Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard: Difference between revisions

It brings me no pleasure to do this. I just feel the need to say that off the top. If it brings me anything, it's nausea.

Recently, admin CorbieVreccan publicly disclosed that they share an IP address with fellow admin Mark Ironie. This was, as I understand it, the consequence of an email I sent ArbCom on 26 August, documenting a yearslong pattern of Mark acting as a second !vote or second set of admin tools for Corbie. I thank ArbCom for prompting this on-wiki disclosure, as it now means that the community can discuss this pattern of misconduct in the open.

Here is a modified version of the timeline I sent ArbCom, chronicling every non-mainspace, non-own-userspace edit Mark Ironie has made since 1 January 2020. Highlighted in yellow are interactions with Corbie. Admin actions, warnings, and calls for sanctions are underlined.

• 11 January 2020: An RfC !vote
• 12–14 Jan 2020, Talk:Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women/Archive 1 § Citation changes: Mark explains that they have restored content of Corbie's that was removed. The removing editor accuses both of sockpuppetry. Corbie responds that it's interesting that you are accusing long-term admins of socking and Mark says they already had the page watchlisted. The restoration was Mark's only ever edit to the article.
• 13 January 2020: An action at RFPP
• 23 December 2020: Two actions at RFPP
• 11–13 January 2021, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Indigenous peoples of North America/Archive 22 § Indigenous Ways of Knowing & Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Indigenous Ways of Knowing: Replies to Corbie's noticeboard post about the article Indigenous Ways of Knowing. Once it's AfD'd, !votes delete, as Corbie before them.
• 17–25 January 2021: Some troubleshooting regarding Huggle
• 2–3 April 2021, Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1064 § User CejeroC disruptively editing: A call for a block and two follow-ups due to a mixup
• 1 August 2021: Two actions at RFPP
• 26–28 December 2021, Pretendian RM: Opposes move, as Corbie before them. Issues only warning to Walrasiad for personal attacks against Corbie at the RM, while defending Corbie's own comments there.
• 13 September 2022, Celtic Neopagan Reconstructionism RM: !votes neutral on "Paganism", opposes lowercasing "Reconstructionism", as Corbie before them. (Granted, in this case the two are coauthors of the article.)
• 17–20 September 2022, Talk:Reservation Dogs: Warns Revirvlkodlaku for edit-warring with Corbie. Then partially blocks Revirvlkodlaku from article and talk. This is Mark's only block since October 2019.
• 10 February 2023: Helping a new user set up their userspace
• 2 June 2023, Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 June 1 § Category:American people who self-identify as being of Native American descent: !votes explicitly per Corbie. (Granted, in this case both were pinged).
• 4 August 2023: Warns Skyerise for insulting Corbie at Template:Witchcraft sidebar (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs).
• 13 August 2023: Some troubleshooting regarding AWB
• 21 Aug 2023, witchcraft AN/I thread: Shows up to AN/I to support sanctions against Skyerise and Darker Dreams, Corbie's topic-area opponents, immediately after Corbie's own !vote.

As we can see from this, Mark almost never edits project discussions except to back up Corbie. While in a few cases Mark has had an independent reason to join in a discussion, in most cases they have had no prior experience, engaging only after Corbie did. Since 2020, 1/1 of Mark's blocks, 3/3 of Mark's warnings, 2/3 of Mark's calls for sanctions, 4/4 of Mark's AfD/RM !votes, and 2/2 of Mark's other talkpage participation have been in support of Corbie, with whom Mark shares an IP. It seems impossible, meanwhile, for Corbie to be completely naïve to this; as noted above, they were indignant when accused of meatpuppetry in 2020. (And I doubt this started only in 2020. It's just that before that Mark was more active, making it harder to find proxying behavior, and it is likewise difficult to sift through the 1,004 pages the two have interacted on, including 20 XfDs and 142 talkpages.)

Even if Mark did miraculously show up at each of these discussions independent of Corbie, that would still not change that they blocked, warned, or sought sanctions against four users who opposed Corbie in content disputes, a blatant violation of WP:INVOLVED and WP:MEAT. I will not prejudge an outcome here, pending responses from the two admins involved, but something must be done to make sure this never happens again. No user should have to worry that, when they cross one admin, that admin's IP-mate is going to show up and warn them or block them. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 22:06, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Corbie has umm... Revdelled the diff of me notifying them. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 22:28, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This was handled privately with Arbcom. - CorbieVreccan ^☊ ☼ 22:31, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I conferred with an arb prior to posting this and was told that their decision to not desysop did not preclude community review. Could you please explain why you revdelled my edit? -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 22:33, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I was told it was done. - CorbieVreccan ^☊ ☼ 22:36, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What does that have to do with rev deleting a mere notification as "disruptive"? 331dot (talk) 22:38, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

We have been on record with Arbcom as sometimes sharing the same IP for 18 years. - CorbieVreccan ^☊ ☼ 22:39, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't started this thread because you shared an IP with another admin. There's no policy against that (else I'd be in trouble myself). I started this thread because the two of you have, while sharing an IP, acted in concert in both content and conduct matters, in a manner that violated both WP:MEAT and WP:INVOLVED. Disclosure to ArbCom does not exempt you from those policies. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 22:43, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That seems like a complete misuse of RD3 to me. A notification that's required (I know it was this template as I saw it before it was revdelled) per this noticeboard's instructions does not ordinarily fall under RD3. While CorbieVreccan is of course free to archive immediately or revert the notification, same as any other editor can, using the admin tools on this seems like tool misuse. I would suggest that they undo that revdel action. Sideswipe9th (talk) 22:37, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Fine. But these issues are arbcom matters, not for the drama boards; I was told we only needed to post the disclosure. Tamzin is the one in violation here. - CorbieVreccan ^☊ ☼ 22:41, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Tamzin is the one in violation here Violation of what? Yes the shared IP issue seems to have been handled by ArbCom, but community review of a potential meatpuppetry issue isn't in breach of any policy or guideline I'm aware of. Sideswipe9th (talk) 22:44, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:SPI (and per WP:MEAT, the same policies apply): If you suspect sockpuppetry by an administrator, or if you need to submit off-wiki evidence for some other reason, you must email the checkuser team to open an investigation. Private information, emails, logs, and other sensitive evidence must not be posted on Wikipedia. All evidence related to a sockpuppet investigation must otherwise be posted on the designated page. - CorbieVreccan ^☊ ☼ 22:44, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As I said, Sideswipe, we went over all of this with Arbcom. - CorbieVreccan ^☊ ☼ 22:46, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing that's presented here has been private information. Any editor could pull the evidence together using tools like sigma on toolforge. Now if you think this is the wrong venue, we could I suppose move this to WP:SPI, but I'm fairly certain we've handled meetpuppetry issues at AN and ANI before. Sideswipe9th (talk) 22:54, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@CorbieVreccan, Revdel'ing the notification makes no sense. Was that just a mistake. DeCausa (talk) 22:57, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously ArbCom has not discussed the revdel of the notification. However, I can confirm that the committee had correspondence with the two admins in question. Yesterday, in concluding the correspondence, ArbCom requested that they disclose on their userpages that they share an IP. Based on public and private information that is what a consensus of the committee felt was appropriate in handling this manner. It's possible ArbCom will have more to say after further discussion, but I feel pretty comfortable posting that publicly without having consulted with the rest of the committee. The community has parallel jurisdiction on some aspects of this issue and can obviously reach their own decision. Barkeep49 (talk) 22:53, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think we've been put into a tricky situation then where this has already been to Arbcom, and while obviously the community has a say Arbcom is a much better tribunal for dispute resolution. SportingFlyer T·C 23:08, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Especially if it turns out that there are tool use issues. Hopefully what we've seen so far (the revdel) is merely a one-off mistake - to be apologized for and moved on from. - jc37 23:18, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

To be clear, there was no dispute resolution here. I made a referral as an uninvolved admin and SPI clerk because then-private evidence was involved. Beyond an initial acknowledgment of receipt, I never heard back from anyone speaking on behalf of the Committee—just the informal discussion with the arb I mentioned above. The secrecy of ArbCom proceedings goes both ways: On the one hand, we should not assume ArbCom did something wrong in a situation where we don't know all the facts. But on the other, we should not infer meaning from a lack of sanction by ArbCom when we don't know what their internal deliberations looked like. Were they one vote shy of serious sanctions, or did they see it as barely an issue? We don't know. What we do know is that they took an action that opens the door to community review. As Barkeep alludes to, the community has coequal jurisdiction in matters of admin conduct where the relevant evidence is public, and for good reason. Private ArbCom deliberations are not the proper venue to establish whether admins retain the community's trust, and ArbCom has never said otherwise. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 23:21, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I thought SPI clerks are not supposed to link to any sort of personal information, though, and to contribute that to Arbcom. Why did you think it was now appropriate to bring this to our attention publicly? SportingFlyer T·C 23:25, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I brought this to ArbCom because the connection was private at the time. Once the connection was made public, as a direct result of ArbCom's intervention, I brought it to the community, as there was no longer any policy preventing us from discussing it, and full community review of potential admin misconduct is always ideal. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 23:30, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You could have waited to hear from Arbcom. - CorbieVreccan ^☊ ☼ 23:25, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Leaving aside the revdel digression, it does seem like both admins have been failing to comply with WP:SHARE. Schazjmd (talk) 23:29, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As I told Arbcom, and I'd rather not have to go into here: For all the years we've been Wikipedians and admins, we've at times worked on the same sock investigations and other things with Arbcom members and checkusers, and AFAIR they've all known we sometimes share an IP. But that was more frequent 15 - 10 years ago. I don't recall ever being asked to publicly disclose until yesterday. I'm sorry it didn't occur to me, but again, there have also been other reasons, that Arbcom is aware of. Again, no one has brought it up. I'm sorry if that sounds weird to you, but that's what happened. As soon as I was asked, I complied. - CorbieVreccan ^☊ ☼ 23:38, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

To be clear - from what I see, posting to WP:AN in this case, is posting a question of behaviour. That there is IP sharing involved seems incidental to the questions being posed here and the evidence provided. So yes, questions of behaviour fall under community review. - jc37 22:50, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

And to add to the above, I would like to know how an AN notice to a user talk page qualifies for revdel as "Purely disruptive material". Somehow, I don't believe that action was "explained to arbcom". And without further explanation, seems like an WP:INVOLVED use of the tools inappropriately. Here's the revert edit after the revdel - [3]. - jc37 22:57, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I was assuming this was an arbcom matter and would be deleted. Since that doesn't seem to be happening, I've reversed the revdel.[4] - CorbieVreccan ^☊ ☼ 23:08, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Even if you thought that, how is that an appropriate use of RD3 by you of a mandatory ANI notification by another admin? DeCausa (talk) 23:15, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Again, I was told by Arbcom this was done. I was shocked and upset to see it. My understanding of the policy is that once Arbcom has handled it, it doesn't bounce back to a drama board. There are also privacy issues here that are of concern. I've reverted and I apologize. - CorbieVreccan ^☊ ☼ 23:20, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What privacy issues? Everything that Tamzin has linked and discussed above is publicly available information on wiki. Whatever information that was supplied to ArbCom that resulted in the request that both you and Mark Ironie post a shared IP noticed on your respective talk pages doesn't appear to be included. Sideswipe9th (talk) 23:33, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Just to stay focused, I think we all should probably stop talking about the shared IP part of this. That's not looking helpful to addressing the questions at hand, and I'm wary that inadvertant things could be said if discussion about that here on WP:AN continue. As noted, that part has already been addressed by arbcom. - jc37 23:38, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict × 2) With Tamzin's comment that it is difficult to sift through the 1,004 pages the two have interacted on, including 20 XfDs and 142 talkpages, I took it upon myself to sift through the XfDs. Some of these are very old, but they all display the same pattern; the two !voting in the same way, without exception (there were two discussions where one !voted redirect and the other !voted to delete, but there is little distinction between deleting and redirecting), in every XfD they both participated in. This seems to support Tamzin's belief that this did not start in 2020 - instead it seems to have been going on for almost two decades.

BilledMammal (talk) 23:40, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

While this table looks damning at a first glance, it seems less so after looking at the totality of their xfd edits (summary, every edit). I'm more concerned about the tool use - if my wife/roommate/little brother/whatever edited Wikipedia, there's no way I'd be using my extra buttons anywhere near anything they'd touched, whether or not we'd disclosed the relationship. —Cryptic 03:25, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I guess my son edits Wikipedia - and we presumably share the IP on a regular basis - but I do not even know what his username is. (Not particularly related to the situation in question, where the username is known, and this is an admin account). Ymblanter (talk) 09:10, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

We did collaborate heavily in the beginning of our time on the 'pedia, as we do have shared areas of interest. In more recent years, not as much. The reason the page count is so high is that Mark Ironie runs autowikibrowser - an automated program that does minor edits on things like typos, on a massive number of pages. But not as many substantial edits as the edit count might indicate for those who don't run bots. The first thing I did when I got the message from Arbcom is offer a voluntary iBan. But they didn't bring it up in the last email, just that we do the disclosure box. - CorbieVreccan ^☊ ☼ 23:46, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Based on the volume of evidence involved here and that it concerns two admins this has to be a ArbCom case. There's concerning diffs and concerning uses of the admin tools/authority and it deserves a proper evaluation. I'm not sure what further private evidence is there, but there's clearly a lot of public evidence ArbCom should be able to evaluate. Admins should not be using their tools to sanction their friend's enemies, as seems to have happened with the block against Revirvlkodlaku. Galobtter (talk) 00:02, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Some of this is better described as stealth canvassing whereby one person hypothetically communicates something to the other off-wiki, based on knowing their opinions, to the effect of notifying them about an on-wiki development in their shared area of interest, so that the other might also participate (which they would then do in a predictable way). At least some segments of the manifested overall pattern do not strongly relate to the policy text describing meatpuppetry, which is like sockpuppetry except the other account has a perfunctory human operator, who is not an independently motivated actor, and most typically concerns bringing in new users, who are then not here to build an encyclopedia, who may be observed as single-purpose accounts, and who are, like socks, operated by the same person—not mechanically but "socially". Here both actors can be assumed to be independently motivated but are influenced by one another. (This is not my summary of everything, just my opinion about some of it.)—Alalch E. 00:53, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have never posted to AN before, I am not an administrator so I hope it is OK for me to do so. I occasionally watch this page. Disclaimer: I have learned many things about Indigenous people's issues and editing in that area thru CorbieV whose integrity I deeply respect. This discussion is making me very uncomfortable because it seems that people's privacy is being violated which could cause harm. This is unwise to my way of thinking; first do no harm. This discussion is taking place in this very public forum, would it not be better to discuss privately in this case? Netherzone (talk) 01:29, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing is being discussed here that isn't already visible in page history. The two admins made their connections known almost from the start of their editing. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:39, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Not an admin either and also hoping it's acceptable to post. I joined Wikipedia when I was embarrassingly young and made a considerable amount of mistakes. I initially ran into CV within days of joining and I admit, I followed them around like a puppy for longer than I should have. I appreciate that they were patient with me in showing me the ropes. I almost exclusively edit Indigenous articles. CV and I regularly overlap. It's inevitable. This doesn't mean we are in cahoots. When something comes up for a vote, because we have similar opinions in Indian Country, we will vote similarly and because I am extremely lazy I will usually say per Corbie or per Yuchi (or per a handful of other editors that I generally agree with most of the time). It doesn't mean that they are thinking for me or contacting me off 'pedia telling me what to do. That's kind of bs to be blunt. Granted I don't have fancy buttons, but if I did I would still be making the same choices and I'd be seriously ticked if folks came in accusing me of not being able to use my brain box for myself and accusing me of being somebody's meat girl rather than Indigenous girl. Indigenous girl (talk) 02:39, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Also! Can we look at the massive amount of edits CV has done where MI is no where in sight? Has anyone thought to compare? Hm? Indigenous girl (talk) 02:53, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think anyone's questioning the fact that CorbieVreccan has made countless positive contributions to WP.

I think the heart of the issue here is the appropriate use of those "fancy buttons". Per OP:

"No user should have to worry that, when they cross one admin, that admin's IP-mate is going to show up and warn them or block them." Crescent77 (talk) 05:02, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm unable to provide any in-depth comments on this at the moment due to irl commitments. Some of the links provided at the top by Tamzin relate to normal admin housekeeping or are unrelated to this subject. The assumption seems to be that I do not make independent decisions in situations when interacting with CorbieVreccan or situations where they are involved. I do due diligence in issuing warnings when I find a warning is warranted. Warnings are something any editor can do in response to behavior by another editor. I did the same with a few !votes where I say "per CorbieVreccan". That phrase means the rationale given by CorbieVreccan is most in line with my research into the matter at hand, not some rote agreement with their opinion. I haven't been participating on WP much in recent years and these incidents obviously stand out. I'll avoid such questionable interactions with CorbieVreccan on WP in the future. Cheers, Mark Ironie (talk) 01:46, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• I agree with JC37 above that the shared IP is almost coincidental; the users could be communicating online rather than in-person, and wouldn't affect the rest of this situation. Off-wiki communication isn't in and of itself a problem; I suspect it's a rare admin who does not discuss their work off-wiki. The relevant questions are; are the admins acting independently of each other? Is WP:CANVAS being violated? If they are not acting independently, is WP:INVOLVED being violated? Are they using their off-wiki discussion as the basis for "consensus", which can only legitimately be formed on-wiki? I haven't yet had the time to investigate any of this, but for this to be a productive exercise we need to focus on the behavior vis-a-vis policy, and not on the procedural niceties; fundamentally, there's no reason the community is unable to review this right now. Vanamonde (Talk) 02:12, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  My initial impression is that WP:INVOLVED is being violated. There is clearly a strong relationship of one form or another between CorbieVreccan and Mark Ironie; when such relationships exist it is inappropriate and against policy for an editor to act as an administrator in a dispute that the other editor is participating in, but that is exactly what Mark has done.

  It's less clear that WP:CANVAS is being violated, and I don't think it can be definitively proven without private evidence, but my impression based on the evidence presented by Tamzin and myself is that it is being violated; that one or the other asks the other to participate in a discussion - the consistency of support and the timeliness of support is strong evidence of that. BilledMammal (talk) 03:21, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• There's a lot to unpack here, and I think Galobtter is right that a full case is going to be the best way to do that. First, regardless of whether we frame it as meatpuppetry, stealth canvassing, involvement, or something else, what matters is that these sorts of undisclosed relationships just demonstrate extremely poor judgment and fall well below the expectations for administrators. And it does seem to be a long-term problem. I just came across this AN thread from 2019 in which there were pretty serious concerns raised about CorbieVreccan's conduct (an IBAN was proposed, and the closer stated that he would have topic-banned her if he could). Throughout this thread, Mark Ironie made numerous comments defending CV and supporting sanctions against her "opponent" without disclosing the connection. CV then showed up on MI's talk page to leave this comment, aptly described at the time as "smug, passive-aggressive insults". That was four years ago, but (along with all of Tamzin's other evidence) it shows a troubling pattern, especially since one editor thought it needed to go to ArbCom even then. I also remember this clearly out-of-process deletion, and combined with the obviously inappropriate revdel above, I wonder if there isn't also a pattern of careless/problematic tool use—at minimum, it's worth looking into. I'm not sure there's really a ton the community can do short of expressing that there's a serious problem here: in this sort of situation, all roads lead back to ArbCom. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 06:46, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Good grief, I've just read through the whole of that 2019 AN thread linked to by Extraordinary Writ. Given what we now know, CV and MI should both be de-sysoped. How is that in any way legitimate conduct for two admins? This appears to be just one example, but it's bad enough on its own. DeCausa (talk) 07:07, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  INVOLVED seems to be a recurring issue here. I had held off on mentioning Corbie's indefinite AE semi-protection in February of Two-spirit (an article of which they are by far the principal editor), because they've never been challenged on it before and I appreciate we all make mistakes, and also because it was probably the right end result. But given the emerging pattern, it's worth noting as a pretty egregious misuse of AE protection (or, would-be AE protection; it was never logged and thus is not officially an AE action). This wasn't some emergency where there was no time to wait for an uninvolved admin. This was an action that Corbie acknowledged was involved, linking to a procedure page that says administrators must not[] impose a restriction when involved, for a matter that could have easily been taken to WP:RFPP instead. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 07:17, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• At first glance this all looks pretty bad. Given I can't even find a log entry for when CorbieVreccan was given +sysop, let alone an RfA, I imagine the explanation is yet again going to be that they started doing this a long time ago and haven't kept up with changing community norms since (whether that's an excuse, I don't know). However, I agree that we're very unlikely to reach any sort of conclusion here. This needs to go to ArbCom as a public case. – Joe (talk) 07:18, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  CorbieVreccan and Mark Ironie were both given adminship in November 2007, under different usernames. See WP:Requests for adminship/Kathryn NicDhàna and WP:Requests for adminship/Pigman. See also [5], [6], and [7] for the username change logs. Shells-shells (talk) 07:40, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Thanks. Looks like we were missing a redirect for the former. – Joe (talk) 08:04, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  There's some very inappropriate collaboration from years ago (mostly pre-2011) between the two of them under their original user names at Celtic reconstructionism and its talk pages, which has multiple COI problems. It's ancient history - mostly, although see 2022 RM on the talk page - but illustrates how longstanding this is. The comment in CV/Kathryn NicDhàna's RfA about that article is interesting: At the time I began working on it [Celtic reconstructionism], I was not mentioned in the article, and it had not occurred to me that I ever would be. But as the article expanded I wound up being briefly mentioned, and some of my work in the field is now cited in the sources.[8]... given she added her name 6 weeks after MI/Pigman created the article. DeCausa (talk) 09:43, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• It seems a bit precious to get concerned about two people who (I presume given the shared IP) know each other having similar views on various articles; human beings talking to each other away from Wikipedia is OK. What is highly concerning is the use of admin tools, issuing warnings on behalf of one another and defending one another's use of the admin tools when these have been queried. Given the tool use in particular, ArbCom should take this issue on - they have desyoped admins for using the tools seemingly on behalf of people they know away from Wikipedia in the past. Nick-D (talk) 10:36, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Desysop both: I don't think this has to go to ArbCom. They sent it back for community review. I was intending to stay out of this, but I had no idea that these two were previously Kathryn NicDhàna and Pigman. They have been tag-teaming since they joined Wikipedia; I've run into their comments on talk pages (esp. User talk:Rosencomet) and deletion discussions as I've been cleaning up some of the Jeff Rosenbaum/Starwood COI articles. If that's who they are, this goes way deeper than what's been disclosed here so far. I don't have enough animosity against CV to spend time searching for details to support that, but this little not disclosed to the general editor population charade has gone on long enough. Best scenario is they voluntarily resign their admin roles. Skyerise (talk) 11:08, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I know I said I wasn't going to dig into it, but as I was putting a {{Deceased Wikipedian}} template on Rosencomet's talk page, I thought to search the ANI archives for threads about Rosencomet. And I ran into a comment from a Corvus cornix (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) on one of those threads. Looks to me like CorbieVreccan/Kathryn NicDhàna had a sockpuppet account from 2007 to 2011. See Editor Interaction Analyser and Interaction Timeline reports. Skyerise (talk) 12:50, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  @Skyerise:, any chance of linking to that comment? SN54129 13:02, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  @Serial Number 54129: Sure. It's in this thread about Rosencomet. Skyerise (talk) 13:08, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Thanks Skyerise. With almost comic timing, you see, Sourceforge is down (for me) at the moment. SN54129 13:11, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  @Serial Number 54129: I've been getting a bunch of timeouts myself... Skyerise (talk) 13:13, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I've looked at every AN subpage that links to both User:Rosencomet and User:Corvus cornix (they are: AN79, ANI230, ANI235, AN117, ANI346, ANI358, ANI419, ANI422, ANI654, and of course WP:AN right now). The thread in Incidents Archive 358 linked above is the only one where Corvus cornix interacts with any of Rosencomet, Mark Ironie, CorbieVreccan, or any of their previous account names, and Cc's comment there is both tangential and entirely in keeping with other comments of theirs I saw on the other archive pages. Plus, they were much more active than either Mark Ironie or CorbieVreccan, with between half and a third as many total edits despite stopping editing entirely in early 2011. I haven't investigated any interactions outside of those AN archive pages, but based solely on those, I don't think there's any connection here. —Cryptic 14:33, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  While looking for the comment myself, I happened upon WP:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive346#Requesting review of User:Rosencomet block, which is now looking really, really poor, especially after considering the unanswered #Personal Attacks by Rosencomet (again) from higher up the page. —Cryptic 13:30, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  @Cryptic: Good find. I'm having a hard time believing this comment in a related AfD where CV claims "it's not a personality issue, it's a policy issue. I don't know Jeff/Rosencomet off-Wiki" given her field of research and her apparently intimate knowledge of an obscure early pagan zine for which she created the article, Harvest (Neopagan magazine), which dates to the same period as the founding of the Starwood Festival (early 1980s). It's starting to look to me like a conflict between Celtic reconstructionists and those with some other view of paganism and witchcraft. Skyerise (talk) 14:05, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  That last mentioned article is basically a vehicle for self-promotion. I've gone through the edit history and posted on the COI issue on the article talk page here. DeCausa (talk) 14:57, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  @DeCausa: I find that pretty ironic considering how they both laid into Rosencomet for COI repeatedly at User talk:Rosencomet. I mean, they were right about his COI, but really, they were carrying on their own at the same time? Skyerise (talk) 15:22, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Give it a rest, CV isn't the only one who thinks your Crusade to redefine witchcraft as a wholly positive thing is misguided and disruptive. 98.15.154.217 (talk) 15:27, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I was wondering how long it would take banned user Bethsheba Ashe (talk · contribs) to pipe in. Skyerise (talk) 15:35, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Take to ArbCom the numerous violations of INVOLVED and the atrocious lack of admin accountability here warrant a public case, since we can't revoke the tools ourselves. And representatives from ArbCom need to be candid about what they actually told to the parties, because if they said "hey knock it off" and that's it, they fundamentally failed the community here and didn't do any due diligence. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 12:52, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• A lot of reading. This is clearly way too complicated a set of issues for random passersby like myself to settle here with bolded assertions. Multiple admins, multiple issues, long history of "coordination", such as it is. In the interest of ALL parties, I would encourage ARBCOM to accept such a case. Especially if CorbieVreccan and Mark Ironie maintain their good faith innocence, Arbitration is only way I can imagine where their case can be reasonably and impartially reviewed. Making good faith errors is an expected part of being a wikipedian and we often learn best from making mistakes and having them pointed out to us. Sysops are only as effective as enforcements against our own prove out and only as transparent as our established procedures and social norms permit. Thank you to the typically diligent User:Tamzin for making a compelling prima facie case in the OP. BusterD (talk) 15:54, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• ArbCom again This is a big deal, but it didn't need to be. Most of the presented edits would be absolutely fine if the connection had been previously disclosed, and indeed some of them are fine even if the connection between the editors hadn't been disclosed. I'm concerned about the use of the tools though and I'm most concerned with the block of Revirvlkodlaku. It's something that needs to be referred back to ArbCom as we've desysopped people for less.
  I am also concerned about the process here, considering this has already been to ArbCom once. I think my issue is that a user with access to private information correctly presented the information privately to ArbCom but didn't wait for ArbCom to present it to the community, but I'll keep thinking about what exactly about this is bothering me. Something about the way this was brought here simply feels sensitive to me as the fact it's already been to ArbCom makes it a lot more difficult for us to comment on. SportingFlyer T·C 15:52, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  From what I gather, SF, the only thing ArbCom have had before them so far is the notice from the two parties that they have a connection to disclose. Nothing else—tool misuse, blocks, meatpuppetry and other allegations—has. So it's not a question of double jeopardy applying if that is concerning you? SN54129 16:09, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm going to throw User talk:Mycelium101#September 2016 into the mix. It looks like a bright-line violation of WP:Blocking policy#Unblock requests in light of what we know now. The sad thing is that it appears to have been completely unnecessary, what with other admins also declining and the original block being taken over by an oversighter. —Cryptic 16:38, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Let me be very clear in saying I have immense respect for Corbie despite occasionally disagreeing with her approach to things. I mostly attribute that to being really passionate about the subjects we have an interest in. Most disagreements have been born out of misunderstanding and I can acknowledge, for my part, that fact. I don't think the positive contributions Corbie has made to Wikipedia can be questioned. Her importance to the project can not be overstated. She has helped me in my journey here and her value is unmatched.

That being said, I am deeply concerned what occurred during the discussion and partial block of Revirvlkodlaku. I was involved in that discussion and, though the reasoning for the block was justified, had I known the connection between MI and CV at the time, as a member of the community, I would have taken issue with who made the block. I thought MI was just another random admin that saw the problem or was alerted to the issue by another user involved in the discussion to take a look, a quite common occurrence. When two admins share an IP and can communicate off-wiki concerning on-wiki discussions, potentially formulating plans of how to best combine their positions of authority to affect the wanted outcome that they desire and then use the tools they were granted to make it happen it can have a very chilling affect on the community. Even the perception of that has the same affect. The same IP connection isn't a concern unless all the other occurs with it. We shouldn't be about controlling the private lives of users or even knowing about it outside of what they share. But when that affects their on-wiki actions, especially in the case of admins, it very much comes into play only in so much as their role on the project and use of tools. --ARoseWolf 17:42, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have observed instances where MrOllie has deleted what I believe to be relevant links on subjects. These links were pertinent and contributed valuable information to the topics. Such deletions seemed to detract from the spirit of Wikipedia. In short, MrOllie does not seem to have taken the time to read the citations and has simply made a quick judgement.

Furthermore, I have noted a concerning attitude displayed by MrOllie in interactions with other Wikipedia users. His tone in discussions, as evidenced on his talk page, has been abrupt and dismissive. This behavior creates an unwelcoming environment for contributors and discourage constructive engagement.

I would like to request that the administrators review MrOllie's recent actions and consider whether they align with the principles of fairness, inclusiveness, and respectful communication that Wikipedia strives to uphold. While I understand the crucial role in maintaining the quality of content, it is equally important that their actions are carried out with a balanced and respectful approach.

The article in question in which MrOllie has been removing links from is Second Life.

A glance at his terrible attitude towards other users User talk:MrOllie Slxsis (talk) 15:44, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Are you Sure this is the right place for this report? Untamed1910 (talk) 15:50, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Every link I followed led me back here. If this is the wrong place then I would be grateful for a point in the right direction. Slxsis (talk) 15:51, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If I had seen those edits, I would have deleted the links myself. Please read our guideline on reliable sources. Donald Albury 15:50, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

MrOllie is right: the source is unreliable and in all honesty, the addition appears to be promotional. Also, this is a personal attack. M.Bitton (talk) 15:52, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'll accept the unreliable part, after reading in depth the reliable sources guideline. The promotional part is incorrect though. Was only trying to step my toes in and help out with the page. Slxsis (talk) 15:59, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

In that case, I suggest you apologize to MrOllie for the unjustified personal attack. M.Bitton (talk) 16:01, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not really sure about that, there was still the accusation of promotion. So he was wrong on that count. Slxsis (talk) 16:02, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It was promotional, whether you intended it as such or not. ANI is not the place to run over every dispute or sleight against you; I see no problems on MrOllies user talk page at all. I would suggest you withdraw this complaint. 331dot (talk) 16:59, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There's has been quite a bit of disruption around outstanding drafts and the release of IPhone 15 with folks copy/pasting drafts into mainspace, creating an article and/or moving articles to draft space. Its been quite dizzying. The main issue I see right now is the talk page for IPhone 15 directs to Draft talk:iPhone 15. I am not sure how that happened but requesting admin or another experienced editor to correct it. I have also requested a histmerge with Draft:iPhone 15, which may or may not be warranted but that is not an immediate concern (I don't think anyway). S0091 (talk) 18:39, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've historymerged the cut-and-paste copy in mainspace back into the draft, move-protected the draft, and semiprotected the resulting redirect so it cannot be recreated. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 18:48, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

... but should this be a draft? The device has been announced, as far as I can tell. New releases of iPhone are about as close to automatically notable as anything on Wikipedia. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 18:52, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Ivanvector: could you launch the request to transfer draft to mainspace? Panam2014 (talk) 18:52, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks @Ivanvector! @Panam2014 if you (or someone) will submit it for review, I will accept it. S0091 (talk) 18:56, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I just went ahead and promoted it, per the above. No reason for this to be a draft, and I'm sure people are just going to keep trying to recreate it. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 19:01, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you move protect the draft instead of opening an AfD? This page has already been AfC accepted and only one user has been draftifying the page against WP:DRAFTOBJECT. Iffy★Chat -- 18:58, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@S0091, Ivanvector, and Iffy: And for Draft:iPhone 15 Pro and iPhone 15 Pro? Draft use speculative sources. Panam2014 (talk) 19:02, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Iffy: why would I open an AFD for a history repair? Nobody was suggesting deleting the page. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 19:07, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I presumed that you move protected the draft to keep it in draft space (after you sorted the page history issues). I see now that the issue is settled and regular editing can resume. Iffy★Chat -- 19:16, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There were CSD requests while waiting for the official announcement but I think as far as iPhone 15, I think we are all set. One more request @Ivanvector, will you please delete the iPhone 15 Pro redirect so I can accept/move Draft:iPhone 15 Pro? The Pro models generally have their own articles (i.e. iPhone 14 Pro). I know, its confusing but I did have an outstanding CSD request. S0091 (talk) 19:16, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I left a comment on the draft, I don't think it's ready since the only information there is that the phone was announced (which I just included in the main article instead) and everything else is poorly sourced rumour, or equally poorly sourced refutation of the same rumour. But this is probably the same issue as above where people will keep trying to recreate it over the redirect anyway, so yeah I'll probably just do it. There might also be a cut-and-paste issue with the redirect though, let me look into that first. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 19:19, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, done. @S0091: the redirect is out of your way, but let me know if you still have problems. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 19:25, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

All good! Thanks for your help It's now up the to community to expand and/or determine it should be merged. S0091 (talk) 19:37, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]