so engages in edit warring", which should be the title of this section. Here you would show specific edits to specific articles which show So-and-so engaging in edit warring.

{Write your assertion here}

Place argument and diffs which support the second assertion; for example, your second assertion might be "So-and-so makes personal attacks", which should be the title of this section. Here you would show specific edits where So-and-so made personal attacks.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Technical_13/Evidence&oldid=668816401"