Timwi has been an administrator since December 2003, and has made around 1000 edits over the last 10 years. I'm not saying this to poison the well, it's that I believe that he's out of touch with current standards. On January 29, Timwi restored Battle for Dream Island, an article that had been blacklisted and salted for years. He proceeded to remove some content and added references that were exclusively primary and non-reliable, user generated sources. He then went to the talk page of Acroterion to berate them for tagging the article for deletion in 2013, saying "In future, if you feel that an article is missing something, please consider adding it instead of unceremoniously destroying other people’s work. You are the reason nobody I know bothers contributing to Wikipedia anymore because “what’s the point, it gets deleted anyway”. Considering fostering a more productive environment." Timwi apologized after further conversation with Acroterion, but then removed a notability tag added to Battle for Dream Island, claiming "More notability noted. Next time you add this template, please elaborate on the Talk Page what kind of information you require. He then added sources like cartooncrave.wordpress and RedBubble (a retail site selling fan merch), unreliable sources that you'd hope an administrator would know are not ok to use.

Schazjmd, the tagging editor, went to the talk and calmly pointed out that none of the sources were reliable and notability was not established. She went on to add "...I applied the notability tag rather than simply nominating it for deletion so that interested editors could look for sources." Timwi's response demonstrated a lack of understanding of notability or reliable sources; he added It’s very difficult not to feel that you’re just hell-bent on destroying other people’s work and discouraging legitimate contribution to Wikipedia, which is an unfair and unreasonable thing to say to someone who just said that they wouldn't be nominating an article for deletion. He further displayed a lack of knowledge about user generated sources on the talk.

At this point, I filed a thread at the administrator's noticeboard, asking for his recent behavior and edits to be examined. Around 10 administrators opined, all of them finding Timwi's conduct problematic, with several saying Timwi needs to resign administrative rights. Timwi did not participate in the AN discussion, running afoul of what is expected of administrators when concerns about their behavior are brought forth. Instead, Timwi argued with others at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Battle for Dream Island, saying more things indicating an out of touch mindset. Eventually, Girth Summit, me, RoySmith, and Acroterion came to Timwi's talk asking him to resign, or at least engage in the AN discussion. Last night, I said I would file a case if Timwi did not respond soon. Timwi's last edit was on the 30th; it seems that no response or resignation will be forthcoming. Therefore, I am filing this case to examine Timwi's administrative rights. I believe that a motion would be better than a case, but I'm open to either. Moneytrees🏝️^{Talk/CCI guide} 16:16, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify, I'm fine with waiting for a response, I don't think this the most urgent admin case. I'm filing this now because I was seeing comments that I should just file it now. Moneytrees🏝️^{Talk/CCI guide} 16:45, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I wrote about my thought process in opening this case at User:Moneytrees/why. And to be clear, I thought about filing this at XRV, but ultimately didn't, because it seems like that would create too much controversy for anything to actually happen, and that there is misconduct here outside of an administrative action. Moneytrees🏝️^{Talk/CCI guide} 21:29, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for responding Timwi. I've read everything that's been said since I last commented here, but I have no firm opinion yet on what should happen now. Moneytrees🏝️^{Talk/CCI guide} 22:40, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, I've spent some time away thinking and I have clearer thoughts. For once, I'm in a good mood too. I filed this case for WP:ADMINACCT reasons- Timwi had not responded to the AN discussion, and I believed that the outcome would be a suspended case and desysop. Timwi has now responded and has promised to not violate established policy anymore, taking care of the admin accountability potion of my request. Taking that away, I believe the case for desysoping or opening a full case are weak. I do not mention older log activity in my request, as I'm unsure about using stuff over 10 years old. There's an argument for it, in that Timwi's tool use has generally been low, but I still feel like it's too long between uses to conclusively establish a pattern. I also do not think that the restoration of the article by itself was so problematic- it was more that poor sources were then added to it upon restoration. It's not like it was some BLP nightmare or malicious paid spam- it's just an animated series with a lot of fans. I do not see any reason to open an expedited case right now- it only seems like that would elongate an already drawn-out process and come to the same conclusion the motions have. I remember my 275 hours at RfA, it would be hypocritical for me to endorse it. I do not buy that Timwi is being "let off the hook" a desysop was seriously considered, and there was harsh criticism from several others. I don't think this is "kicking the can down the road" either- given Timwi's low activity and the response/warnings here, I do not believe there will be further problems in the future, and if there are, then this lengthy request will be taken into consideration. And if there are issues in the future, I promise I will eat my words and take responsibility in dealing with them. I made up my mind on this before Timwi's notes to me and Schazjmd. A genuine apology and admittance of wrongdoing should be more common in the world and is truly commendable. In my position as the case filed, I prefer the admonishment/warning to the desysop, I think that is fairest. Moneytrees🏝️^{Talk/CCI guide} 06:54, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Timwi

I was acting in good faith the whole time. As plentifully noted by everyone, I have been inactive for a long time. Back when I was active, the prevailing ethos on Wikipedia was be bold and to foster collaboration. In that spirit, I rose against what I perceived as a breach of common sense so egregious as to be offensive to people (such as a friend of mine) who want to contribute (in this case: by adding an article on BFDI) but are rudely rebuffed because Wikipedians just keep deleting all of their hard work.
As also stated elsewhere, I am aware that Wikipedia has guidelines about “notability” and “reliable sources” that spectacularly defy the intuition of everyone who is not incredibly active as editor on Wikipedia. I naïvely believed that pointing out this discrepancy between policy and common sense would get anywhere. Not only did it not prompt anyone in the discussion to think for themselves, it even landed me in arbitration and now I’m being desysopped to maintain the echo chamber.
At no point have I had any intention of trolling, vandalism, or any form of troublemaking (except to whether extent questioning the echo chamber is perceived as “trouble” by those in the echo chamber).
Whether I am deadmined or not will have negligible consequence compared to the global-scale damage caused by rampant deletionism. I strongly invite anyone reading this to take a step back and consider the amount of trouble gone through to remove me, and the comparative lack of effort expended on fostering collaboration, inviting new editors unfamiliar with the unintuitive policies, or creating a welcoming atmosphere.
I would like to thank the minority of people who have noted it’d be courteous to give me a few days to respond. It did indeed take a few days for me to notice that my singular action on a single talk page has stirred up this process, which I didn’t expect. I was fully prepared to go back to my quiet corner after this had passed, as I had already given up and accepted that I won’t be able to change anything.
I am happy to continue to contribute in the small ways that I have over the years — mostly spelling corrections and wording improvements, all well within the limits of applicable policies, of course. In rare cases, I have helped with adminny tasks (such as moving a page or speedy-deleting vandalism) and it shall be up to you to decide whether you wish to forego my continued contributions in this area due to this singular incident, which I have personally already put behind me and will not repeat.
Thank you for your time and attention. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Timwi (talk • contribs) 12:21, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Responses to messages elsewhere on this page

Clarification: it wasn’t “one of [my] friends’ articles”. It was an old article written a long time ago by someone I don’t know. The “friend” in question was staying away from Wikipedia because “what’s the point, everything gets deleted anyway”, a widespread perception that bothers me, and it bothers me that it clearly doesn’t bother anyone else here. — Timwi (talk) 17:41, 7 February 2022 (UTC) [Moved from #Statement by Pawnkingthree by clerk at 18:02, 7 February 2022 (UTC)][reply]
I’m happy to have a chat over on Discord if you’re interested in that. (Telegram or Signal works too.) — Timwi (talk) 17:20, 7 February 2022 (UTC) [Moved from #Timwi: Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter by clerk at 18:07, 7 February 2022 (UTC)][reply]
(to Barkeep49, Can you tell me what it is you "will not repeat"?) I will no longer knowingly violate established policies. I haven’t done so in over a decade, and the only reason I did it now was because of my frustration over the fact that literally everybody I know personally (not exaggerating) says of editing Wikipedia something on the lines of, “What’s the point, everything gets deleted anyway.” BFDI just happened to be the scapegoat example. Now that I have drawn a little bit of attention to this issue and the apparatus has made it abundantly clear that this outside perception of Wikipedia doesn’t bother anyone inside of it, I have given up this line of action and have no further desire to pursue it. — Timwi (talk) 17:20, 7 February 2022 (UTC) [Moved from #Timwi: Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter by clerk at 18:07, 7 February 2022 (UTC)][reply]
(to Barkeep49, do you have any preference between a motion and a full case?) My preference is to do the least possible amount of damage to Wikipedia, which includes to avoid wasting everyone’s time. From what I gather, a “full case” would waste a humongous amount of time and effort. — Timwi (talk) 18:35, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
(to Cabayi) It was not a calculated move. It was more a camel’s back situation brought forward by years of penned-up frustration with the policies in general and the BFDI article in particular. I have no intent to violate policies going forward. — Timwi (talk) 22:44, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
In all this hustle and bustle, I completely lost sight of Schazjmd who was caught up in this and who didn’t deserve it. I have now left a message on their talk page to apologize. As I state there, I’m not doing that to help my arbcom case, but I guess it can’t hurt to mention it here in case it does count for something. — Timwi (talk) 08:02, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by RoySmith

I wish Moneytrees had held off filing this. Given Timwi's low level of activity, there's no on-going damage being caused by their continued adminship which needed to be stopped quickly, so waiting a few more days wouldn't have hurt. Still, it's clear that Timwi's behavior is far outside the bounds of what's acceptable for an admin. Making a mistake is acceptable. That's why WP:TROUT exists. Making a big mistake is also acceptable, which is why {{whale}} exists. What's not acceptable is to dig in your heels about it and then ignore all attempts to engage in constructive conversation about the problem. Now that we're here, I think this case needs to be accepted. I'm still not 100% convinced this is an event worthy of being desysopped, but at the very least they need to be read the riot act about accountability. -- RoySmith (talk) 16:44, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Deepfriedokra: They do have email enabled on meta.
@BilledMammal: I agree that WP:XRV would have been the right venue. Preventing the rapid escalation that got us to WP:AN and then here is exactly why XRV was created. -- RoySmith (talk) 16:19, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I just want to note that we (should) judge people based on what they do, not on what they think. It's fine to think that a policy is wrong. We have lots of policies that I disagree with. What matters is what an admin does. One of the hard parts of being an admin is being able to compartmentalize. Argue against a policy on talk pages all you want, but as long as the policy exists, you need to enforce it, or stay away from those areas. I only bring this up because I see a few comments that say, "We can't have an admin who believes X is wrong", when I suspect (or at least hope) what they really mean is, "We can't have an admin who violates X". -- RoySmith (talk) 16:54, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Cryptic

This is no molehill; it's almost exactly what happened in WP:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Rama: use of administrator privileges to gain content advantage combined with unbecoming hostility when questioned about it. While there wasn't a pre-existing deletion discussion for Battle for Dream Island like there was for Clarice Phelps, the current discussion at WP:Articles for deletion/Battle for Dream Island should have been so predictable given the character of the proffered sources that it amounts to the same thing. —Cryptic 16:48, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Turns out there were deletion discussions for it in draftspace - the Mediawiki:Titleblacklist entry for it links WP:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Battle for Dream Island, WP:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Battle For Dream Island (BFDI), and an impressive alternative-name deletion list at https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?prefix=Draft%3ABattle+for+dream+island&title=Special%3AUndelete&fuzzy=1. I'll tack on the mainspace equivalent at https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?prefix=Battle+for+dream+island&title=Special%3AUndelete&fuzzy=1. —Cryptic 17:11, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Neither Egg Pawn nor Hur'q were valid G8s. "Redirecting to an (existing) list but not appearing on it" isn't a speedy deletion criterion. Less wonkishly, Hur'q wasn't a valid speedy even beside that, since it had non-redirect revisions in the history. Featherstonehaugh's the same situation, and the plainly-capital-I-INVOLVED protection of Composition of the human body was brought up at the WP:AN discussion. You have to go all the way back to Morgan S. Taylor in April 2010 to find a use of admin privileges that was both correct and that they didn't do solely for their own convenience. —Cryptic 22:34, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Amakuru

Like Roy and Worm, I think it would be best to give Timwi a chance to respond before launching into a case. They may yet take the route of apologizing and we can move on with just a trout and keep an eye on future conduct. Or perhaps they don't intend to edit again any time soon, in which case their behaviour and engagement can be reevaluated if they ever return. This isn't a Rama case yet, because as of now they haven't fallen on their sword. — Amakuru (talk) 16:51, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I know my view is mostly irrelevant here, but for the record I like the "warn" motion below. As noted, this is really just one incident of suboptimal tool use, not a long-term pattern of behaviour, and it's accompanied by a pledge not to repeat. Thus the warning seems like the right response, with an understanding that future misuse of tools would result in a fairly swift desysop. I'm not persuaded by the notion that Timwi must turn in the tools because editors asked them to do so - that's not the way the desysop process works, and the community has never indicated through an RFC that it should be. — Amakuru (talk) 17:02, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Dennis Brown

The case is here because the community simply has no authority nor tools to handle, so regardless of outcome, the Committee really needs to take the case. It is an edge case in some ways, and it is something we are seeing more of, admin with long tenure but light participation, whom we appreciate their service but we recognize they haven't kept up with community standards and aren't likely to. We don't want to disrespect anyone, but we can't ignore the problem either. At this stage, I don't even pretend to know what the best solution is. I do know that many of us are asking Arb to respectfully and thoughtfully review the situation. And no, we don't need to rush, I would agree, but we do need to work in that direction. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 16:52, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wugapodes et al.; To clarify "edge case", there isn't a single clear cut event that warrants an emergency desysop, that I have seen. It's on the edge in that we don't really know all the instances of misuse/abuse yet, and haven't heard from them. And I'm probably being too generous because this is a long time editor, to be honest. Reading more of their responses, I'm not confident this is going to end well, but I still don't want to slam someone in the public eye. This might be a candidate for a temporary desysop and suspension of the case if they haven't responded in a week. It would be only the 3rd time we've done this, I think, but if we are going to use that as a tool, this is the perfect example of when to use it. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 22:39, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Glad he's back. Troublesome case. The tool use alone isn't enough to desysop (IMHO) unless there is a pattern, and assuming they will continue to adhere to ADMINACCT. This would fall under "admin are allowed to make mistakes". To me, the biggest mistake is not participating more, early on. It also helps to be just little bit more humble when you are called out for a clear violation of policy, so he isn't helping himself with the attitude. As I stated before, there wasn't any circumstance to justify an emergency desysop, although I supported the suspension since they didn't respond in a timely manner. Whether there is enough evidence to desysop, other instances that are troublesome, I don't know. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 18:44, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Hog Farm

I'm normally not one to call for the bit to be removed, but what I'm seeing here is a pattern of improper tool use due to being unfamiliar with current policies. Looking through the last 9 entries in their deletion log, we've got the Dream Island issue and out-of-process deletions of Egg Pawn (2019) and Hur'q (2013) with the others being G7/U1 situations and a G6 from a page move. No protections since 2011, but the only one post-2010 is a use of full-protection to give them an advantage in a content dispute. Nothing in the modern block log. What I'm seeing here is someone who rarely uses the tools, and when they do, it's frequently outside of policy. The only thing recent enough to be actionable is the Dream Island incident, and I don't think that alone warrants a desysopping, but we really need to see here is either a commitment to becoming more familiar with current policies before using the tools or a voluntary resignation. (Ideally the former) Hog Farm _Talk 17:23, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Clarifying my statement to indicate clearer that I think we ought to give Timwi a reasonable time to respond before proceeding, as I remain hopeful that there are ways to resolve this without removing the tools. Hog Farm _Talk 14:50, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Barkeep, I do believe the two redirects listed above - Egg Pawn and Hur'q do not meet the G6/G8 criteria. Based on my experience at RFD, I don't think "section no longer exists in article"-type situations are slam-dunk deletes enough for unilateral speedy deletions. I don't particularly fault them for the deletions as it's in a bit of a gray area, but I doubt that such deletions without an RFD (I have seen RFDs where the decision is to retarget elsewhere or to add the section back, so I don't think we should open up G8 or G6 speedies to removed list targets). I do see that Timwi's statement indicates that they do not intend to do similar actions again; and I'm not really seeing anything really needing to remove the admin bit, as there's only one recent issue, and I don't think we should be desysopping over a single mistake. I would warn them (Timwi) that they are probably on the far inclusion side of current Wikipedia culture, and that keeping that in mind in decision-making would be wise. Hog Farm _Talk 06:57, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Star Mississippi

Thanks Moneytree. Unlike the others, I don't think this is too soon and echoing more or less what I said at AN. In their response to me at the AfD (Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Battle_for_Dream_Island), Timwi said It’s not that I’m unfamiliar with the criteria, it’s that I apply common sense, disagree with them where appropriate, and I try to make Wikipedia palatable to more non-admin contributors. To me that reads as he understands the criteria, and will do it again as he disagrees with the rules around notability. Since admin privileges allow an editor to go through restrictions we have, this seems to be the only solution. Star Mississippi 17:58, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@BilledMammal as it already has been at AfD, AN with relatively unanimous agreemement. I'm not sure it needs another message board conversation to move forward Star Mississippi 23:42, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Not only did it not prompt anyone in the discussion to think for themselves, it even landed me in arbitration and now I’m being desysopped to maintain the echo chamber. Wow, utterly stunning bad faith considering you're in the minority on the notability consensus, @Timwi. Star Mississippi 18:26, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Deepfriedokra

I’m one of the least likely to agree with desysopping. However, I’ve read the earlier comments and partook in the ANI discussion. Their use of the tools, though infrequent, has been wrong, and they need to acknowledge that. Of course, an acknowledgement that their behavior is non conforming with present standards, and a commitment to do better, would be best. So far, their responses are not hopeful. Next best would be for them simply to give up the tools. However, if a response does not come forth soon, the best bet would be to suspend this case for six months with tool removal at the end of that time if there is no response. Timwi, please respond quickly.

Given Timwi's inactivity, it might be some time before they become aware of this, so waiting as pointed out below is best for now. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 18:59, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is like the Winhunter case only in that it involves a legacy admin whose actions were called into question. Winhunter had been baited by an LTA and that case was started by a troll who was themselves blocked as a block evading troll. There is no indication Timwi has hoofed it. They have had periods of inactivity ranging in length from several days to months. I would urge continued patience. Timwi, if you are reading this (and even if not) we need your participation. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 19:18, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Welp, I was going to ask if anyone tried emailing Timwi, but I see that is not an option. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 23:18, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, wholly agree with Dennis Brown. @Timwi:, Wikipedia:WikiProject Editor Retention/administrators may or may not be helpful. Subscribing to the Admin newsletter (Wikipedia:Administrators' newsletter/Subscribe) might be helpful in keeping current. Best, --Deepfriedokra (talk) 19:07, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, I fully agree with a warning, as expressed by Primefac's comment below. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 21:03, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by RickinBaltimore

I would suggest that ArbCom take up this case. This edit here concerns me the most: [1]. Any admin, no matter how long they have been one, should understand that notability and sourcing from reliable sources are cornerstones for the existence of any article. If this is an issue of an admin being "out of the loop" with inactivity, then perhaps they need to have the tools removed until they get a better understand of how Wikipedia operates now, compared to 10-12 years ago. If it's a blind disregard for core tenets to Wikipedia, that's ever mor eof a reason to remove the tools. Re-creating a salted page to have it not sourced properly, about a non-notable item shows that they should not have the tools at this time. I would agree to wait to give Timwi a chance to respond, however I urge ArbCom to look into this matter. RickinBaltimore (talk) 18:58, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Black Kite

This can just be dealt with by motion, it doesn't really need to wait for a response. We have obvious tool misuse and competency issues. It's unfortunate, but as we can see by the doubling down at the AfD, Timwi doesn't appear to recognise that they have actually done anything wrong. And - let's be honest here - we're not really losing anything by a desysop; Timwi has used the tools outside their userspace a dozen times in the last ten years. Black Kite (talk) 19:35, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

So Timwi posts a message which effectively amounts to "f*** you, I'm right and you're wrong", and now we need a full case? What a total waste of time. Black Kite (talk) 19:34, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Enterprisey, Primefac, and CaptainEek: You have an admin who almost never uses the tools, certainly not for any useful reasons, and when they do use them, misuse them; when they're called out on that, they don't care, and says "I'm right, so what?" and you admonish them? On that basis, I think you're heading towards never being able to desysop anyone ever again. Black Kite (talk) 22:24, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Alanscottwalker

Looks like we have been here before. Scenarios: 1) a statement by Timwi that really convinces they are now with the program, then admonishment; 2) No statement: suspend and auto-desysop; 3) Timwi doubles down, followed by desysop. Alanscottwalker (talk) 20:28, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Timwi, despite their difficult to believe talk about valuing cooperation, apparently only wants to denigrate people ¨inside Wikipedia¨ and thus NOT cooperate with others, here. Timwi´s world view of ´them and us´ has led them to WP:BATTLE, and their conduct is inconsistent with being a sysop. ~~ Alanscottwalker (talk) 19:21, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever the age of Timwe's account or adminship, some 15 years ago it was understood that: "Wikipedia's administrators are held to a higher standard of behavior than other users, particularly with regard to principles such as assume good faith and no personal attacks. Administrators are expected to keep their cool . . .They should lead by example and serve as a model of the proper editing behavior . . ."[2] It cannot be a surprise that, Timwe has lost trust to fulfill this and other sysop obligations.

So why does the Warn motion not explicitly address the WP:ADMINCOND issues that multiple users have raised for arbitration? Indeed, the motion seems to pretend all that matters is "use of tools" going forward -- "use of tools"? - there were multiple places where Timwe could have ameliorated their misuse of tools, after the "use of tools" here -- it was their conduct that did not stop the drama, and indeed their conduct seemed intent to hurt others. One is reminded of the 'silent standby witness' culpability issue that usually arise in the context of bullying cases; this committee should not act as a silent standby witness, which is what this warn motion suggests it is doing by not openly addressing the ADMINCOND issues brought to it, and thus failing to remedy them. Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:42, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Primfac, In case you think otherwise, my above comment is not about the Warn motion letting him off the hook completely, it's about it and the committee's failure to address all the issues the community has asked the committee to address, and thus the committee's failure to arbitrate -- it's the silent standby culpability the committee is displaying. Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:27, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Z1720

I want to respond to statements by Wugapodes that, "...so maybe some kind of refresher or mentorship would be a viable solution (alone or in combination with e.g. a suspended remedy)?" and "...I would like to hear opinions on the range of responses should we find that this isn't a clear-cut desysop."

Mentorship, refreshers, and lessons are not given to non-admins who wish to consider adminship. RfA candidates are expected to know Wikipedia policies and understand their implementation before given the toolset, and I've observed "oppose" opinions at RfAs after a policy question was answered incorrectly. Non-admins are not given access to the tools, then mentorship and guidance while they use the tools on Wikipedia before their RfA.

Admins are expected to know policies before using the tools, not after. Timwi could have sought mentorship or additional feedback before this incident happened. A mentorship solution from arbcom would show me that admins, once they obtain the toolset, will be given leeway to keep their status while non-admins need to work harder to prove that they should be given the admin permissions. In other words, the standards for an editor to obtain the toolset will be higher than the standards to keep the toolset. IMO, if Timwi wants mentorship, they can voluntarily desysop, obtain mentorship as a regular editor, then re-apply at RfA to show the community that they understand Wikipedia's 2022 policies. Z1720 (talk) 21:06, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Updated comment

I posted the above because I thought that this would be decided by motion, and not a full case, and thus this requests page would be the last opportunity for the community to comment. I think my suspicion was correct, and thus I do not regret stating the above, the pushback it received, and want to take a last opportunity to comment on this issue.

In my opinion, the proposed motion that will pass (entitled "Motion: Timwi warned") will reinforce a system where there are higher expectations for members to join the exclusive admin club than it is for members who are already admins. In other words, it has become harder to become an admin than it is to lose the admin privileges. I think it should be the opposite. I wonder what, if anything, ARBCOM will do to reverse this reality, or if they even want to reverse this. Z1720 (talk) 01:50, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Floq

I just wish this could all be different. I've tried to expand on this a couple of times, and I keep on sounding long-winded, pompous, irrational, or incoherent so I keep deleting it and trying again. But it feels like this ArbCom case was inevitable the second I saw the AN thread, and I wish ... it wasn't. This whole thing feels like it has been inexorably headed in the wrong direction, and I am clueless how to help try to stop it. A friend mentioned the word "grace" to me in passing the other day, and for some reason that word has been resonating with me ever since. I wish Timwi, and people who disagree with Timwi, and WP in general, and the world in general, and I in particular, all had more grace. See? Pompous. At least it's shorter than the other drafts. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:13, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@CaptainEek: My gut says that the desyop motion is unlikely to pass, so maybe this doesn't matter. But if my gut is wrong and there's a chance of it passing, it needs some massaging. First, the crystal clear one: "timely" is an adjective, you can't say "expected to reply timely". Maybe "in a timely manner", or even better, use "promptly"? Also, while I agree with your vote in the "warned" motion, I'm wondering if it caused you to be a little too aggressive in the wording of the "desyopped" motion, to make an even clearer distinction. He's made it clear that he didn't misunderstand the rules, he invoked IAR. "Recalcitrant" is usually used to describe a child's behavior, I don't think it's appropriate. I don't see where he's actually been unreceptive to feedback (he just disagrees with it, but says he'll follow it anyway). While I don't support a desysop myself, I think the rationale of those who do support one are based on alleged previous tool misuse (albeit many years old), and rudeness to those who disagree, neither of which are even mentioned. As written, it's basically a desysop for one isolated misuse of tools, followed by a week's delay before logging in again. If any of your peers are actually going to support a desysop, that motion needs some attention. (If this is intended primarily as a shot across the bow of other "legacy admins", then maybe you could be brutally direct: "Timwi's administrative privileges are revoked pour encourager les autres.") --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:54, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by isaacl

Regarding the suggestion that, while waiting for a response, the community provide statements on a range of reasonable outcomes for a case: I suggest holding off. Too often towers of speculation are built that are an inefficient use of time. If the arbitrators are waiting for feedback from the editor in question, then I think the community should wait too before jumping forward to a potential case's end result. isaacl (talk) 21:23, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I do agree that it's good to look for ways to de-escalate (that's generally what we should be doing at all times). All too often, though, one commenter will say "I think the person intended X, and I think they would be happy to do Y, which is the best thing to do now," another will say "I think they intended a slight variation, X', and I think they would be happy to do Y', so that's the best way forward," a third will say "I think they intended something different K, and would be happy to do L," and everyone start arguing speculatively on what the person's intentions are and what actions they are willing to do. I would still prefer just waiting to hear from the editor in question, since there is no urgency in coming up with ideas. But if anyone wants to discuss possible paths to proceed, it would be great if they could do so without speculating on motivations or what others are willing to do. isaacl (talk) 00:01, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

User:BilledMammal, the administrative action review process is on hold while its operating procedures are under discussion, and so is not ready to be used. isaacl (talk) 00:01, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If an expedited case is opened and the arbitrators agree that given the low edit counts of the editor in question that the scope is limited to the specific incident raised by the filer: I suggest that the arbitrators select specific editors from whom they would like to hear statements as evidence. For all other editors, I suggest the arbitrators encourage them to use an abbreviated format, starting with proposed outcome followed by a concise rationale. isaacl (talk) 21:31, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Girth Summit

Floq's comments about grace are fair, and have resulted in some introspection. I am certain that there are things that I could have done better in my initial approach to Timwi. My thread title, for example, was exceedingly confrontational. I regret how I worded some of that.

The fact remains, however, that I have found their conduct in this affair to be seriously unbecoming. For an admin ('legacy' or otherwise) to berate another admin is one thing; I'm glad they apologised to Acroterion. However, they have yet to extend that courtesy to non-admin Schazjmd: the comments directed towards them, for doing the bare minimum that any competent new page reviewer would do, were outrageous. Acroterion and Moneytrees both advised them that their comments were out of line; they ignored that, but continued to comment on the obviously doomed AfD - multiple times, many hours after the concerns had been raised at their talk.

All that being said, I do think that some fulsome apologies, coupled with undertakings to do better in future, might change things. I would be content for this to ne put on hold for a week or so to see whether Timwi responds. If they fail to do so, I think that the case should be accepted.

Timwi's statement above does not address the comments they directed towards Schazjmd, so far as I can see, which themselves seem to me to run against the counter to WP:ADMINCOND. By all means, anyone can complain about the culture here, but for an admin to criticise an individual non-admin for following well-established normal procedures is not OK. I'd have hoped that after a week or so to reflect, they might at least have been willing to apologise for or at least retract that unfair criticism. Above I've said that the case should be accepted; noting that I would be equally content for this to be dealt with by motion. Girth Summit _(blether) 11:10, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I note that Timwi has now apologised to Schazjmd; I thank them for that, it goes a long way to assuaging my concerns. I see that the prevailing wind down at the bottom of this thread is a warning; I would not argue against that outcome at this point. Girth Summit _(blether) 11:08, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by BilledMammal

As the creation of a salted article is an admin action, perhaps the appropriate place to review it would be XRV, and if appropriate ARBCOM can then be approached with the consensus provided by that discussion as the basis for a case? BilledMammal (talk) 23:33, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to encourage the committee to give Timwi more time to respond; this is an intermittently active editor who is likely to have not seen this yet, and temporarily closing this discussion for a few week to give them time to respond will not harm the encyclopedia. BilledMammal (talk) 12:19, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Just noting that I believe WP:POINT is not the correct guideline for this situation. Timwi wasn't attempting to apply WP:N in a manner that they saw as consistent in order to discredit it; that would have involved nominating articles that they believed to be notable for deletion. Instead, they decided to ignore WP:N and create an article that violated it under a far too broad definition of WP:IAR - I believe the relevant behavioural guideline for this is WP:IDHT. BilledMammal (talk) 23:35, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Ritchie333

As a procedural note, I have closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Battle for Dream Island as "Delete and salt per WP:SNOW". Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 23:39, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with everyone who has said that this case is a bit of an overreaction, and it would probably be a good idea to wait. From looking at the issue, it seems that Timwi is frustrated that Wikipedia policies have evolved the way they have over the last 15 years and is lashing out at people about it. In particular, the charges of tool misuse appear to be restoring a salted and blacklisted article (that nevertheless is not one of the absolute no-nos like vandalism, libel or copyvio) and reacting in a hostile manner below the expected conduct of an administrator. Neither are urgent issues, and while a response from Timwi is required per WP:ADMINACCT, it won't hurt to wait a day or two, provided he is not otherwise being disruptive. I see that ARoseWolf has dropped a helpful note on Timwi's talk page, and I have followed that up with my own thoughts. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 00:52, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Cullen328's views. Although this is not urgent, the case should not ultimately be closed out as "stale". WP:ADMINACCT says "Administrators are expected to respond promptly and civilly to queries about their Wikipedia-related conduct and administrative actions, especially during community discussions on noticeboards or during Arbitration Committee proceedings. Administrators should justify their actions when requested." We can't just ignore policy because something fizzles out owing to a lack of interest. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 10:12, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Now that Timwi has responded (which was pretty much the root of all this), and the odds of any further serious administrator abuse occurring are approximately zero, and he has views that I have empathy with, may I strongly advise that the committee drop the case. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 09:13, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Maxim's comment that a desysop is egregious and out of proportion, and would urge the remaining undecided arbs to oppose for similar reasons. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 20:41, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Acroterion

I'm in the camp of those who would wait a while to see if Timwi responds. I don't see this as a pressing issue, and there are many eyes on their conduct.

I do see a general issue of equity, that someone who has been an administrator for 18 years displays an awareness of policy and expectations for administrators that is substantially short of that which we expect from RfA candidates, or even of moderately experienced editors. It's nice that they apologized to me after I confronted them, but I got the impression that Timwi only did that after they realized that I was an administrator and that I was neither impressed nor intimidated by their initial communication. They did not extend the same courtesy to Schazjmd.

I get the impression that this is a case of IAR as a matter of habit for Timwi, based on their comments, in which they view their actions as an obvious good, worthy of IAR. However, IAR needs to be obvious to everybody, sparingly used, and not employed to further personal agendas. I would like to see that they understand that they are subject to limits, to policy, and to consensus, and that the Wikipedia of 2003 is not the Wikipedia of 2022. Acroterion (talk) 23:42, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by uninvolved user Stifle

I feel that other actions and dispute-resolution short of arbitration ought to be taken first, and we are several country miles short of the level of misuse of tools to merit a desysop. Alanscottwalker's analysis probably covers off what's likely to happen though. (Disclosure of potential conflict of interest: I'm another one of the old-school grumpy sysops in that I passed RFA just about 16 years ago.) Stifle (talk) 09:30, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Wugapodes: If the conduct complained of were proved, appropriate remedies could include admonishment or a very short suspension of sysop privileges (I'm thinking under a month). Stifle (talk) 09:33, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In view of Timwi's statement, I am less invested in what I previously said; it appears he does not wish to edit or act in line with the policies and guidelines of the community, only do what he considers fair and reasonable. That certainly isn't an attitude that passes RFAs these days. Stifle (talk) 14:31, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Robert McClenon

First, I have a comment that, whenever there is a case request concerning a specific editor, some of the statements by non-parties seem to be trying to answer whether sanctions are necessary. That is the wrong question to ask in deciding whether to open a case. The question should be whether there is enough evidence so that ArbCom should conduct a full evidentiary review, and then decide whether sanctions are needed. Asking at this time what the sanctions should be is also the wrong question.

Second, in my opinion, there is enough evidence so that a case should be opened.

Third, the scope of the case should address at least three related issues. The first is misuse of admin privileges in the specific case of Battle for Dream Island, and failure to account for their use of administrative privileges. The second is their battleground attitude, which in itself would not be worth considering a desysop, but would warrant an admonition. The third is what appears to be their ignorance of a fundamental policy, that of notability. Timwi may disagree with the policy, but if so they should disagree with it openly, and should not use administrative tools to undermine it.

Fourth, the issues to be addressed by the ArbCom should include the handling of "legacy administrators" who not only are unfamiliar with the standards for administrators but who seem to be unfamiliar with Wikipedia. Maybe ArbCom should ask the community to address that policy question (and the community may address it as poorly as it has many other questions presented to it by ArbCom). However, ArbCom should first decide whether there is an administrative conduct issue.

It is not necessary for ArbCom to rush to accept this case, but should be planning to accept it. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:35, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Updated Comments on Timwi

I see that User:Timwi has made a statement. It is useful, but it doesn't change the need for some action to be taken. I referred to a battleground attitude. I also said that they had a right to disagree with existing policies and guidelines, but should not use administrative tools against them. They have stated a reasoned disagreement with long-standing policies, but have confirmed a battleground attitude in doing so. At this point my question to Timwi is whether they are willing to resign their administrative status in good standing, and to continue to be an intermittent editor, and be thanked for their previous administrative service. That is the best solution. Otherwise, a case should be accepted, because they have not shown that they can contribute positively in 2022 as an administrator, only as an editor. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:28, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Mcmatter

I have been watching and have been thinking about this situation. I do think this will, unfortunately, need to be ruled on by the Committee. I however think the scope of this case should be fairly narrow in it's application, it should only focus on the potential abuse of the toolkit. The civility and content creation is a matter for another place and is not currently at the ArbCom level of necessity. While this seems like it may be a fast escalation based on a recent event, there have been breaches of the communities trust with the toolkit by an administrator and that should be looked at and definitely within the scope of ArbCom. I do agree with waiting some time to see if Timwi does decide to respond here, however looking at their userpage and their contributions to the AFD I don't have high hopes they will engage in this process. McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 15:58, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Celestina007

Unfortunately, if or not a response by Timwi is made is rather immaterial to their admin status, Per the diffs from Moneytrees I am seeing too many (failure) in knowledge of fundamental policy an admin should be well familiar with, I do not believe I am comfortable with an administrator who is out of touch possessing the toolset. Not participating in the AN is an absolute failure to adhere to WP:ADMINACCT, the civility issues is clearly in variance with WP:ADMINCOND, failure to tell a reliable source from a blatant unreliable user generated source is very lacking in the clue an admin should have as a pre-requisite for RFA(at least this days) In all I am not comfortable with Timwi retaining the bit. They shouldn’t be wielding the tools if they aren’t attempting(trying) to stay in touch. I’m sorry. Celestina007 (talk) 23:54, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Pawnkingthree

This case looks somewhat similar to the Winhunter case, which also centered around a semi-active legacy admin who, when his admin actions were questioned, just decided to stop editing. That case was resolved by motion; that might be the way to go here if Timwi decides not to respond.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 16:14, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Just want to add that I don't think this something that XRV could have handled, as Timwi has a number of other questionable admin decisions in the past such as this blatant use of protection while involved in a content dispute. I agree with Hog Farm above that this appears to be someone who uses the tools only rarely and when they do, tend to invoke IAR. This is something the Committee needs to look at.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 17:33, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Timwi seems to be saying on Ritchie333's talk page here that he cannot comprehend the idea of any article being deleted on notability grounds and that articles should be slapped with a maintenance tag or orphaned instead. Such extreme "inclusionist" views would disqualify anyone seeking an advanced permission such as new page reviewer and are surely incompatible with adminship in 2022. Timwi can hold these views, but acting on them by undeleting ~~one of his friend's articles~~ an article his friend wished to contribute to is unacceptable.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 16:02, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

[Comment moved to user's own section by clerk at 18:02, 7 February 2022 (UTC)]

Timwi, thanks for clarifying. I was responding to (such as a friend of mine) who want to contribute (in this case: by adding an article on BFDI) but are rudely rebuffed because Wikipedians just keep deleting all of their hard work. I guess you meant "adding to." (By the way you are required to respond to other editors only in your own section.)-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 17:51, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Herostratus

[redacted] Herostratus (talk) 07:41, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Cullen328

I was going to remain silent because I do believe that this matter is not a rush. After all, an administrator who edits less than ten times a month, on average, for a ten year period through last December, is not really a bull in a china shop who needs to be controlled immediately. On the other hand, their return to more active editing in January 2022 resulted in significant disruption. It would be unfortunate if this matter remained unresolved due to this administrator's pattern of silence in response to criticism. In six months or a year, we could have another unnecessary spurt of disruption that would waste a lot of editor time. Administrator accountability and relatively prompt communication (with exceptions for illnesses and emergencies) are important expectations for anyone who wants to continue as an administrator. I certainly hold myself to those standards. But what really motivated me to comment was what Herostratus wrote above. He says, "Is Battle for Dream Island notable in the second sense? Yes of course it is." The second sense is that it does not meet the Wikipedia definition of notability but it is considered notable by certain random people on the internet. I had never heard of "Battle for Dream Island" until a few days ago, so how am I supposed to know that it is notable instead of just more internet crud, unless independent reliable sources write about it? Of course, editors are allowed to hold and advocate for an extreme inclusionst philosophy, where Wikipedia would have billions and billions of articles, including ones written about individual blades of grass and individual grains of sand. The bottom line is that Timwi's extreme inclusionism and open rejection of widely accepted notabilty guidelines and source reliability standards is bound to be highly controversial and contrary to broad consensus whenever they use their administrator's tools to advance their contrarian agenda. I am not calling for any specific outcomes or sanctions at this time, although I did call on Timwi to resign voluntarily a few days ago. Other outcomes may also result in a positive result. I recommend that ArbCom accept the case if one week has gone by with no response. Or, set your own time limit, but it should not be "until the next misuse of the tools". As for Mitrulinia, that is a genus and species of fungi, and unlike "upcoming" podcasters, bloggers, livestreamers, rappers, YouTubers and "influencers" and their multitudes of fans, fungal species do not engage in constant and unrelenting promotional editing.Cullen328 (talk) 07:30, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Serial Number 5-4-1-2-9

Timwi has now made a statement; this appears to void the premise of both motions, which are predicated upon them not doing so in X-period of time. They have also stated they won't do *what they are accused of* again; of course, you could still revert to voting on a whole case, but how—vindictive?!—might that look? Surely everyone should be satisfied now :) SN54129 08:30, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by UnitedStatesian

While see that Timwi made a thoughtful response, I think the AC should still take this case, or at least issue one or more relevant motions. It is an opportunity to remind Timwi, and any other administrators who might need such reminding, about the importance of using the tools on behalf of the community. What Timwi did, unsalting and then restoring an article, any article, without any prior community discussion is VERY problematic: no different, from a process point of view, than deleting an article without discussion if none of the speedy criteria apply. UnitedStatesian (talk) 14:45, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by WaltCip

In light of Timwi's statement; avoiding the WP:SME; and realizing that this sort of behavior would be excoriated by anyone who might choose to stand for RfA in this climate, I believe an admonishment is necessary at minimum and a de-sysop if need be. I know there's a tendency to paint those calling for a full apology as wolves baying for blood, but I'm focused on the apparent desire to flout and question established policies in light of personal judgment. This sort of behavior just does not work in this environment. --WaltCip-(talk) 15:01, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I believe ARBCOM is moving forward with a very gentle hand here. I don't oppose the action that they are taking here as long as it is consistent with any future decisions that they make in this space.--WaltCip-(talk) 15:14, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Timtrent

I have read all the foregoing with interest, especially the statement by the accused party.

I do not see this at ArbCom level right now. I feel it could and should be better handled with good humour, with WP:TROUT, and with some guidance. I chose to wait for the statement by the accused party, see the infraction as only Troutworthy, and feel we shoulkd move on. However, a repetition of 'unusual' usage of admin tools would be a fish of a very dfferent colour.

I recommend non acceptance of the case by ArbCom members. Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 17:06, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Usedtobecool

Not knowingly abusing the tools is the bare minimum of expectations and trust we place on administrators. Timwi should resign at WP:BN if they wish to do the least possible amount of damage to Wikipedia, which includes to avoid wasting everyone’s time. Usedtobecool ☎️ 18:53, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by DeCausa

The de-sysop (3rd) motion seems written to fail. Following on from Floquenbeam’s comment on it, the ratonale for desysop isn’t being ‘out of date’ + the recent restoring incident. It’s because (1) there’s a history of using the tools for WP:BATTLE and (2) there’s very little use of the tools at all, whether for BATTLE or for WP’s benefit. (1) is unbecoming of an admin. But more than that, (2) makes (1) egregious - an unacceptable proportion (not a one-off) of whatever use of the tools there has been is unbecoming. What is the benefit of leaving the tools with them? I’m at a loss to see one. DeCausa (talk) 22:21, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by RL0919

I rarely comment on arbitration matters, but after reading Timwi's statement I wanted to add to the voices calling for Arbcom to either take the case or (more likely) deal with this by motion. This case does not involve an ordinary mistake, failure to stay current, gray area, judgment call, or even a typical WP:IAR. Timwi's own statement explains his actions as explicit defiance of multiple long-established policies and guidelines (including in this case WP:N, WP:NWEB, WP:RS, and not least WP:INVOLVED). It is OK for an admin to disagree with the community's consensus or even disparage it as an "echo chamber", but using the tools for an (unannounced) act of rebellion is a different thing. That is definitely not keeping "the trust and confidence of the community". Ideally Timwi should follow up by turning in his mop to complete the protest, but if not then Arbcom should follow through on his behalf. --RL0919 (talk) 00:25, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Lepricavark

It was extremely counterproductive to berate Acroterion over an admin action from 2013, and the subsequent attack on Schazjmd was conduct unbecoming of an administrator. Even if Timwi says he isn't going to do it again, his contempt for our policies and for the editors who adhere to them shows that he is unfit for ongoing adminship. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 03:40, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by GoodDay

Greater minds then mine, can decide as to whether or not Timwi should be stripped of administratorship. My question is this - Is an Arbcom case required to make that decision? GoodDay (talk) 03:49, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Soni

I've followed this case but did not engage yet for multiple reasons, including being personally aware of multiple involved parties. So I prefer to not speak on outcomes, but matters of process. I have faith in the Arbcom as a whole, so will agree with whatever their decision is. During these incidents (and case) though, there are matters that brought me sufficient cause for concern.

I personally find the actions of the community in calling for Timwi to resign borderline WP:HOUNDing and distasteful. As an initial suggestion, it is understandable. As pile ons, including by sitting arbitrators (@Beeblebrox:), after numerous suggestions to that effect have already been made, it feels like pressuring.

If the purpose of these requests is to "avoid drama", then it is a failure of the current system (and not of the involved persons) that the current processes to desysop involve so much drama. If the purpose is to "show that the community consensus is to desysop", then the same consensus can be used to quickly make a motion saying just Timwi is stripped of their administrator priviledges.. Putting the onus on the editor under question to adhere to an assertion of consensus ("Either you do X, or we will.") without actually demonstrating that consensus, feels humiliate-y, whether intended or not.

I am also not convinced of multiple assertions made by the @Izno: proposal. For example, Timwi restored the salted article on Battle for Dream Island without satisfying the concerns related to its deletion implies it was already discussed to death, whereas the article seemed to have been salted without a single AFD discussion. I'm not commenting on if the original actions were becoming of an admin, just that the current proposal does not justifiably demonstrate it. The rest of the proposal also reads similarly, with respect to an implication of "unresponsiveness" without actually setting any standards to what would be considered "responsive enough" from a member who claims to be busy IRL. As Arbitration Committee rulings are often precedent for the rest of the community, I find this motion falling well short in defending its assertions.

As a final general note, I'm not convinced ArbCom should be the sole place for such desysops. I do not believe in the established community expectation of "If enough people ask, you should just give up priviledges without actual consensus", but neither do I agree that every case needs to be handled at the top tier of Wikipedia mediation, when WP:XRV and WP:BN may both be involved instead. More specifically, there ought to be a community process that can potentially desysop admins with sufficient consensus without expecting only self-requesting or taking it to ArbCom. Whether that involves BN or another process is for the community to decide; just that I don't think this place should be the only recourse, and would appreciate future discussions to that measure.

Soni (talk) 12:16, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by North8000

This needs a friendly desysop along with a "thank you for your service". And I would add "thank you for railing against the issues with the system, even though you should not have used your tools to do it." (unless wp:IAR applies to use of the tools) But seriously, given everything, how can this individual possibly act as an admin / what does it say about the criteria to be an admin? Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 12:29, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Kusma

Please do not desysop without a full case with proper consideration of evidence. Beeblebrox is right that there was a significant outcry from the community, with a number of users asking Timwi to just turn in his tools, but it is Arbcom who desysops, not the community, and it should stay that way absent some policy changes. While the community treatment of Timwi was much better behaved than the torches-and-pitchfork mobs of the mid-2000s and should not be dismissed, please do not be hasty and please do not assume that the crowd of people asking for a desysop are right about everything they say. They may well be, but that would be something to discover while hearing a proper case. —Kusma (talk) 17:21, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Axem Titanium

I think an aspect underdiscussed in this case is what an admin represents in the community. User:L235 alluded to this in his statement The issue is that adminship isn't just the tools, right? but I'd like to expand from the perspective of a non-admin. There is an implicit extra weight afforded to admins when participating in the project, in edits and in discussions, no matter how much we try to convince ourselves there isn't. The power imbalance means that when an admin says something, even content-related, even when we believe they are wrong, they must be listened to and engaged with whereas interactions with other editors may be safely ignored under certain circumstances (e.g. when disengaging and walking away from a dispute). You can see a perfect encapsulation of it in this case when Timwi felt the need to extend apologies to fellow-admin User:Acroterion but not the person he directly wronged, the lowly-editor User:Schazjmd (see #Statement by Acroterion and #Statement by Girth Summit).

So it's really not just the tools. Timwi can swear up and down that he'll never misuse the tools or use them against consensus or whatever and I'll even believe him. What I don't trust him not to misuse is his power and authority as an admin in disputes and consensus-building discussions. The tools are just the physical implementation of that power; they're not the power itself. It's really a shame that there are no non-admins on ArbCom so please try to remember back to the first time you had a dispute with someone you realized was an admin and how you subtly or unsubtly changed your behavior as a response. Nevermind the fact that Timwi was effectively never vetted at RFA, try to imagine what it might be like for a newer editor to experience what Schazjmd did. I don't think anyone on the committee disagrees with the assessment that Timwi showed extremely poor judgment in this case. I just don't think that a promise not to misuse the tools, even if kept, adequately addresses the heart of what the abuse in this case represents. Axem Titanium (talk) 05:47, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

For what it's worth, Timwi's recent message to Schazjmd was very well said. Axem Titanium (talk) 10:50, 9 February 2022 (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.

Timwi: Clerk notes

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

Implementation notes

Clerks and Arbitrators should use this section to clarify their understanding of which motions are passing. These notes were last updated by Primefac (talk) 08:16, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Motion name	Support	Oppose	Abstain	Support needed	Notes
Motion: Accept and suspend (1)	2	9	0	Cannot pass	Withdrawn by the arbitrators
Motion: Accept and suspend (2)	2	8	0	Cannot pass	Withdrawn by the arbitrators
Motion: Timwi desysopped	0	1	0	Cannot pass	Withdrawn by the arbitrators
Motion: Timwi desysopped (2)	3	5	0	5
Motion: Timwi warned	10	2	2	·
Motion: expedited case	3	4	0	5

Notes

Timwi: Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter <4/6/0>

Vote key: (Accept/decline/recuse)

Noting that I have seen this, but I am going to give Timwi at least a few more days for the opportunity to respond; all of this kicking off after they go inactive is either them hoping it will blow over or they are actually away and unable to respond to messages, and for the moment I am assuming good faith that it is the latter given that it has only been 48 hours. Primefac (talk) 16:27, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not all the way there, but I'm most of the way towards declining based on Timwi's statement. Will need to mull it over for a bit. Primefac (talk) 10:00, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Decline in favour of a motion. Primefac (talk) 19:05, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Personally, I'd like to hear from Timwi - this is all seeming a little rushed and a bit of a mountain out of a molehill. The article is at AfD and fairly clear what's happening there. I understand people clamouring for a legacy admin to hand in the tools, but I'm not sure this rises to the level of Arbcom action. Happy to hear statements disagreeing though, and certainly willing to reconsider that opinion. Worm^TT(talk) 16:29, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
We're coming up on a week since the incident and this case request has been open a few days without response from Timwi. I thought I'd elucidate on my thoughts at this point. The initial action and use of admin tools to restore and gut a salted article from years ago does not concern me. There is a little information on the periphery of the article, such as a high number of drafts, sockpuppetry and significant recreation which should make an individual admin think twice about re-creating, but I trust our admins to make such judgements. I also trust our deletion processes to be able to manage such a re-creation if in error. If this was a regular occurrence then there may be an issue, but as a one off, no, I'm not concerned.

The manner of the comments associated with the undeletion, I'm unhappy with, though it should be noted that Timwi did apologise to one involved. Yes, he should have gone further or indeed not made the comments at all. Again, I wouldn't see this as a massive issue if it was dealt with by Timwi. Not responding to an AN thread (which looked like this when he logged off) is not brilliant - but equally, it could be argued that he did respond to it. It was raised at 6am UTC, his next edit at 3pm was to apologise. We have a potential breach of ADMINACCT, but equally, at that point, not one I would be excessively worried about. Even by the time this case was raised, I believed we were at "mountain out of molehill" area.

Unfortunately, as Timwi has gone on to ignore this case too - making no edits since 30 Jan. There could be valid reasons for that, but it is hard to argue that ADMINACCT is not being breached. There is certainly a route forward for Timwi, through discussion - a commitment to refamiliarise himself with some of our policies and respond more promptly to queries. But if he's still absent by the end of the weekend, I believe the committee will have to act. I empathise with Timwi, as this entire process will have been unpleasant for him, but I'd like to be clear that discussion is the best way to handle this sort of thing, as ignoring the problem won't make it go away.

Similar cases have occurred in the past, Winhunter is mentioned above, but also Schuminweb and CarlosSuarez46 come to mind. I do think we should be doing something similar if nothing happens before Monday. We'll have to think about how we want to do that, the risks that would be involved and the message we're sending to Timwi and the wider community if we come to that, but I hope that explains my current thinking. Worm^TT(talk) 12:03, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Timwi, thank you for responding. As you can see from my colleagues votes, one of our main policies for administrators these days is Adminship Accountablity. As you can see there, it is required that you monitor subsequent discussions and respond regarding your actions - you should be notified of any such discussions on your talk page, and I can see you were. If you do not believe you can hold yourself to this standard, I do request that you go to the Bureaucrat's noticeboard and request that your administrator right is removed. I'm sorry to say that the years of power imbalance between administrators and non-administrators has meant that there is a responsibility inherent in the role. I will repeat this point, and some notes about Arbcom on your talk page.

Regarding this case, I'm leaning towards acceptance, based on the statement - and will be watching Timwi's next statements. Inclusionism and deletionism are mindsets that have largely fallen by the wayside these days, and we have more of a balance with our Notability criteria. The recent debacle around the Article Rescue Squadron shows how out of step the mindset is with the majority of our community. Even if your statement was correct - the way to alter the community mindset was not to recreate an article from years ago and complain at the individual who deleted it. I do have some questions I'd like answered though - Timwi, how did you come across this article? Had you discussed it with anyone on- , or off-, wiki before taking the action? Worm^TT(talk) 08:55, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- [Comment moved to #Statement by Timwi by clerk at 18:07, 7 February 2022 (UTC)]
Having mulled on this and discussed the matter with Timwi off-wiki, I am afraid that there is no simple solution here and the best thing will be to open an expedited case, per Kevin's suggestion below. Accept Worm^TT(talk) 10:36, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm also in no rush here and am willing to wait a short time more to hear from Timwi. However, I will note that Timwi's last edit is 20:13, January 30. The AN thread started at 06:42, 30 January. The first userpage message did happen shortly after Timwi's last edit *(20:34, 30 January). So they were aware, at least, of the AN thread before they went inactive. Barkeep49 (talk) 16:32, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
As I noted above, Timwi edited the AfD, 9 edits at two distinct times[3], after they had received notice of the AN thread on their talkpage[4]. As such I think it reasonable to suggest Timwi is aware or ought to have been aware of that discussion. I hope to hear from Timwi soon, even if just to ask for a (reasonable) extension to respond. If we continue to hear nothing, I think waiting a week for a response is a reasonable length of time to wait. I'm marking the week from the AN thread rather than the filing of the case, because under WP:ADMINACCT even if there was no case Timwi would still be expected to respond to the concerns. So if we don't hear from Timwi by late in the day (UTC time) on Feb 5, I plan to propose a couple of options which would see us would accept the case and suspend it for a period of time. But I might feel differently if we do hear from Timwi. Barkeep49 (talk) 20:18, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Timwi thanks for your comments. Can you tell me what it is you "will not repeat"? Barkeep49 (talk) 10:06, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Timwi for your answer to my question. Assuming we're going to do something (which I think is a safe assumption given the comments of my fellow arbs) I am curious - do you have any preference between a motion and a full case? Barkeep49 (talk) 18:09, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

[Comment moved to #Statement by Timwi by clerk at 18:07, 7 February 2022 (UTC)]
- Decline. Given the statements here my inclination was that we could handle this by motion - there's not a ton of evidence to examine by all accounts. I'd be more inclined to open a case if Timwi wanted that full process. But since they've indicated they'd prefer a motion to spend less of the community's time on this (which matches my reasoning for why I was inclined to think motion), I'd prefer we resolve it that way. So this is a decline to a full case but with the expectation I will be support a different motion to resolve this (in other words I think something should be done, just that the something is a motion not a case). Barkeep49 (talk) 19:03, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I am still reading and considering community feedback before voting for one of the motions below. In reviewing statements made, the only evidence I've seen presented of a pattern of problems with deletion (or undeletion) was in Hog Farm's statement. Both of those CSDs appear valid under G8 ("Redirects to targets that never existed or were deleted") or G6 (uncontroversial maintenance). In fact beyond deletion, I don't believe any concerns have been presented about Timwi's tool use/conduct before this incident. If this is correct, that will be an important factor in how I choose to vote. Barkeep49 (talk) 21:45, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
As others have said, I've watched this develop on AN, and am willing to wait a few days for Timwi to respond. - Donald Albury 17:39, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"Administrators are expected to respond promptly" but, given Timwi's general activity levels, a couple of days doesn't seem unreasonable. I'm sure most of us would need a period of reflection given the response Timwi's actions have brought upon him. Cabayi (talk) 18:46, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I invite a thoughtful statement from Timwi, which hopefully will defuse this matter. I'm inclined to give him a week; I understand just how much time and energy a well crafted Wiki response takes, not to mention off-wiki commitments. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 18:48, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I would also like to give time for Timwi to reply because I don't think there's any need to rush this. While we wait, I'd appreciate community statements on what the range of reasonable outcomes for a case could be. A desysop is one option, but it's not always the best tool for the situation, and editors are already suggesting other potential solutions. RoySmith wonders whether and admonishment could be sufficient, and Deepfriedokra suggests a suspended remedy if an explanation isn't forthcoming. A major issue being discussed is whether Timwi has kept up with current policy, so maybe some kind of refresher or mentorship would be a viable solution (alone or in combination with e.g. a suspended remedy)? It may turn out that none of those are necessary or appropriate, but given Dennis Brown's statement that this seems to be "an edge case in some ways" I would like to hear opinions on the range of responses should we find that this isn't a clear-cut desysop. — Wug·a·po·des 19:49, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- I've appreciated the discourse so far. Given Isaacl's statement I do want to clarify that I'm not interested in pre-judging the issue and agree that we shouldn't be blindly speculating. For myself, I view the committee as a dispute resolution venue, and so it is helpful to know what kinds of resolutions are available to us. The statement by Z1720, for example, does a good job of pointing out why alternative remedies may cause more tension within the community. Given how quickly this has escalated, I think taking stock of where everyone is at and looking for ways to deescalate could be an effective use of time while we wait for a response. — Wug·a·po·des 23:28, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Pretty sure anyone who knows me even a little bit will be aware of my thoughts on "legacy admins" who claim they are "just using commons sense" when they misuse their tools, but I also am willing to wait a few days for a response before proceeding. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:52, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You don't need the umpteenth person here to repeat "let's wait", but: let's wait. Opabinia regalis (talk) 07:49, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- @Timwi: thanks for responding. I agree with WTT above that if you believe the current understanding of the admin role has diverged from what you're comfortable doing, the most straightforward resolution would be resigning.
- More generally, although many pixels have been spilled here about all the usual "out-of-touch legacy admin!!" talking points, the comments in and around the AfD read to me not as someone who's too out of touch to know the current policies, but as someone who disagrees with them and is making a point (or possibly a WP:POINT) about it. I think that's consistent with Timwi's statement here. We might still consider this incompatible with adminship - maybe even more so - but I think a lot of that commentary is not quite on the mark. Opabinia regalis (talk) 10:12, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Herostratus: Tone down your statement, please. I don't know why you thought that writing it was a good idea, or supports your cause in any way. It is unacceptable to refer by implication to the filer of this case request (and seemingly others in the same "cohort") as a "rigid drone", or to further needlessly personalize the dispute. Frankly, it falls far below the standard of conduct I expect of an editor of your standing. KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 05:36, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
For the information of the community, I'm planning to wait a few days to see if Timwi plans on resigning before voting here. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 00:38, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Accept In light of recent events. Beeblebrox (talk) 09:14, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- It was late here whan I changed my vote so I kept it brief, but to be clear, I still think this can dealt with by a simple motion, just not the two we have now. We can accept the case and resolve it by motion if the committee feels that is the best path forward, and the statement by Timwi does not give me any confidence. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:10, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Decline per Timwi's statement. Certainly a significant screw-up was made, and I'm not denying that, but I'll take him at his word. (Also strongly in favor of a motion to admonish.) Enterprisey (talk!) 09:54, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
~~Accept~~ - ADMINACCT sideshow is over, we can focus on the core issues of the request. Cabayi (talk) 11:05, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Persuaded to decline in favour of proceeding via motion, though I'm not yet decided on which of the two new motions is more appropriate. Timwi, your claimed intent to break the echo chamber could have taken place at Wikipedia:Village pump which has been around since 2004. Why did you feel that quietly & contrary to established policy using the tools on behalf of a friend was a preferable route towards reform? Do you plan on keeping abreast of current policy? Cabayi (talk) 21:19, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly prefer, at this point, to resolve this case request by motion. Given the paucity of edits and logged actions, I doubt there is any major detail that a full case would uncover that we don't know of yet. Realistically speaking, we need to decide whether to admonish or desysop (we could also decline outright but my reading of the room suggests that it's not a likely scenario). Maxim_(talk) 15:22, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Accept but largely agree with Maxim that I'm open to the right motion. Timwi's statement does not read to me like someone who particularly wants to use the tools, but since he isn't resigning them, here we are. --BDD (talk) 16:09, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Accept , also preferring to resolve by motion. - Donald Albury 16:55, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Decline I'm hard-pressed to see what a full case would bring. We appear to have all the evidence already, and Timwi is not eager for a full case. Thus I think it is best to resolve by motion. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 20:03, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Decline per Maxim/Eek. --Izno (talk) 23:42, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Motion: Accept and suspend (1)

Extended content

The "Timwi" request for arbitration is accepted. This case will be opened but suspended for a period of three months, during which time Timwi will be temporarily desysopped.

If Timwi should return to active editing on the English Wikipedia during this time and request that this case be resumed, the Arbitration Committee shall unsuspend the case by motion and it will proceed through the normal arbitration process. Such a request may be made by email to arbcom-enwikimedia.org or at the clerks' noticeboard.

If such a request is not made within three months of this motion, this case shall be automatically closed, and Timwi shall remain desysopped. Timwi may regain the administrative tools at any time only via a successful request for adminship.

For this motion there are 15 active arbitrators. With 0 arbitrators abstaining, 8 support or oppose votes are a majority.

Support

First choice. For me, it's not about prejudging the outcome. As I documented in my comment above Timwi knew, or should have known, that there was an Administrator's Noticeboard thread when they made 9 edits over two periods of time. Regardless of the merits of the rest of the case against him, this is, for me, its own Administrator's policy violation. Specifically it's a violation of WP:ADMINACCT ("Administrators are expected to respond promptly and civilly to queries about their Wikipedia-related conduct and administrative actions, especially during community discussions on noticeboards or during Arbitration Committee proceedings", emphasis added). If an administrators stays and participates they can keep the toolset while the case is ongoing. But if an administrator knowingly decides to depart in these circumstances, they are still entitled to a full hearing on the substance of the case against them but they lose the benefit of keeping the tools in the interim. Cases work best when the parties participate, and so institutionally I want us to create incentives to participate. Barkeep49 (talk) 16:55, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Strike given Timwi's return. Barkeep49 (talk) 10:05, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ADMINACCT on AN for which Timwi was still active, then ADMINACCT on this case request for which there is a notional possibility that Timwi is unaware. I was asked this question in ACE2021, and this is the response I advocated. Cabayi (talk) 19:00, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Strike Cabayi (talk) 11:02, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

~~While Timwi may return and satisfy concerns about the use of the tools, I am more comfortable temporarily desysopping them. - Donald Albury 19:25, 6 February 2022 (UTC)~~[reply]

Strike - Donald Albury 14:39, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

~~First choice. --BDD (talk) 19:28, 6 February 2022 (UTC)~~[reply]

~~Equal first choice. KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 19:49, 6 February 2022 (UTC)~~[reply]

Slight preference as second choice. --Izno (talk) 20:22, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I personally feel the distinction between the two options is largely academic in that in the end the effect is the same if they do not return and explicitly ask us to run the full case. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:58, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Only choice as I don't think the differences between these motions are minor. I'm in agreement with Barkeep and Cabayi. The community has presented a prima facie argument for sanctions which Timwi has not responded to. In the absence of a rebuttal, it is entirely reasonable for us to act on the prima facie evidence (see my ACE2021 answer: If the evidence is reliable and the adverse party offers no rebuttal, what is a finder of fact to do but rely on the evidence?). The community has already satisfied its burden of providing a viable case, so any subsequent hearing should place the burden on Timwi to demonstrate (1) why the community allegations are unreliable and (2) why his failure to comply with ADMINACCT should not justify a desysop in this situation. This burden is not insurmountable; perhaps we are missing additional context or some personal emergency justified a weeks long absence. If Timwi returned and presented this kind of evidence, I would consider reinstating, but given what's been presented to us so far, I don't see why we should allow Timwi to have (unusable) administrator privileges until we are given a good reason to reinstate. — Wug·a·po·des 00:37, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Moot given the response. — Wug·a·po·des 18:56, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Everyone is entitled to a fair review of the allegations against them, but they do have to participate in the process as a condition of maintaining administrator privileges. For what it's worth, I don't think the case here is all that strong (it's more a case for adminship term limits than anything else), but we'll wait until the case actually opens before judging this issue on the merits. – bradv^🍁 00:44, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

Noting that Timwi has returned to activity, so I oppose suspending. Worm^TT(talk) 08:42, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Per WTT. Also @ArbCom: with a ping because this is technically passing, but with the exception of WTT and myself I don't think anyone is conscious to update their answers. Primefac (talk) 09:01, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Per the above. Beeblebrox (talk) 09:09, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Procedurally, per above. Enterprisey (talk!) 09:54, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm conscious! :p But it only sort of helps because I hadn't voted yet before Timwi's post. Opabinia regalis (talk) 09:59, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Per above. - Donald Albury 14:39, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Procedurally. Maxim_(talk) 15:22, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
BDD (talk) 16:02, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Procedurally. Izno (talk) 19:31, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain

Motion: Accept and suspend (2)

Extended content

The "Timwi" request for arbitration is accepted. This case will be opened but suspended for a period of three months.

If Timwi should return to active editing on the English Wikipedia during this time and request that this case be resumed, the Arbitration Committee shall unsuspend the case by motion and it will proceed through the normal arbitration process. Such a request may be made by email to arbcom-enwikimedia.org or at the clerks' noticeboard. Timwi is instructed not to use his administrator tools in any way until the closure of the case; doing so will be grounds for immediate removal of his administrator userrights.

If such a request is not made within three months of this motion or if Timwi resigns his administrative tools, this case shall be automatically closed, and Timwi shall be desysopped. If tools are resigned or removed, in the circumstances described above, Timwi may regain the administrative tools at any time only via a successful request for adminship.

For this motion there are 15 active arbitrators. With 0 arbitrators abstaining, 8 support or oppose votes are a majority.

Support

~~Second choice to 1 for the reasons explained above. Barkeep49 (talk) 16:55, 6 February 2022 (UTC)~~[reply]

Strike given Timwi's return. Barkeep49 (talk) 10:05, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

~~Such a clear second choice that I'm tempted to say oppose, but ultimately, this would still be a satisfactory outcome. --BDD (talk) 19:28, 6 February 2022 (UTC)~~[reply]

~~Equal first choice. KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 19:49, 6 February 2022 (UTC)~~[reply]
Slight preference as first choice. --Izno (talk) 20:22, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see the point of telling someone not to use admin tools while leaving them technically available. That's like banning someone without blocking their account. Second choice. – bradv^🍁 00:46, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

Noting that Timwi has returned to activity, so I oppose suspending. Worm^TT(talk) 08:42, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Per WTT. Primefac (talk) 09:01, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Per above. Beeblebrox (talk) 09:11, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Procedurally, per above. Enterprisey (talk!) 09:54, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Per above. Opabinia regalis (talk) 09:59, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Procedurally. Maxim_(talk) 15:22, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
BDD (talk) 16:02, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Procedurally. --Izno (talk) 19:31, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain

The more I think about this the more it seems basically the same. "You're still an admin, but you can't use your tools until the case is over" vs "you're temporarily not an admin until the case is over" seems an unimportant distinction to me. As I generally prefer more decisive action I'm supporting the first one and not voting on this one. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:01, 6 February 2022 (UTC)</> curcumstnces have changed. Beeblebrox (talk) 09:11, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The distinction to me is that the one you have to argue from a position where you have the tools (whether you can use them or not) and the other you don't, so you're arguing to get them back totally. --Izno (talk) 21:27, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Motion: Timwi desysopped

No arbs support this; please uncollapse if desired. KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 00:36, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The "Timwi" request for arbitration is resolved as follows:

Administrators are expected to be aware of current policies, procedures, and guidelines. They are also expected to reply in a timely manner to complaints and be receptive to feedback. Timwi has failed to meet the standards for administrator conduct by showing a deeply outdated understanding of the rules and showing a slow and recalcitrant response to feedback. Further, Timwi misused the administrator toolset by restoring a blacklisted and salted article based on unreliable sources.

Accordingly, Timwi (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)'s administrative privileges are revoked. He may apply to have them reinstated at any time via a new request for adminship.

For this motion there are 15 active arbitrators. With 0 arbitrators abstaining, 8 support or oppose votes are a majority.

Support

Only choice. Timwi's attitude is not compatible with holding advanced permissions. Their rejection of Wikipedia policy in favor of their own personal preference is simply not acceptable, and I see no indication that will change. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:26, 7 February 2022 (UTC) striking, to support below proposal by Izno. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:05, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

Per Floq. Izno (talk) 23:19, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain

Discussion by Arbitrators

As Floq points out, not exactly the best worded motion. I was asked to expand it a bit, and did, but I do not support a desysop so I encourage any who would support a desysop to amend the wording as necessary. My initial version was just a straight desysop without reasoning, since a desysop appears to be on the table as an option. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 22:15, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Motion: Timwi desysopped (2)

The "Timwi" request for arbitration is resolved as follows:

Administrators are expected to (1) exercise care in the use of their tools; (2) behave in a respectful, civil manner; and (3) be accountable to the community for their actions. Timwi has failed to meet these expectations in the following ways recently: (1) Timwi restored the salted article on Battle for Dream Island without satisfying the concerns related to its deletion. (2) Timwi became unresponsive to the community when it became concerned about the restoration. (3) When Timwi became responsive a week later, he claimed to understand the concerns before performing item 1 and then did them anyway. Less recently, Timwi has (1) used the tools in an INVOLVED manner and (2) made out-of-process deletions, while (3) being uncivil in their responses to community concerns at those times.

Between these events, Timwi has showed a pattern of behavior not becoming of an administrator.

Accordingly, Timwi (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)'s administrative privileges are revoked. He may apply to have them reinstated at any time via a new request for adminship.

For this motion there are 15 active arbitrators. With 1 arbitrator abstaining, 8 support or oppose votes are a majority.

Support

As proposer. --Izno (talk) 23:34, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The wording here is more specific and clear than the other motion. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:06, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Equal first choice (along with the expedited case). KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 06:13, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This is now an empty gesture, but I have decided after much thought to come down for desysopping. I realize that this would be moving the line for what actions qualify for a desysop, and, as has been abundantly pointed out, this case revolves around a single incident, but I am disturbed by the lack of engagement with current policies and quidelines that Timwi showed in the incident in question, and his willingness to use his status as an admin to ignore community norms. I do not believe that admins are perfect (I have certainly made mistakes with the tools), but I believe that admins must act to support the best interests of the community. - Donald Albury 13:13, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

There is too much behaviour and history to unpack in this motion, none of which has Timwi or other editors had a chance to rebut. I'm still thinking on the alternatives, but I oppose this motion as written. Worm^TT(talk) 07:39, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Excessive considering this being a single incident. Maxim_(talk) 15:14, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This is not totally unreasonable, but identifies as a pattern what I see as several aspects of the same incident. Not confidence inspiring, but neither does it warrant a desysop on its own. --BDD (talk) 21:01, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate the desire lately to streamline our processes to avoid full cases over relatively small sets of facts, but this is too much like a case decision in motion form. Maybe we should be considering a speedy/mini case format as an official option. For now, I don't think this is the right outcome, or the right structure for it. Opabinia regalis (talk) 07:14, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Per my statements elsewhere, this would be an overreaction for a single event, even if it is well below the standards we would expect of an administrator. Primefac (talk) 08:15, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Desysopping should be a last resort. More poetic thoughts can be read here [5] CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 16:21, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Per OR's ranking below, Warning > short case > desysopped (2). Cabayi (talk) 17:18, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This should not ordinarily be done without an actual case, and I don't see grounds for an emergency desysopping here. – bradv^🍁 19:50, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain

I have my own concerns about the specific wording that prevent me from supporting, but I disagree with those in opposition. I agree with Donald that "I am disturbed by the lack of engagement with current policies and quidelines that Timwi showed in the incident in question, and his willingness to use his status as an admin to ignore community norms." Disrupting Wikipedia to make a point by using advanced permissions to knowingly violate policy is, I think, a clear line in the sand. While I support finding remedies short of a desysop, I don't believe we should shy away from it either. Intentional tool misuse, even once, is sufficient grounds for revocation of sysop permissions (in my opinion). A desysop may not always be the right outcome, but as the only body that can effect it, I would rather not rule it out too quickly. I worry that we are too quick to rely on procedural concerns which protects administrative conduct that would get other permissions quickly revoked, and this has the long-term, structural effect of creating a culture which protects misconduct. — Wug·a·po·des 02:33, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion by Arbitrators

I think this is sufficiently different from CaptainEek's proposal that it should be its own proposal. Izno (talk) 23:18, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I currently intend to support this motion, but if the concerns of arbitrators can be assuaged by holding an expedited full case, I would be OK with that too. KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 16:07, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Well, this motion appears to include principles, findings and remedies, all in one, with no diffs and no wider consideration given to options and solutions. This desysop motion would be more binding than a Level II, where the individual has the option of requesting a full case - and without the due diligence and thought that goes into a case, I'm simply uncomfortable about the whole motion. Worm^TT(talk) 16:54, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I have an issue with "include principles, findings and remedies, all in one", which is precisely that the below motion doesn't. It just skips the rationale entirely and says 'knock it off'. If we want them to knock it off, we should say what it is that they should stop doing and why what they are doing is bad for them to do.

I also have an issue with none of which has Timwi or other editors had a chance to rebut. The user of interest, after we (the community and ArbCom, such that we even dropped two motions to vote on) waited for a week, finally decided to respond to the concerns raised. Included among them were the concerns listed in the community statements above. Except he chose not to. That's his decision, but that's a good way to further the issue of ADMINCOND which is one of the stated issues.

As for cases/motions, as Maxim states above, we're pretty sure we have all the relevant facts. Regardless, I was uncomfortable rewriting the motion at all, because I think desysop cases should have the opportunity of the full case. But the rest of the committee does not seem interested in one as evidenced by the numbers of committee members declining to take a case at the time, so I wrote it and then supported it, because I see a warning as insufficient relative to the behavior (both the general activity and the specific pattern related to the misuse of tools).
I am happy to entertain alternatives, but you also have not provided one in your opposition. How would this motion need to change for you to support a motion desysopping this user? I doubt anything will with the concerns you have, but maybe you can find a way to needle that thread. ;) Izno (talk) 19:18, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Not only does the warning motion not need to be quite as precise, it also needs to be quite vague to reduce the chance of the "probation" part being talked out of on technicalities. I think it's quite clear from this arbitration case, and the direct messages Timwi has had what behaviour needs to change.

Putting a whole decision in a single motion in this manner, without the process of a case, appears to me to be a very unfair way of doing things. I know that cases are onerous, but they allow the subject and the community to discuss each piece of evidence, to document what is being considered and for the arbitrators to give comments on each part of the decision. It's not simply about whether Timwi is willing to defend himself, there's a much bigger picture, and having the whole decision in a motion should only be used if there is no chance of the facts being in dispute.

Are we certain of the facts? These sorts of things should be answered at a case, not a case request - so at this point, they're rhetorical.
What policy did he breach by undeleting a salted article - Creation Protection is used to stop repeated creation against community consensus, but consensus can change. Was it inadvisable, yes, as has been shown by the following AfD - but was it so inadvisable that Timwi should have absolutely known not to. In other words, was this a clear violation of ADMINCOND or was it a decision that people disagreed with.

Does ignoring an AN with half a dozen comments count as being unresponsive for ADMINACCT purposes? Does being away for a week afterwards? Is it enough to desysop over?

Timwi clearly breached ADMINCOND with his comments about two editors - would that be sufficient to desysop over?

But Less recently, Timwi has (1) used the tools in an INVOLVED manner and (2) made out-of-process deletions, while (3) being uncivil in their responses to community concerns at those times. is the line that put me to oppose the motion and make the comments I made. It's a lot to unpack and I cannot accept that these patterns and historical actions are so clear cut that they should be included here. If they are true, then they should be investigated in a case - and that line is the reason I've voted to accept the case above. I also have equal preference to close with a warning. In my eyes, those are the two options. Worm^TT(talk) 11:45, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
We have certain brightlines which when crossed run the likely risk of a desysop. Examples of these bright lines include, but are not limited to, wheel warring and reversing an ArbCom block. Unsalting and creating a page is not a brightline violation as I understand it. And yet we still have a number of people who editors who I respect who feel Timwi should be desysopped for this and for their subsequent comments about it.
In reading the comments of those who are suggesting we desysop, it strikes me that a major reason for this stance, sometimes made explicit other times only there implicitly, is that we have an admin with a loose connection to the community and who isn't making much use of the tools who has now done something against policy. It seems clear, from my read, that some number of these reactions would be different if the admin who had done the undeletion and said what was said had been someone who was regularly active.
I think our activity policy is way too generous. I am not at all convinced that we benefit enough from the El C and PMCs of the world (as two prominent editors who hung onto admin through a period of lengthy inactivity and then returned to be highly productive editors and admin) to justify a large number of barely connected editors who might return and cause disruption, as what happened here. And this is without discussing the gross inequity of what standards were used to appoint admin in the past versus what we use now. But we have the activity policy we have and it strikes me that there's some contradiction in a case about an editor using their rights to act on what policy should be rather than what policy is for me to desysop based on what is basically the same reasoning. That is I can have any opinion I want on policy (and do) but I am expected to act with-in that policy even as I might seek for it to change. Based on initial comments, it seemed to me that Timwi was going to remain a risk of doing some sort of POINTY action again in the future (as this whole process is POINTY in my reading) and so on that basis - the idea that I clearly going to stop future problems - I'd have felt good desysopping. But Timwi has specifically promised to not disrupt the project through use of the toolset in the future and the motion below gives a credible warning that something as quick as a Level II desysop or desysop via motion at ARCA could be in the cards should there be renewed disruption which seems more appropriate to a single misuse of the toolset and some intemperate (and inflammatory) comments. So I am in no huge rush to cast my vote for either of these motions, but at the moment don't see a way to supporting this one. Barkeep49 (talk) 20:15, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The issue is that adminship isn't just the tools, right? Many non-tool actions are at least a bit administrative in nature (there's a huge power imbalance, maybe the tools "could" come into it, etc.). The administrator in question said in this very case request about members of the community enforcing current community norms, Not only did it [the admin's action] not prompt anyone in the discussion to think for themselves, it even landed me in arbitration and now I’m being desysopped to maintain the echo chamber. Non-administrators who follow community norms shouldn't have to deal with administrators – and the accompanying power dynamic – who insult them for following the norms.

Here's another angle. There are some admin actions that are pretty clear-cut, but there are many that involve judgment calls and a sensitivity to not just the nuances of policy but also the unwritten norms of the community, which shift over time. WP:TOOLMISUSE requires administrators to generally avoid breaching communal norms, which implies that administrators must know what those norms are. It seems like you're basing your inclination against desysopping on Timwi's pledge to avoid using the tools against policy in the future. For me, Timwi's conduct here doesn't satisfy me that he's able to credibly commit to that. He hasn't shown enough of a sense of the present unwritten norms to know when he's stepped over the line, or be willing to listen to others tell him differently.

I deeply respect the views of anti-desysop arbitrators, and I won't lose sleep if the warning motion passes – I've not decided where I stand in the end. I just hope to give words to what I sense as nervousness from community members who would much prefer a desysop. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 21:10, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The comment you've quoted is why I was headed towards desysop and feeling good about it. I agree that comment is unacceptable. But is that comment so unacceptable that they've crossed the a brightline and on that basis alone deserve to be desysopped? Or is it because they made a single improper tool use and then made an unacceptable comment and so together they're now across the line? I think the answer is not and you don't seem to think it is either. Instead you're suggesting that Timwi doesn't know where this line is, where as from what I see I think they very intentionally choose to step over it in order to make a POINT. What poor judgement that was indeed. And unbecoming of an admin. But it doesn't suggest someone who doesn't understand the norms. That thinking seemed like reasonable speculation before we got the comment you've highlighted and learned about the POINT they were trying to make. Barkeep49 (talk) 21:28, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's possible for one person to both engage in POINTy behavior and show a lack of understanding of the current community norms (as required of administrators by policy), and I would argue that's what's happened here. The POINTy behavior was clear, but it's also apparent that Timwi deeply misunderstood how the community now views policy – this is clear from statements like It did indeed take a few days for me to notice that my singular action on a single talk page has stirred up this process, which I didn’t expect. KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 06:18, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Motion: Timwi warned

The "Timwi" request for arbitration is resolved as follows:

The Committee recognizes Timwi's long service, and encourages his continued editing. However, Timwi (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) is warned that the use of the administrator toolset must conform to the policies set by the community. He should especially take note of WP:ADMINACCT, and remember that the toolset is not to be used to further content or policy disputes. The Committee will consider any further misuse of the toolset within a two-year period to be immediate cause for opening de-sysop proceedings.

Enacted – Amortias (T)(C) 22:06, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

For this motion there are 15 active arbitrators. With 2 arbitrators abstaining, 7 support or oppose votes are a majority.

Support

Timwi raises a valuable concern: our internal policy of notability often does not square with our readers conceptions of it. I however cannot condone the use of the admin toolset to further that long running inclusionist/deletionist dispute. Though a bit more defensive than we usually expect, I cannot fault Timwi for having a strong opinion on this divisive topic. ArbCom of course cannot and should not make a content ruling here. But we can condemn the misuse of the admin toolset. It is no longer the heyday of the vigilante admin. I think this warning provides an effective control on Timwi's admin actions, while giving him a chance to refresh himself on current policy. It also keeps him as a valuable contributor. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 21:07, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This is about as strong an admonishment we can give while still giving Timwi the opportunity to demonstrate that they can use their tools appropriately, even if they ultimately do not agree with all of our policies. That is, after all, what being an administrator is all about. Primefac (talk) 21:31, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Seems about fair to me, and per CaptainEek. Enterprisey (talk!) 22:18, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I can accept this outcome. Worm^TT(talk) 10:36, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This isn't a recall process - the community rejected the RFC proposing one last year. On the facts under consideration Timwi accepts that he did wrong and has undertaken to use the tools in compliance with policy in future. This motion accepts that undertaking and provides some backup to that. Cabayi (talk) 11:11, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Only choice. To desysop over a single incident would, to me, need a fairly egregious incident, and what has happened here does not rise to that level. A warning to heed community norms in the future is sufficient. Maxim_(talk) 15:14, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I echo Primefac's comments below in full. --BDD (talk) 20:58, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This works for me. Per Maxim, basically. Opabinia regalis (talk) 07:16, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Per my comments above [6][7] and per Primefac. Barkeep49 (talk) 15:37, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This is about the minimum we can do in this scenario, and the maximum I would support without an actual case. This warning also puts the ball firmly back in Timwi's court to either get in line with community consensus, or resign the tools. – bradv^🍁 19:47, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

This is insufficient for the pattern of contributions and the displayed lack of knowledge of our current expectations of administrators. Izno (talk) 23:34, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't find Timwi's statement here compelling at all and believe this is just kicking the can down the road. It is also clear to me that there was significant outcry from the community, with a number of users asking Timwi to just turn in his tools, but, despite saying they would prefer the road of less drama, they have so far declined to do so. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:11, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain

Unhappy with this but as I wrote above I won't lose sleep over this. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 18:01, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I would prefer more clarity on what "de-sysop proceedings" are and how we are to take notice of "tool misuse". Will we take notice, sua sponte, and propose a motion on our own accord? Will community members need to submit another case request (and will we decline a desysop motion without a case on procedural grounds again)? Will they be able to go to AE? It's sufficient as a warning, which like Kevin I guess I can live with, but there's no clarity on what would actually happen should a violation occur. — Wug·a·po·des 02:42, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrator discussion

I currently plan to oppose this plan as insufficient. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 16:05, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I am going to put this here rather than in the main section because it is more relevant here (and more likely to be seen). Multiple editors in their statements have declared (in various flavours of ADMINCOND) that Timwi is unsuitable to be an administrator due to the recent events leading up to this case request. My thought on the matter is this: it is essentially their first offence with regard to (mis)use of the administrative tools and the conduct expected of an administrator. If said conduct was bad enough to merit a desysop, we would have already done so per LEVEL2 procedures. Their conduct was not what we expect of administrators, and I do not think any of us disagree on that point, but they have commented here (which is good) and indicated that the actions they took will not be repeated, even if they do not agree with written policy.
I will also note that we are clearly not letting them off the hook for this; if their comments here are just lip-service and they turn around and repeat their activities, we have left the option to take the steps that some feel are already necessary. This is not a Get Out of Jail Free card. Primefac (talk) 16:13, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Beeblebrox's point concerning the desire expressed by many for Timwi to just turn in his tools. I don't believe Timwi would pass a recall RfA at the moment. But that is some way off from taking the tools from an admin who acknowledges their error and undertakes not to break policy again. An awareness of WP:CIVIL on Timwi's part wouldn't go amiss. Cabayi (talk) 17:26, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Motion: expedited case

The "Timwi" arbitration case request is accepted, and an arbitration case shall be opened on an expedited basis. The following timeline shall govern the case, subject to change by the drafting arbitrators:

A combined evidence/workshop phase shall close one week after enactment of this motion.
The target release date for the proposed decision shall be ten days after enactment of this motion.

Support

Proposed. Equal first choice (along with a desysop). KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 06:13, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
As I say, we don't need a motion to open the case, but to be clear, I have equal preference to opening a case and the warning - and if we do open a case, I would like it to be in this format. Worm^TT(talk) 11:51, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
— Wug·a·po·des 02:36, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

Putting myself in the oppose section here, but I'd prefer this to the desysop motion. Warning > short case > desysopped (2) above. Opabinia regalis (talk) 07:18, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Per OR's ranking above. Cabayi (talk) 17:19, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see a point to this. It might have been reasonable when the two motions above were first proposed. --Izno (talk) 19:58, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Now that motions have been proposed and voted on this proposal is moot. However, in future situations like this, where we don't have an overwhelming amount of data to review, I would like to see us adopt this strategy of gathering evidence within the context of an expedited case rather than our recent trend of trying to resolve everything during the case request stage. So basically, this is a good idea, but let's do it next time. – bradv^🍁 20:08, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain

Arbitrator comments

Proposing for consideration, and not yet ready for voting – arbs, please feel free to wordsmith or change as appropriate. I know we don't technically need a motion to do this (it can just be done by accepting the case), but perhaps this will pose an alternative as a second-choice for those unwilling to support one motion or the other. If all goes according to plan, due to the relative simplicity of this case, we can be at a proposed decision stage in a week and a half and have this wrapped up. Of course, if either motion gets a majority, this would be moot. KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 08:07, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure we need a motion for this either - but if we do end up accepting a case, this is the sort of thing I'd like to see. Worm^TT(talk) 08:54, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If we go the case route this would be the kind of structure I'd prefer. But I don't know what this structure gets us that the motions don't, especially as Timwi has indicated they're fine (prefer even) the motion route. Barkeep49 (talk) 15:46, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Just putting it out there that cases involving the behavior of a single admin are, in my opinion, exactly the kind of cases where we should just skip the workshop altogether. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:15, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think we should ever get rid of the workshop altogether, but we can make it close at the same time as the evidence stage as suggested here. That would allow arbs, parties, and others to still explore ideas and possible outcomes, but without holding up the process. – bradv^🍁 20:12, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The workshop is often the source of aggravation and hurt. We see an example of that in the current case (Skepticism). This can be a price worth paying when we might get ideas and outcomes we wouldn't otherwise. It does not seem like a price worth paying if the options are going to be pretty well known. So I agree with Beeblebrox that we should sometimes skip workshops and we should do so not to save time, but to reduce acrimony without benefit to the committee, parties, community. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 20:17, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps we need to explore ways to make the workshop more collaborative then. If we get rid of it entirely I would expect that acrimony to just move to the evidence talk page, or even to some place beyond the influence of the clerks. That would not be an improvement to the process, and would lead to poorer outcomes from the committee. – bradv^🍁 20:23, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It's beyond question that the administration of our cases could be improved across the board, but let's not use that to prevent case-by-case case management decisions. The Committee has already approved the authority of drafting arbitrators to remove the workshop phase from any case. KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 20:27, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I was about to say a less elegant version of what Barkeep said :) KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 20:23, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Abstentions	Support votes needed for majority
0–1	8
2–3	7
4–5	6

Abstentions	Support votes needed for majority
0–1	8
2–3	7
4–5	6